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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62004CJ0344 · Our detailed analysis |
|---|
Emirates Airlines (2008)
| Reference | CJEU, 10 July 2008, Emirates Airlines, C-173/07 |
|---|
| Question | Does a return ticket constitute one flight or two separate flights? |
|---|
| Decision | Two separate flights. Outbound and return are analysed separately for EC 261 purposes. |
|---|
| Practical impact | Each leg (outbound or return) opens its own rights. A cancelled outbound doesn't affect the return. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62007CJ0173 |
|---|
Wegener v Royal Air Maroc (2018)
| Reference | CJEU, 31 May 2018, Wegener, C-537/17 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62017CJ0537 · Our detailed analysis |
|---|
České aerolinie (2019)
| Reference | CJEU, 11 July 2019, České aerolinie, C-502/18 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62018CJ0502 |
|---|
2. Flight delays and right to compensation
Sturgeon v Condor — the cornerstone (2009)
| Reference | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62007CJ0402 |
|---|
Nelson v Lufthansa (2012)
| Reference | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62010CJ0581 · Our detailed analysis |
|---|
Folkerts v Air France (2013)
| Reference | CJEU, 26 February 2013, Folkerts, C-11/11 |
|---|
| Question | For a connecting flight, is the 3-hour delay assessed at the connecting airport or at the final destination? |
|---|
| Decision | At the final destination. It's the late arrival at the destination of the single ticket that triggers compensation. |
|---|
| Practical impact | A passenger arriving 3h+ late at Lagos on a Paris-Casa-Lagos is entitled to compensation, even if the Casa connection was less than 3 hours late. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62011CJ0011 |
|---|
Sousa Rodríguez (2011)
| Reference | CJEU, 13 October 2011, Sousa Rodríguez, C-83/10 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62010CJ0083 |
|---|
3. Cancellation
Krijgsman (2017)
| Reference | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62016CJ0302 |
|---|
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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62011CJ0022 |
|---|
Rodríguez Cachafeiro (2012)
| Reference | CJEU, 4 October 2012, Rodríguez Cachafeiro, C-321/11 |
|---|
| Question | Is denied boarding for overbooking compensable even if the passenger didn't "no show" at earlier check-in? |
|---|
| Decision | Yes. Denied boarding for operational reasons (overbooking or other) opens entitlement to compensation, regardless of the passenger's earlier journey. |
|---|
| Practical impact | Locks in the broad definition of denied boarding, preventing airlines from invoking operational reasons. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62011CJ0321 |
|---|
5. Extraordinary circumstances
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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62007CJ0549 |
|---|
van der Lans v KLM (2015)
| Reference | CJEU, 17 September 2015, van der Lans, C-257/14 |
|---|
| Question | 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…). |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62014CJ0257 · Our detailed analysis |
|---|
Pešková v Travel Service (2017) — bird strike
| Reference | CJEU, 4 May 2017, Pešková and Peška, C-315/15 |
|---|
| Question | Is a bird strike an extraordinary circumstance? |
|---|
| Decision | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62015CJ0315 |
|---|
Germanwings v Pauels (2019) — nail on the runway
| Reference | CJEU, 4 April 2019, Germanwings, C-501/17 |
|---|
| Question | Is tyre damage caused by a foreign object (screw, nail) on the runway an extraordinary circumstance? |
|---|
| Decision | Yes. It's an external event to the airline. But the airline must still prove it took reasonable measures (fast repair, replacement aircraft). |
|---|
| Practical impact | Extends Pešková case law to other runway events. The test remains: externality + reasonable measures. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62017CJ0501 |
|---|
Moens v Ryanair (2019) — fuel on runway
| Reference | CJEU, 26 June 2019, Moens, C-159/18 |
|---|
| Question | Is fuel spilled on the runway by another aircraft an extraordinary circumstance? |
|---|
| Decision | Yes. External and unforeseeable event. But still subject to reasonable measures requirement. |
|---|
| Practical impact | Confirms the "runway" approach: external third-party or environmental events may be extraordinary; internal maintenance never is. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62018CJ0159 |
