Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2024

17 October 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑650/23 Hembesler and C‑705/23 Condor Flugdienst
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Package tour – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 3(6) – Directive (EU) 2015/2302 – Article 14(5) – Cumulative application – Limitations – Regulation No 261/2004 – Article 3(2) – Article 4(3) – Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding – Passengers informed in advance of denied boarding – Incorrect information – Tour operator transferring passengers to another flight – Flight nonetheless carried out by the operating air carrier as originally planned – Operating air carrier’s obligation to provide compensation – Article 13 – Possibility of seeking reimbursement from the tour operator

Article 4(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, read in conjunction with Article 2(j) of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger who, in the context of a package tour, had a confirmed reservation for a flight, may seek compensation from the operating air carrier as provided for in Article 7(1) of that regulation where the operator of that tour, without informing that carrier in advance, notified that passenger that the originally planned flight would not be performed, whereas that flight was operated as planned.

13 June 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑385/23 Finnair
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Compensation for passengers in the event of long delay or cancellation of flights – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Extraordinary circumstances – Technical failures caused by a hidden design defect revealed by the manufacturer after cancellation of the flight – System for measuring the quantity of fuel in the aircraft

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 the occurrence of an unexpected and unprecedented technical failure affecting a new aircraft model recently put into service which results in the air carrier cancelling a flight is covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, where the manufacturer of that aircraft recognises, after that cancellation, that that failure was caused by a hidden design defect concerning all aircraft of the same type and impinging on flight safety.

13 June 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑411/23 D. S.A.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Compensation for passengers in the event of long delay or cancellation of flights – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Extraordinary circumstances – Reasonable preventive measures – Technical failures caused by a hidden design defect – Design defect affecting an aircraft engine – Obligation of the air carrier to have back-up aircraft

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may, as part of ‘all [the] reasonable measures’ which it is required to take in order to prevent the occurrence and the consequences of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision, such as the detection of a hidden defect in the design of the engine of one of its aircraft, adopt a preventive measure consisting of having a back-up fleet of aircraft on standby, provided that that measure is technically and economically feasible in the light of the carrier’s capacities at the relevant time.

16 May 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑405/23 Touristic Aviation Services
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delay of flights – Article 5(3) – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Extraordinary circumstances – Shortage of staff of the airport operator providing baggage loading services

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 the fact of there being an insufficient number of staff of the airport operator responsible for the operations of loading baggage onto planes may constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision. However, in order to be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation to passengers provided for in Article 7 of that regulation, the air carrier whose flight has experienced a long delay on account of such an extraordinary circumstance is required to show that that circumstance could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that it adopted measures appropriate to the situation to avoid the consequences thereof.

21 March 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-76/23 Cobult v. TAP Airlines
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 7(3) – Article 8(1)(a) – Right to reimbursement of the cost of the airline ticket in the event of cancellation of a flight – Reimbursement in travel vouchers – Concept of the ‘signed agreement of the passenger’ – Reimbursement procedure through a form available on the website of the operating air carrier

Article 7(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, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of that regulation and in the light of recital 20 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight by the operating air carrier, the passenger is deemed to have given his or her ‘signed agreement’ to reimbursement of the cost of the ticket by a travel voucher where he or she has filled in an online form on the website of that air carrier, by which he or she chose such a means of reimbursement to the exclusion of reimbursement by a sum of money, where that passenger has been able to make an effective and informed choice and, accordingly, to give informed consent to the reimbursement of the cost of his or her ticket by a travel voucher rather than by a sum of money, which presupposes that that air carrier has provided to that passenger, in a fair manner, clear and full information as to the various means of reimbursement available to him or her.

29 February 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑11/23 Eventmedia Soluciones SL
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(1) and (3) – Article 7(1) – Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights – Nature and basis of the right to compensation – Transfer to a company of the passengers’ claim against the air carrier – Contractual clause that prohibits such a transfer – Article 15 – Exclusion of waiver

Article 5(1)(c) and 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, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight, the right of air passengers to obtain the compensation referred to in those provisions from the operating air carrier and the corresponding obligation of that air carrier to pay that compensation arise directly from that regulation.

Article 15 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion, in a contract of carriage, of a clause that prohibits the transfer of rights enjoyed by air passengers against the operating air carrier by virtue of the provisions of that regulation.

25 January 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑474/22 Laudamotion GmbH v. flightright GmbH
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 3(2)(a) – Article 5(1) – Article 7(1) – Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delay of flights – Requirement to present oneself for check-in in good time

Article 3(2)(a) 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, in order to be entitled to the compensation provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 7(1) of that regulation in the event of a long delay of a flight, namely a delay of three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier, an air passenger must have presented himself or herself for check-in in good time or, if he or she has already checked in online, must have presented himself or herself at the airport in good time to a representative of the operating air carrier.

25 January 2024

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑54/23 Laudamotion GmbH, Ryanair DAC
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(1) – Article 7(1) – Compensation for air passengers in the event of a long delay to a flight – Loss of time – Replacement flight booked by the passenger – Passenger arriving at the final destination less than three hours later than the original scheduled arrival time – No compensation

Article 5(1) and 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation, within the meaning of those provisions, cannot be enjoyed by an air passenger who, on account of a risk of a long delay in arrival at the final destination of the flight on which he or she has a confirmed reservation, or even on account of sufficient evidence of such a delay, has himself or herself booked an alternative flight and has reached the final destination with a delay of less than three hours after the originally scheduled arrival time of the first flight.

