Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union
2022
7 July 2022
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑308/21 SATA International – Azores Airlines SA
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Cancellation or long delay of flights – Article 5(3) – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Extraordinary circumstances – Generalised failure of the aircraft refuelling system at the airport
Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that where the airport of origin of the flights or aircraft concerned is responsible for the aircraft refuelling system, a generalised breakdown in the supply of fuel can be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.
2 June 2022
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑589/20 Austrian Airlines AG
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Montreal Convention – Article 17(1) – Liability of air carriers for death or injury sustained by passengers – Concept of ‘accident’ causing death or injury – Bodily injury suffered during disembarkation – Article 20 – Exoneration of air carrier from liability – Concept of ‘damage suffered caused or contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of that injured passenger’ – Fall of passenger not holding on to the handrail of a mobile disembarkation stairway
Article 17(1) of the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which, for no ascertainable reason, a passenger falls on a mobile stairway set up for the disembarkation of passengers of an aircraft and injures himself or herself constitutes an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, including where the air carrier concerned has not failed to fulfil its diligence and safety obligations in that regard. The first sentence of Article 20 of the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal must be interpreted as meaning that, where an accident which caused damage to a passenger consists of a fall of that passenger, for no ascertainable reason, on a mobile stairway set up for the disembarkation of the passengers of an aircraft, the air carrier concerned may be exonerated from its liability towards that passenger only to the extent that, taking account of all the circumstances in which that damage occurred, that carrier proves, in accordance with the applicable national rules and subject to the observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, that the damage suffered by that passenger was caused or contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of that passenger, within the meaning of that provision.
7 April 2022
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-561/20 United Airlines
Passengers of a delayed flight may claim compensation from a non-EU air carrier where that carrier operates the entirety of the flight on behalf of an EU carrier
24 February 2022
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑451/20 Airhelp Ltd
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 3(1) – Scope – Flight with connecting flight departing from and arriving in a third country – Single reservation through a Community air carrier – Stopover in the territory of a Member State – Article 5(1)(c)(iii) and Article 7 – Delayed alternative flight – Taking into account of the actual arrival time for the purposes of compensation
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation is not applicable to a flight with a connecting flight, booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by a Community air carrier, if both the departure airport of the first flight and the arrival airport of the second flight are in the territory of a third country and only the airport where the stopover takes place is in the territory of a Member State.
3 February 2022
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑20/21 LOT Polish Airlines
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) – Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract – Concept of ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ – Contract for the provision of services – Air transport – Flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several legs by two separate air carriers – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Article 7 – Right to compensation – Delay on the first leg of the journey – Claim for compensation brought against the air carrier operating that first leg of the journey before the court for the place of arrival of that first flight
The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs on which transport is performed by separate air carriers, where a claim for compensation, brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, arises exclusively from a delay of the first leg of the journey caused by a late departure and is brought against the air carrier operating that first leg, the place of arrival for that first leg may not be classified as a ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of that provision.
2021
21 December 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in joined Cases C-146/20, C-188/20, C-196/20 and C-270/20 Azurair GmbH, Eurowings GmbH v flightright GmbH, AG, MG, HG v Austrian Airlines AG
References for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights – Articles 2 and 3 – Concepts of ‘operating air carrier’, ‘confirmed reservation’ and ‘scheduled time of arrival’ – Articles 5, 7 and 8 – Flight departure time brought forward in relation to the original planned departure time – Classification – Reduction in the amount of compensation – Offer of re-routing – Article 14 – Obligation to inform passengers of their rights – Scope
21 December 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑263/20 Airhelp Limited v. Laudamotion GmbH
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights – Article 2(l) – Article 5(1)(c) – Flight booked through an online platform – Flight departure time brought forward by the operating air carrier – Classification – Receipt of notification of the flight being brought forward sent to an electronic address not belonging to the passengers concerned – Directive 2000/31/EC – Electronic commerce – Article 11 – Presumption of receipt – Scope of the operating air carrier’s obligation to provide information
Article 2(l) and Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight is regarded as being ‘cancelled’ in the case where the operating air carrier brings that flight forward by more than one hour. Compliance with the requirement to inform the passenger in good time of the cancellation of his or her flight must be assessed solely in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 5(4) of that regulation. Article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger who reserved a flight through an intermediary is to be regarded as not having been informed of the cancellation of that flight in the case where, although the operating air carrier transmitted the information relating to that cancellation to that intermediary, through which the contract of carriage by air was concluded with that passenger, at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, that intermediary did not inform the passenger of that cancellation within the period referred to in that provision and that passenger did not expressly authorise that intermediary to receive the information transmitted by that operating air carrier.