|---|
McDonagh v Ryanair (2013) — volcanic ash
| Reference | CJEU, 31 January 2013, McDonagh, C-12/11 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62011CJ0012 · Our detailed analysis |
|---|
Eglītis (2011) — reasonable measures
| Reference | CJEU, 12 May 2011, Eglītis and Ratnieks, C-294/10 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62010CJ0294 |
|---|
6. Strikes
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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62017CJ0195 |
|---|
Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines (2021)
| Reference | CJEU, 23 March 2021, Airhelp v SAS, C-28/20 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62020CJ0028 |
|---|
LE v TAP Portugal (2020) — unruly passenger
| Reference | CJEU, 11 June 2020, LE v TAP, C-74/19 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62019CJ0074 |
|---|
7. Court jurisdiction
flightright v Air Nostrum (2018)
| Reference | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62016CJ0274 |
|---|
Ryanair v DelayFix (2020)
| Reference | CJEU, 18 November 2020, Ryanair v DelayFix, C-519/19 |
|---|
| Question | Is a jurisdiction clause in the airline's T&Cs enforceable against a debt collection company (assignment of claims)? |
|---|
| Decision | No, unless individually negotiated. Standard T&C clauses are not enforceable against the assignee of passenger claims. |
|---|
| Practical impact | Allows companies like Robin des Airs to act before the court of the place of departure/arrival even if T&Cs impose another jurisdiction. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62019CJ0519 |
|---|
8. Baggage — Montreal Convention
Walz v Clickair (2010)
| Reference | CJEU, 6 May 2010, Walz, C-63/09 |
|---|
| Question | Does the Montreal Convention's compensation cap (1,131 SDR at the time, 1,288 SDR today) cover only material damage or also moral damage? |
|---|
| Decision | The cap covers the entire damage (material AND moral combined). No double compensation beyond the cap. |
|---|
| Practical impact | Frames baggage compensation. Beyond ~€1,700, recourse is difficult unless a special declaration is made at check-in. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62009CJ0063 |
|---|
Espada Sánchez (2012)
| Reference | CJEU, 22 November 2012, Espada Sánchez, C-410/11 |
|---|
| Question | Does the 1,288 SDR cap apply per bag, per passenger, or per family? |
|---|
| Decision | Per passenger. Each passenger has their own cap, regardless of the number of checked bags. |
|---|
| Practical impact | Family of 4 with lost bags = potentially 4 × 1,288 SDR = ~€5,000-7,000 in total. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62011CJ0410 |
|---|
9. Pricing and ancillary fees
ebookers.com (2012)
| Reference | CJEU, 19 July 2012, ebookers.com, C-112/11 |
|---|
| Question | Can an airline pre-tick paid options (insurance, baggage…) on its booking site? |
|---|
| Decision | No. All additional options must be offered on an "opt-in" basis (unchecked by default), at the latest at the start of the booking process. |
|---|
| Practical impact | Consumer consent safeguard. Hidden or pre-checked fees are recoverable. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62011CJ0112 |
|---|
Vueling Airlines v Instituto Galego (2014)
| Reference | CJEU, 18 September 2014, Vueling, C-487/12 |
|---|
| Question | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62012CJ0487 |
|---|
10. Procedure and deadlines
Cuadrench Moré v KLM (2012) — limitation periods
| Reference | CJEU, 22 November 2012, Cuadrench Moré, C-139/11 |
|---|
| Question | 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). |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62011CJ0139 |
|---|
11. Recent rulings (2024–2026)
The CJEU continues to refine Regulation (EC) 261. Here are the most recent rulings to know when contesting a refusal.
Touristic Aviation Services (2024) — airport baggage handler shortage
| Reference | 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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62023CJ0405 |
|---|
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. |
|---|
| Text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62024CJ0045 |
|---|
ATC / air traffic management case (2025)
| Reference | 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.
To assess a specific case, contact Robin des Airs on WhatsApp or our claim simulator.
Sources and further reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Sturgeon ruling?
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.