Review of Terms and Conditions: Airline General Conditions of Carriage (Part 2)

Jul 2, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The previous issue of the USANCEN Newsletter featured the first part of a significant Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) ruling concerning an airline’s General Terms and Conditions. This week, USANCEN provides a summary of additional clauses addressed in the ruling.

Clause 2:

‘You will have to pay an infant fee for passengers under two at the time of the flight (infant passengers) and who cannot, for safety reasons, have their own seat. This fee is charged for each infant passenger for each one-way flight (outbound and return). The current fee is set out in our table of fee. The full adult fare must be paid for infants aged 2 or more years old. Except where clause 10.2 or 10.3 says otherwise, we cannot refund this fee.’

Clause 2 stipulates that the obligation to pay the infant fee is triggered when two criteria are satisfied: Specifically, if a passenger is under two years of age and, for safety reasons, is not permitted an individual seat. The OGH notes that it remains ambiguous whether there might be circumstances in which the infant fee would not be required for infants.

It should also be noted that in the German translation of the GT&Cs, on the one hand, the clause stipulates the fee ‘per one-way flight’, but contrary to general understanding, this is described not as ‘outbound or return’, but as “outbound and return”.

The OGH therefore classified the clause as non-transparent.

Clause 3:

‘You must pay all taxes provided they are included in your ticket price and are shown accordingly. If your ticket price includes taxes and charges to be borne by you, these will be explicitly shown in the price schedule displayed to you during the booking process. Please click here for further information about applicable taxes.’

It is quite clear that this clause does not provide the information required by the Common Rules Air Services Regulation, but instead refers consumers to another source, thereby failing to meet the minimum requirements of the Regulation. The clause could lead consumers to believe that the Regulation imposes a tax payment obligation, instead of simply outlining statutory requirements. Consequently, this lack of clarity renders the clause non-transparent.

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