21 December 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑395/20 Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights – Article 2(l) – Article 5(1) – Change in the departure time of a flight – Departure postponed by approximately three hours – Passengers notified nine days before departure – Concepts of ‘cancellation’ and ‘delay’
Articles 2(l) and 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight is not regarded as ‘cancelled’, within the meaning of those provisions, in the case where the operating air carrier postpones the time of departure of that flight by less than three hours, without making any other change to that flight.
11 October 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-686/20 Vueling Airlines
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Article 3(3) –Scope – Passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public – Young child travelling free of charge – Article 2(f) – Definition of ‘ticket’
The second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who travels free of charge on account of his or her young age, but who does not have an allocated seat or a boarding pass and whose name does not appear on the reservations booked by his or her parents, is excluded from the scope of that regulation.
6 October 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-253/21 TUIfly GmbH
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5 – Article 7 – Article 8(3) – Denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of a flight – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Concept of ‘cancellation’ – Diversion of a flight to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made – Re-routing of passengers by coach
6 October 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-613/20 Eurowings
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Strike by airline staff – Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company
Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action intended to assert workers’ demands with regard to salary and/or social benefits, which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier in solidarity with strike action which was launched against the parent company of which that air carrier is a subsidiary, which is observed by a category of the staff of that subsidiary whose presence is necessary to operate a flight and which continues beyond the period originally announced by the trade union which called the strike, in spite of the fact that an agreement has been reached in the meantime with the parent company, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.
22 April 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-592/20 British Airways
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(b) and Article 7(1) – Compensation for long delays at the final destination of a connecting flight – Connecting flight with several flight segments – Single booking – Cancellation of a flight segment by a carrier other than the one with which the single booking was made – Operating air carrier – Distance to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation
No. 68/21: 22 April 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-826/19 Austrian Airlines
The mere diversion of a flight to a close-by airport does not grant a right to flat-rate compensation. However, the air carrier must, on its own initiative, offer the passenger to bear the cost of transfer either to the destination airport for which the booking was made or, where appropriate, to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger
No. 44/21: 23 March 2021
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-28/20 Airhelp
A strike organised by a trade union of the staff of an air carrier that is intended in particular to secure pay increases does not fall within the concept of an “extraordinary circumstance” capable of releasing the airline from its obligation to pay compensation for cancellation or long delay in respect of the flights concerned.
2020
No. 909/20: 12 November 2020
Order of the Court of Justice in Case C-367/20
In the case of flights involving two flights which are the subject of a single reservation (combination of two flights), arriving from outside of the EU to an airport located in the EU and via it to the destination airport, a passenger who suffers a delay of three hours or more in reaching their destination may bring their action for compensation against the EU area carrier that operated the second flight even if the delayed flight was operated by a non-EU carrier. Any operating air carrier which participated in the performance of at least one of the flights is liable to pay compensation, regardless of whether or not the flight which that carrier operated was the cause of the long delay to the passenger’s arrival at their final destination.
No. 633/20: 3 September 2020
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-356/19
Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) must be interpreted in such a way that passengers whose flights have been cancelled or subject to a long delay, or their legal successors, may demand payment of the amount of the compensation referred to in that provision in the national currency of their place of residence, so that that provision precludes a Member State’s legislation or case-law which results in the dismissal of an action brought for that purpose by such passengers or their legal successors on the sole ground that the claim was expressed in that national currency.
3 September 2020
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-530/19
Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the air carrier under that provision to offer hotel accommodation free of charge to the passengers referred to therein does not mean that that carrier is required to take care of the accommodation arrangements as such.
Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which, under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, has offered hotel accommodation to a passenger whose flight has been cancelled cannot be required, on the basis of that regulation alone, to compensate that passenger for damage caused by fault on the part of employees of that hotel.
