A German district court has ruled against Lufthansa. A passenger was charged € 2,100 (around £ 1.900) for not flying his last leg to OSL (ex-EU flight). However, the passenger did not agree with Lufthansa's demand and sought advice from a law firm (Franz LLP).

As described in the report on the firm's website the man had booked a trip with Lufthansa from Oslo via Frankfurt to North America (and also back). He started his journey in OSL, but on the way back he broke off his journey in Frankfurt and flew - on a separate Lufthansa reservation - on to Berlin. In a first hearing the court showed a trend to decide in the favour of the customer. Lufthansa then wanted to withdraw the lawsuit, however the passenger wanted a verdict. The court ruled and declared the conditions of carriage partially ineffective. The passenger does not have to pay.

The judgement is not yet final and Lufthansa can still appeal. However, according to lawyer Matthias Böse this is unlikely, as the terms and conditions show massive deficiencies. In an interview with German blog travel-dealz.de he said: "The current decision has clarified that passengers under the previous conditions of carriage can at least forfeit flights at the end of a ticket without penalty."

This seems to be the first court ruling in such a case. It will be interesting to see how it finishes, as this would certainly effect other European carriers - and with this BA - as well. However, as stated, unlikely that Lufthansa appeals.

I’m not so sure that it would be so simple as that - whether for Lufthansa or any other carrier. Some sort of update/revision could indeed prove to be a solution - but perhaps only a temporary one, until such time as it is challenged again.

My knowledge of German law is marginally less than zero. But certainly in the UK, where we have an Unfair Terms Contract Act, it has been shown that, whilst an organisation can incorporate (pretty much) whatever it chooses into its consumer T&C’s, it cannot necessarily rely on all aspects of those being upheld in a Court. On numerous occasions, judges have ruled that certain dubious T&C’s are not binding upon a customer who feels adversely affected. I seem to remember a case (amongst many) of a large tour operator being satisfied with itself for including small print to the effect that if it changed pre-booked, confirmed, hotel accommodation, at the last minute to another, inferior, property then then the customer just had to suck it up. But damages were awarded, if I have my facts right. Happy to be corrected.

It will be interesting to see how this scenario pans out in the coming months / years. Yes, the decisions do seemingly apply only to Spain and Germany respectively. But nor would I say it’s impossible to imagine other countries going down a similar path.

After reading the judgement I can say that the reason Lufthansa lost was because their pricing was intransparent. The only way they could get around this is if before purchase they require the passenger to agree to a repricing and clearly state what those prices would be for each phase of the journey depending on when you interupt travel.

The LH CoC, just like BA do allow a repricing if you do not fly the entire ticket. This was deemed invalid. I do consider this ruling as important and I will no longer have any qualm booking any of these kinds of tickets from Germany. Also BA tickets originating in Germany but abandoned in LHR would come under this ruling IMHO.

That’s the relevant section:

“Where you change your travel without our agreement and the price for the resulting transportation you intend to undertake is greater than the price originally paid, you will be requested to pay the difference in price.”

Cancelling the ticket is just one of the remedies. Collecting the difference is another. It’s a statutory remedy. I did not “forget” it.

Damages would be another.