Since that ruling, it has been established that the airlines are within the Ticket refunds also have to pay the agency fees. The case law thus joins a line of consumer-friendly decisions of the ECJ. It should be noted that otherwise the passenger would be forced to contact the airline on the one hand and the intermediary portal on the other after a flight cancellation. Since the agency fee is a small amount compared to the remaining price, it is often not worth taking legal action against the agency; the court and lawyer fees to be advanced exceed the demand many times over. In addition, the courts - already excessively overburdened in times of Corona - would be confronted with any further lawsuits for small claims, since the claim with regard to the reimbursement is split up. The judgment therefore not only has a beneficial effect on the process economy, but also corresponds to the meaning and purpose of the Passenger Rights Regulation, which is intended to increase the level of protection for passengers and facilitate the assertion of their rights.
Nevertheless, a number of judges in the local courts - where by far the majority of air travel law cases land - do not apply the ECJ case law.
They consider the case law of the ECJ to be simply wrong - although they are bound by the interpretation of the ECJ in comparable cases. The argument used here is, for example, that the passenger is not worthy of protection: the agency fee is explicitly stated in the booking confirmation so that the passenger can see that they are not part of the airline's costs. However, this turns the case law of the ECJ into the opposite.