No. 538/20: 9 July 2020
Order of the President of the Court in Case C-85/19
Article 17(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that the sum provided for in that latter provision as the limit of the air carrier’s liability in the event of destruction, loss and delay of, or of damage to, checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery constitutes a maximum amount of compensation which the passenger concerned does not enjoy automatically and at a fixed rate. Consequently, it is for the national court to determine, within that limit, the amount of compensation payable to that passenger in the light of the circumstances of the case.
Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of compensation due to a passenger, whose checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery has been destroyed, lost, damaged or delayed, must be determined by the national court in accordance with the applicable rules of national law, in particular in relation to evidence. Those rules must not, however, be any less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and must not be framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Montreal Convention.
9 July 2020
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-86/19
Article 17(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that the sum provided for in that latter provision as the limit of the air carrier’s liability in the event of destruction, loss and delay of, or of damage to, checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery constitutes a maximum amount of compensation which the passenger concerned does not enjoy automatically and at a fixed rate. Consequently, it is for the national court to determine, within that limit, the amount of compensation payable to that passenger in the light of the circumstances of the case.
Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of compensation due to a passenger, whose checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery has been destroyed, lost, damaged or delayed, must be determined by the national court in accordance with the applicable rules of national law, in particular in relation to evidence. Those rules must not, however, be any less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and must not be framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Montreal Convention.
28 May 2020
Order of the Court of Justice in Case C-153/19
Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as not precluding a passenger who has already been compensated under Article 7 of that regulation, from being compensated under a right to a reduction in the price of the journey available to him or her against a tour operator, provided for by the law of the Member State concerned, in so far as that compensation is granted for a loss that is specific to that individual passenger arising from one of the situations provided for in Article 1(1) of that regulation, which it is for the national court to determine.
No. 301/20: 23 April 2020
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-28/189
Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that passengers’ check-in fees whose payment cannot be avoided because there is no alternative method of checking-in free of charge, the value added tax (VAT) applied to fares for domestic flights, and administrative fees for purchases made by means of a credit card other than that approved by the air carrier constitute price elements that are unavoidable and foreseeable within the meaning of the second sentence of that provision. By contrast, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that passengers’ check-in fees whose payment can be avoided by using a free check-in option and the VAT applied to optional supplements relating to domestic flights constitute an optional price supplement within the meaning of the fourth sentence of that provision.
No. 235/20: 26 March 2020
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-215/-18
A passenger who has booked a flight through a travel agency may bring an action against the flight operator in the courts of the place of departure of the flight in the event of a delay of the flight.
No. 31/20: 12 March 2020
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-832/18
An air passenger who is compensated for the cancellation of a flight and who has agreed to travel on an alternative flight is entitled to compensation for a delay in the re-routing flight. The flight must have been delayed by the number of hours giving title to compensation and the air carrier of the re-routed flight must be the same as the air carrier of the cancelled flight.
2019
No. 902/2019: 24 October 2019
Order of the Court in Case C‑756/18 easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
Passengers on a flight with a delay of 3 hours or more on arrival who have a confirmed reservation on that flight cannot be denied compensation under that regulation solely on the ground that, upon claiming compensation, they failed to prove that they were present for check-in for that flight, in particular by means of a boarding card, unless it can be established that those passengers were not transported on the delayed flight at issue.
No. 95/2019: 11 July 2019
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-502/18 České aerolinie
A single-reservation flight from a member state and directed to a third state through another third state, involving a connecting flight: the air carrier which conducted the first flight shall pay compensation to passengers who have arrived at their destination with a long delay because of the latter flight carried out by a non-community air carrier.
No. 91/2019: 10 July 2019
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-163/18 Aegean Airlines SA
Passengers who have the right to hold their tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of their air tickets cannot also claim reimbursement of the cost of those tickets from the air carrier
No. 45/2019: 4 April 2019
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-501/17 Germanwings
An air carrier is only required to compensate passengers for a delay of three hours or more where an aircraft tyre is damaged by a screw lying on the runway if it fails to prove that it deployed all means at its disposal for limiting the delay of the flight
2018
No. 128/2018: 12 September 2018
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-601/17 Harms
In the event of cancellation of a flight, the airline company must also reimburse commissions collected by intermediaries when tickets are bought, as long as it was aware of them.
