Review of Clauses: Airline GCCs (Part 4)

Jul 16, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The 25 June 2026 issue of the USANCEN newsletter featured the initial segment of an Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) ruling regarding clauses in an airline’s General Conditions of Carriage (GCC). This week, USANCEN will review the following two clauses:

Clause 6:

“Adults travelling with a child under the age of 12 (excluding infants) are required to reserve a seat. A maximum of four children per adult on the same booking are entitled to a reserved seat free of charge. […]”

“Any adult travelling with children (aged between 23 months and 12 years) must reserve a seat for themselves at an additional cost. […] Seats in rows 18–33 are available from EUR 4/£4. If a seat in a different row is reserved, the difference in price must be paid. Children must pay the full price for a seat in these rows. If, due to high demand, seats in rows 18–33 are not available for everyone in the booking, adults travelling with children who are required to reserve a seat may reserve a seat in rows 11–15 upon payment of the price difference or try a different travel date. Children will continue to receive reserved seats free of charge.”

In the view of the OGH, this clause proves to be confusing and contradictory in several respects:

Firstly, the clause applies varying definitions to young children. Additionally, an inconsistency exists: in some sections, it indicates that children are required to pay the full price for seat reservations, while the subsequent paragraph specifies that reserved seats are provided to children free of charge.

It is not clear why the clause promises a booking in rows 18–33 at a price starting from “EUR 4/£4”, whilst the fee table states “EUR 6/£6 – EUR 10/£10”.

The clause is therefore non-transparent (Section 6(3) of the Consumer Protection Act).

Clause 7:

“If you do not present a valid boarding pass (either in paper form or on a mobile phone) at airport security or at the gate, and there is sufficient time to issue you with an alternative form of boarding pass, you will be charged for the issue of a boarding pass in accordance with our fee schedule. [...].“

The fee schedule specifies a charge of EUR 15 for the reissue of a boarding pass.

This clause, like Clauses 4 and 5, is grossly unfair because it refers to a ‘valid’ boarding pass, meaning that, at the very least under the most customer-unfriendly interpretation, the format requirements set out in Clause 4 – which appear in some respects to be arbitrary – must be complied with.

Moreover, the average air passenger generally lacks adequate knowledge of the relevant boarding and security deadlines to reasonably anticipate when a (chargeable) replacement boarding pass will be issued by the defendant.

From this perspective, therefore, the clause also proves to be non-transparent.

OGH 4 Ob 170/25s (19 May 2026)