OGH Rejects Appeal Challenging Airline’s G&Ts

Apr 2, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) has dismissed an appeal lodged by the Austrian Association for Consumer Information (Verein für Konsumenteninformation, VKI) challenging multiple clauses in an airline’s General Conditions of Carriage (GCC). As a result of this decision, the disputed provisions within the GCC continue to be enforceable, and advisory guidance is not deemed sufficient grounds for initiating a class action.

The post-calculation clause is considered valid

Since there is no reference to the previously invalidated C4 clause, clause A1—which concerns the post-calculation of airfares following a route change—remains independently enforceable. This clause is transparent and does not result in any substantial disadvantage. The OGH has clarified that the invalidity of clause C4 does not automatically affect the validity of clause A1, as the latter contains no direct reference to the former.

The fare includes rebooking fees that are both flexible and clearly communicated

Depending on the chosen fare (Clause B1), different rebooking fees are outlined during booking, and these do not violate the Austrian Consumer Protection Act. The fees are well explained, serve as an additional service, and represent the financial impact of changing bookings. The OGH also determined there is no significant disadvantage to consumers. By selecting a fare, customers understand they are paying extra for the option of free or lower-cost rebooking, which is reflected in a higher ticket price.

The information sheet concerning ticket service fees lacks verifiability

The guidance regarding potential ticket service fees of up to EUR 5 (Clause D1) is not contractually binding and serves solely for informational purposes. This fee is relevant only within the context of the booking process and, as such, is not subject to review under Section 28 of the Consumer Protection Act. The OGH has clarified that informational documents without normative effect are not eligible for class action proceedings.

The OGH affirmed that clear and transparent terms concerning recalculation and rebooking fees are acceptable and further determined that informational documents outlining potential fees do not represent legally binding contractual provisions.

OGH 2 Ob 202/25g, 26 February 2026