tourism
Judges examine cost sharing on corona return flights
March 2020: A Lufthansa plane brings more than 300 Germans from the Philippines. Photo: Alejandro Ernesto / dpa
© dpa-infocom GmbH
At the beginning of the global corona pandemic, air traffic was suspended in many travel countries. Tens of thousands of people from Germany alone were stuck. There is a dispute about the return costs.
The Berlin Administrative Court is currently dealing with the largest repatriation campaign in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany.
It is about the return flights organized by the federal government for tens of thousands of Germans because of the global corona pandemic in spring 2020. On the basis of two exemplary lawsuits, the judges want to examine whether it is legal for those who have voluntarily returned to participate in the costs. According to the court, a total of around 140 tourists are resisting payment. According to a spokeswoman, a decision by the court could follow on the same day.
From March 18, 2020, the Federal Foreign Office chartered planes for individual travelers and others willing to return. About 67,000 people were brought back on around 270 flights. According to the court, the federal government puts the cost of this at around 95 million euros. The returnees were later asked to pay. You should assume almost 40 percent of the costs yourself.
The ticket prices are roughly in the range of cheaper economy tickets for the respective regions. For flights from the Canary Islands and North Africa you have to pay 200 euros, for southern Africa and the Caribbean 500 euros, returnees from South America and Asia have to pay 600 euros, and those who have been brought back from New Zealand, Australia or a South Sea island have an invoice received over 1000 euros.
The plaintiffs do not consider this to be appropriate. They argued that the corona lockdown caused them considerable costs that they had not yet been reimbursed. The additional costs are therefore not affordable – at least in full. In addition, some plaintiffs consider the flat-rate expenses to be too high, as they would have booked far cheaper return flights.
According to its own statements, the court selected two cases for the oral hearing, which are exemplary for all proceedings. In this respect, the final judgment could affect the other pending lawsuits. Tourists who did not go to court against the cost sharing would initially not benefit from it, according to the court.