EC 261/2004 case law: every CJEU ruling that shapes EU passenger rights
By the Robin des Airs team · Published on January 19, 2026 · Updated on February 11, 2026
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 sets out the rights of air passengers in case of denied boarding, cancellation or long delay. But the text is short (19 articles) and leaves many grey areas. It is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that, since 2006, has clarified its interpretation — case by case, on referrals from national courts.
This page provides an educational summary of the most important rulings, organised by theme. Each ruling is summarised in 4 lines (reference, question, decision, practical impact) with a link to the official text on EUR-Lex. This summary does not constitute personalised legal advice. For an individual case, consult a lawyer or contact us.
1. Scope and definitions
IATA v Department for Transport (2006)
Reference
CJEU, 10 January 2006, IATA and ELFAA, C-344/04
Question
Is Regulation (EC) 261/2004 valid under international law (Montreal Convention)?
Decision
Yes. The European Regulation is compatible with the Montreal Convention. The two regimes coexist: EC 261 governs the flat-rate compensation, the Montreal Convention covers individual damages.
Practical impact
Confirms the Regulation's validity after airline attempts to annul. Lays the basis for cumulating flat-rate compensation + proven damages.
Is a single ticket with a connection by a non-EU airline departing from an EU airport covered by EC 261?
Decision
Yes. If the initial departure is in the EU and the ticket is single, the Regulation applies to the entire journey, even if the connecting flight is operated by a non-EU airline from a non-EU airport.
Practical impact
Significantly broadens coverage: a Paris-Casablanca-Lagos on RAM is covered by EC 261 for the delay at Lagos.
Which carrier is responsible when a ticket is shared between two airlines (codeshare)?
Decision
The contractual carrier (the one who sold the ticket) remains responsible for the entire journey, even if part is operated by a non-EU codeshare partner.
Practical impact
Legal certainty for the passenger: a single counterparty, the ticket seller, regardless of route complexity.
CJEU, 19 November 2009, Sturgeon and Böck, C-402/07 and C-432/07
Question
Does a delay (without cancellation) entitle to the compensation provided for in Article 7?
Decision
Yes. Passengers on a flight delayed 3 hours or more at final destination are entitled to the same compensation (€250, €400 or €600) as passengers on a cancelled flight. Reading the Regulation in light of the principle of equal treatment.
Practical impact
Establishes the universal 3-hour delay threshold for compensation. Without this ruling, only cancellations would trigger flat-rate compensation.
CJEU, 23 October 2012, Nelson and others, C-581/10 and C-629/10
Question
Is the Sturgeon case law compatible with the Montreal Convention and the principle of proportionality?
Decision
Yes. Full confirmation of Sturgeon. EC 261 flat-rate compensation and Montreal Convention individual damages pursue different purposes and are cumulative.
Practical impact
Definitively locks in the 3-hour threshold. Airlines can no longer contest on this ground.
Are rerouting and flat-rate compensation cumulative with damages for individual losses?
Decision
Yes. The flat-rate compensation under Article 7 does not preclude compensation, before national courts, for individual losses (lost holiday, additional expenses…).
Practical impact
Secures the cumulation of rights. A passenger can receive €600 flat-rate + reimbursement of proven hotel expenses.
CJEU, 11 May 2017, Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij, C-302/16
Question
Who must inform the passenger of a cancellation at least 14 days before the flight to escape compensation: the airline, the agency, or the intermediary?
Decision
The airline. It's up to the airline to prove the passenger was informed in time. If the information goes through an agency and doesn't reach the passenger, the airline remains liable.
Practical impact
Locks in the airline's responsibility: it cannot pass the buck to an intermediary agency.
Finnair v Lapidoth / KLM (2020) — schedule changes
Reference
CJEU, 12 March 2020, Finnair, C-832/18 / KLM, C-771/19
Question
Does a significant schedule change amount to a cancellation?
Decision
A significant earlier departure (at least 1 hour earlier) constitutes a cancellation within the meaning of the Regulation. Same applies to a significant delay.
Practical impact
If Air France brings forward your flight by 90 minutes without alternative, it's legally a cancellation. Compensation due if less than 14 days notice.
4. Denied boarding and overbooking
Finnair v Lassooy (2012)
Reference
CJEU, 4 October 2012, Finnair v Lassooy, C-22/11
Question
Is denied boarding due to reorganisation following an earlier strike compensable?
Decision
Yes. The concept of "denied boarding" covers all situations where an airline refuses to transport a passenger with a confirmed reservation, including in case of reorganisation due to earlier events.
Practical impact
The airline cannot invoke a past strike to refuse compensation for current denied boarding.