2023

26 October 2023

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-238/22 LATAM Airlines Group
in the event of pre-emptively denied boarding, the compensation for denied boarding is payable even if the passenger concerned did not present him or herself for check-in. Where the air carrier has informed the passenger in advance that it will refuse, against that passenger’s will, to allow him or her to board a flight for which he or she has a confirmed reservation, the requirement for that passenger to present him or herself for check-in is an unnecessary formality.

The Court also holds that the right to compensation applies even if the passenger was informed at least
two weeks before the scheduled time of departure of the flight that he or she would be denied boarding.
There is no reason to apply to denied boarding the rule, provided for exclusively in respect of flight
cancellations, that air carriers are released from their obligation to compensate passengers if they inform
them of the flight cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure.

6 July 2023

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑510/21 DB v. Australian Airlines
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’ – Bodily injuries aggravated by first aid administered following an accident that took place on board an aircraft

Article 17(1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the inadequate first aid administered on board an aircraft to a passenger, which aggravated the bodily injuries caused by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, must be regarded as forming part of that accident.

8 June 2023

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑49/22 Austrian Airlines
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(1)(a) – Cancellation of a flight – Article 8(1) – Obligation to provide assistance – Concept of ‘re-routing’ – Compensation for air passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight – COVID‑19 pandemic – Repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance – Flight operated by the same operating air carrier and at the same time as the cancelled flight – Costs to be borne by the passenger in excess of the net costs of that flight

Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(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 a repatriation flight, organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance, following the cancellation of a flight, does not constitute ‘re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to [the] final destination’, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation, which must be offered by the operating air carrier to the passenger whose flight has been cancelled.

Article 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, following the cancellation of his or her return flight, registers himself or herself for a repatriation flight organised by a Member State in the context of consular assistance, and who is required to pay on that basis to that State a compulsory contribution to costs, does not have a right to reimbursement of those costs at the expense of the operating air carrier on the basis of that regulation.

By contrast, such a passenger may invoke before a national court the failure of the operating air carrier to comply, first, with its obligation to reimburse the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made or no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan, and, secondly, with its obligation to provide assistance, including its duty to provide information under Article 8(1) of that regulation, in order to obtain compensation from that operating air carrier. Such compensation must nevertheless be limited to what, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proves necessary, appropriate and reasonable to remedy the shortcomings of that operating air carrier.

11 May 2023

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑156/22 TAP Portugal vs. flightright GmbH, C‑157/22 and C‑158/22 TAP Portugal vs. Myflyright GmbH
References for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights – Article 5(3) – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Unexpected absence, due to illness or death, of a crew member whose presence is essential to the operation of the flight

2022

20 October 2022

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑111/21 Laudamotion GmbH
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Montreal Convention – Article 17(1) – Liability of air carriers for death or bodily injuries sustained by passengers – Concept of ‘bodily injury’ – Post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by a passenger during the emergency evacuation of an aircraft

Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a psychological injury caused to a passenger by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, which is not linked to ‘bodily injury’, within the meaning of that provision, must be compensated in the same way as such a bodily injury, provided that the aggrieved passenger demonstrates the existence of an adverse effect on his or her psychological integrity of such gravity or intensity that it affects his or her general state of health and that it cannot be resolved without medical treatment.

6 October 2022

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑436/21 flightright GmbH
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 3(1)(a) – Scope – Article 2(f) to (h) – Concept of ‘ticket’ – Concept of ‘reservation’ – Concept of ‘connecting flight’ – Reservation through a travel agency – Article 7 – Compensation for air passengers in the event of a long delay to a flight – Transport operation consisting of a number of flights operated by separate operating air carriers – Connecting flight departing from an airport located in a Member State with a stop in Switzerland and final destination in a third country

Article 2(h) 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 concept of a ‘connecting flight’ covers a transport operation made up of a number of flights operated by separate operating air carriers which do not have a specific legal relationship, where those flights have been combined by a travel agency which has charged an overall price and issued a single ticket for that operation, with the result that a passenger departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State who suffers a long delay to the arrival at the destination of the last flight may rely on the right to compensation pursuant to Article 7 of that regulation.

29 September 2022

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C‑597/20 LOT
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 16 – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Task of the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation – National legislation conferring on that body the power to order an air carrier to pay compensation due to a passenger – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to seek remedy before a tribunal

Article 16 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 Member States have the power to authorise the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation to compel an air carrier to pay compensation, within the meaning of Article 7 of that regulation, due to passengers under that regulation, where an individual complaint has been made to that national body by a passenger, provided that it is open to that passenger and that air carrier to bring proceedings before the courts.

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

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

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

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-195/17C-197/17 à C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17,C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 à C-286/17, C-290/17 à C-292/17 Krüsemann and Others

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

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-321/11 Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamor

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.

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2009

2008

CAPTCHA