Review of Clauses: Airline GCCs (Part 6)

Jul 30, 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 is focusing on the next two clauses.

Clause 11:

You may transfer your package holiday to another person, subject to giving us reasonable notice and subject to payment of any fees arising from the transfer, including the name-change fee as set out in our fee schedule in respect of the flight component. […]

The clause does not state that transferring a package holiday to another person would require payment only of the name-change fee. Nor does it limit charges to the actual costs of the transfer; instead, its wording is so imprecise that, under the most customer-unfriendly interpretation, passengers could be charged any fees arising from the transfer.

It is also unclear what constitutes an appropriate notification.

As a result, the clause is not only unclear, but also grossly unfair.

Clause 13:

Flight-change fees apply per person and per one-way flight, with prices varying by season. [… In addition, you must pay the difference between the original fare and the new fare available at the time of the change. […] If the new flight’s fare or fee is lower, we will not refund the difference. […]

If a consumer rebooks their flight online, they must pay the higher price of the first flight, plus a rebooking fee of EUR 45, for the second flight – even if the second flight is cheaper – despite the fact that the defendant can resell the ticket for the original flight.

If a clause deviates from the general law, a grossly unfair disadvantage may exist even if there is no objective justification for the deviation. A flat-rate fee is not, from the outset, considered a grossly unfair disadvantage – and is therefore not unlawful – provided that it does not grossly exceed the actual costs.

Consequently, this clause contravenes the prohibition on gross discrimination.

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