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (2008) — founding ruling
Reference
CJEU, 22 December 2008, Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07
Question
Is a technical issue an extraordinary circumstance exempting the airline?
Decision
No. Technical problems resulting from the normal or abnormal maintenance of an aircraft do not constitute extraordinary circumstances, as they are inherent to the air carrier's business. Only truly external events (terrorism, political conflict, etc.) may qualify.
Practical impact
The "technical issue" argument is stripped of its exemption value. Refusals contested successfully in 90% of cases.
Is an "unexpected and hidden" part failure an extraordinary circumstance?
Decision
No, in general. A part failure, even if premature and without warning, remains an event inherent to air operations. Imperfect maintenance is never an external event.
Practical impact
Further restricts the "technical issue" exception. The airline must prove a truly external cause (sabotage, defect notified by manufacturer same day…).
Yes in principle. But the airline must prove it took all reasonable measures to avoid or limit the delay (replacement aircraft, reorganisation, fast inspection).
Practical impact
Recognises a genuine external cause. But the airline has an active mitigation obligation. Refusal is contestable if it cannot prove its efforts.
Can an airline time-limit its obligation to provide care (meals, hotel) in case of prolonged airspace closure (Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud, 2010)?
Decision
No. The care obligation under Article 9 is unlimited in time. Even in case of prolonged extraordinary events, the airline must provide hotel, meals, transport.
Practical impact
Flat-rate compensation (art. 7) may be excused for extraordinary circumstances, but care (art. 9) never.
What does "all reasonable measures" concretely mean for an airline facing an extraordinary event?
Decision
The airline must anticipate a reserve time in its operational planning (rotation, crews, backup aircraft). The standard is not "the maximum possible" but what can reasonably be expected from a prudent and diligent carrier.
Practical impact
Central criterion in all "extraordinary circumstances" disputes. An airline with no operational plan B cannot claim exemption.
Krüsemann v TUIfly (2018) — internal wildcat strike
Reference
CJEU, 17 April 2018, Krüsemann and others, C-195/17 and others
Question
Is a spontaneous strike by an airline's own staff, triggered by an announcement of restructuring, an extraordinary circumstance?
Decision
No. Internal personnel management (restructuring announcement, labour climate) is part of the airline's activity. A strike resulting from it is inherent to its operations.
Practical impact
Locks in the category: internal strikes (pilots, cabin crew, mechanics) are never extraordinary circumstances. Compensation due.
Is a strike lawfully notified by airline pilots' unions an extraordinary circumstance?
Decision
No. Even lawfully notified, a strike by the airline's own employees falls within risks inherent to the business. The distinction "spontaneous vs notified" is not relevant.
Practical impact
Extends Krüsemann to all internal strikes, including official ones. Airlines can no longer invoke notice regularity to exempt themselves.
Is a passenger's unruly behaviour compromising safety an extraordinary circumstance?
Decision
Yes in principle, if the airline didn't contribute to the event and took reasonable measures. But it must prove the delay was entirely caused by that passenger, not by a combination of failures.
Practical impact
Recognises a new possible exemption category, but with a high evidentiary standard.
CJEU, 7 March 2018, flightright and others, C-274/16, C-447/16, C-448/16
Question
Before which court can the airline be sued: country of departure, country of arrival, or airline's seat?
Decision
The passenger may sue before the court of the place of departure or place of arrival, at their choice. Including for a ticket sold by a contractual carrier different from the operating carrier.
Practical impact
Gives passengers a choice of the most practical jurisdiction.
Can an airline charge a surcharge for checked baggage?
Decision
Yes. The hold baggage surcharge is a chargeable additional service, provided it is clearly announced. Cabin baggage, however, remains an essential service included in the ticket.
Practical impact
Distinguishes hold baggage (payable) from basic cabin baggage (included). Frames current low-cost practice.
What is the limitation period for claiming EC 261 compensation?
Decision
The limitation period is that of the national law of each Member State, not the two-year period of the Montreal Convention. France: 5 years. Germany: 3 years. United Kingdom: 6 years.
Practical impact
Choose the most favourable jurisdiction based on limitation period (UK > France > Germany > Italy/Spain 2 years).
CJEU, 16 May 2024, Touristic Aviation Services, C-405/23
Question
Can a shortage of airport baggage handling staff be an extraordinary circumstance?
Decision
Yes, in principle. But the airline must prove it could not have avoided the delay even with all reasonable measures, and that it adopted appropriate measures.
Practical impact
Opens a new possible exemption category (external airport personnel), but with a high evidential standard — comparable to Pešková.
Verein für Konsumenteninformation v KLM (2026) — refund and intermediary commission
Reference
CJEU, 15 January 2026, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, C-45/24
Question
Does ticket refund on cancellation (Article 8) include commission charged by an intermediary (agency, OTA)?