No. 100/2018: 4 July 2018
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-532/17 Wirth and Others.
In the case of long delay of a flight, the air company which must pay the compensation owed to passengers is not the air company which leased the aircraft and its crew, but the air company which decided to perform the flight.
No. 77/2018: 31 May 2018
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-537/17 Wegener
The right to compensation for long delays of flights applies to connecting flights to third States with stopovers outside the EU.
No. 49/2018: 17 April 2018
A “wildcat strike” by flight staff following the surprise announcement of a restructuring does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” releasing the airline from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of cancellation or long delay of flight.
No. 28/2018: 7 March 2018
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-274/16, C-447/16 et C-448/16 flightright
An airline which operated only the first leg of a connecting flight in one Member State can be sued before the courts of the final destination in another Member State for compensation for delays.
2017
No. 92/2017: 7 September 2017
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-559/16 Bossen and Others
The compensation payable to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of a connecting flight must be calculated according to the radial distance between the departure and arrival airports.
No. 51/2017: 11 May 2017
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-302/16 Krijgsman
An air carrier which is unable to prove that a passenger was informed of the cancellation of his flight more than two weeks before the scheduled time of departure is required to pay compensation to that passenger.
No. 44/2017: 4 May 2017
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-315/15 Pešková and Peška
A collision between an aircraft and a bird is an extraordinary circumstance which may exempt the air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation in the event that a flight is delayed significantly.
2016
No. 31/2016: 17 March 2016
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-145/15, C-146/15 Ruijssenaars and Jansen
National authorities carry out general monitoring activities in order to guarantee air passengers’ rights but are not required to act on individual complaints.
2015
No. 105/2015: 17 September 2015
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-257/14 van der Lans
Even in the event of a flight cancellation on account of unforeseen technical problems, air carriers are required to compensate passengers
2014
No. 157/2014: 14 November 2014
Order of the Court of Justice in Case C-394/14 Siewert and Others
A situation where, as in the case before the referring court, an airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft cannot be categorised as “extraordinary circumstances” exempting the air carrier from its obligation to pay the passengers compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight operated by that aircraft.
No. 116/2014: 4 September 2014
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-452/13 Germanwings
The actual arrival time of a flight corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened
2013
No. 18/2013: 26 February 2013
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-11/11 Folkerts
Passengers on connecting flights must be compensated when their flight arrives at the final destination at least three hours late.
No. 8/2013: 31 January 2013
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-12/11 McDonagh
An air carrier must provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances such as the closure of airspace following the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano.
2012
No. 151/2012: 22 November 2012
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-410/11 Espada Sánchez and Others
A passenger can claim compensation from an air carrier for the loss of his belongings if they are in baggage checked in in the name of another passenger on the same flight.
No. 150/2012: 22 November 2012
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-139/11 Cuadrench Moré
The time-limits for bringing actions for compensation for flight cancellation are determined in accordance with the national rules of each Member State.
No. 135/2012: 23 October 2012
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-581/10, C-629/10 Nelson and Others
The Court of Justice has confirmed its previous ruling that passengers whose flights have been delayed for a long time may be compensated.
No. 125/2012: 4 October 2012
Passengers on connected flights must be compensated when denied boarding as a result of a delay to the first flight caused by the airline.
No. 124/2012: 4 October 2012
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-22/11 Finnair
An air carrier must compensate passengers when they have been denied boarding because their flight was rescheduled as a result of a strike at the airport two days beforehand.
No. 45/2012: 19 April 2012
Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-22/11 Finnair
According to Advocate General Bot, an air carrier must compensate passengers if they have been denied boarding on account of the rescheduling of their flight following a strike at the airport which took place two days beforehand and affected a previous flight.
No. 32/2012: 22 March 2012
Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-12/11 McDonagh
According to the Advocate General, Mr Bot, the air carrier must provide care to passengers whose flights have been cancelled because of extraordinary circumstances such as the closure of airspace following the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano.
2009
No. 102/2009: 19 November 2009
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-402/07 et C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others
Passengers whose flights are delayed may be entitled to compensation.
2008
No. 100/2008: 22 December 2008
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann
An air carrier may not as a general rule refuse to pay compensation to passengers following the cancellation of a flight on account of technical problems in the aircraft.