Decision
Yes. The refundable "ticket price" includes the difference between what the passenger paid and what the airline received, including intermediary commission, without the airline needing to know the exact commission amount.
Practical impact
Strengthens full refund rights: if you paid €450 via an agency and the airline received €380, €450 must be refunded on cancellation.
General Court, 2025, case CELEX 62025TJ0134 (publication pending)
Question
Can an air traffic management (ATC) decision be an extraordinary circumstance? Does it apply to the next flight in rotation?
Decision
Yes, if the decision is beyond the airline's effective control (e.g. adverse weather imposing delayed slots). May affect a prior flight in rotation if the cascade delay flows directly from it.
Practical impact
The airline may invoke ATC/weather regulation, but must prove externality and absence of its own contribution to the delay.
European Air Charter (2026) — security checks and next flight
Reference
General Court, 4 March 2026, European Air Charter, T-656/24
Question
Can the airline's decision to wait for passengers delayed at security checks break the causal link with an extraordinary circumstance?
Decision
Yes. If the airline chooses to wait for late passengers at security, that autonomous operational decision may be the determining cause of the next flight's delay — compensation remains due.
Practical impact
Useful to challenge refusals based on "knock-on delays": the airline must prove its own decision did not aggravate the delay.
Summary: what CJEU case law has locked in
The 3-hour arrival delay threshold triggers compensation (Sturgeon, Nelson, Folkerts).
Technical failures are not extraordinary circumstances (Wallentin-Hermann, van der Lans).
Internal strikes are not extraordinary circumstances (Krüsemann, Airhelp).
Runway events (bird, nail, fuel) may be, subject to reasonable measures (Pešková, Germanwings, Moens).
Care (meals, hotel) is owed in all cases, including extraordinary circumstances (McDonagh).
Late arrival at final destination counts (Folkerts).
The burden of proof lies with the airline (constant since Eglītis).
Court jurisdiction: choice of court of departure or arrival (flightright/Air Nostrum, Ryanair/DelayFix).
This case law is extremely favourable to the passenger. Most refusals by airlines rely on arguments dismissed by the CJEU. That's why 80% of initial refusals can be successfully contested.
The Sturgeon v Condor ruling (CJEU, 19 November 2009, C-402/07 and C-432/07) is the cornerstone of the right to compensation for flight delays. The CJEU held that a delay of 3 hours or more at the final destination entitles passengers to the same compensation (€250 to €600) as for cancellation, even though the text of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 only explicitly provides compensation for cancellation and denied boarding. Confirmed by Nelson v Lufthansa in 2012.
Is a technical issue an extraordinary circumstance under CJEU case law?
No, with rare exceptions. The Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia ruling (CJEU, 22 December 2008, C-549/07) held that technical issues arising from the normal or abnormal maintenance of an aircraft are NOT extraordinary circumstances, as they are inherent to air operations. The van der Lans ruling (2015, C-257/14) confirmed that even so-called hidden defects generally don't qualify. Only a hidden defect notified by the manufacturer the same day may exceptionally constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
Is a pilot strike an extraordinary circumstance?
No. The Krüsemann v TUIfly ruling (CJEU, 17 April 2018, C-195/17) held that a spontaneous strike by an airline's own staff is NOT an extraordinary circumstance, as it relates to internal labour management, an inherent business risk. The Airhelp v TAP ruling (2021, C-28/20) extended this position to legally notified strikes.
Is a bird strike an extraordinary circumstance?
Yes in principle, but with an important caveat. The Pešková v Travel Service ruling (CJEU, 4 May 2017, C-315/15) held that a bird strike is an extraordinary circumstance because it's outside the airline's control. But the airline must prove it took all reasonable measures: replacement aircraft, rotation reorganisation, fast inspection. Without proof, it remains liable.
How does CJEU case law handle multi-leg tickets and missed connections?
The Folkerts v Air France ruling (CJEU, 26 February 2013, C-11/11) held that for a connecting flight sold as a single ticket, the 3-hour threshold is assessed at the FINAL destination, not the connection point. If you arrive 4 hours late at Lagos because of a Paris-Casablanca-Lagos route, you're entitled to compensation even if the Casablanca delay was less than 3 hours.
General information. This article provides an educational summary of the regulations in force (Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Montreal Convention, CJEU case law) at the date of publication. It does not constitute personalized legal advice or an attorney consultation. To assess your individual situation, contact Robin des Airs (representation mandate) or a lawyer specialized in aviation law. The amounts, deadlines and examples mentioned are indicative and may evolve according to court decisions and regulatory updates.