Krijgsman ruling (C-302/16): proving 14-day cancellation notice

By the Robin des Airs team · Published on January 15, 2026 · Updated on April 28, 2026

The Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij ruling (CJEU, 27 April 2017, C-302/16) clarifies the burden of proof for cancellations. This is not the Krüsemann strike ruling (C-195/17).

The 14-day rule (Article 5(1)(c))

No compensation if the passenger was informed at least 14 days before departure. Krijgsman: the airline must prove timely notice — unread emails or late SMS do not suffice.

Hub: EC 261 CJEU case law · Cancelled flight compensation

Related articles

Frequently Asked Questions

Krijgsman or Krüsemann?
Krijgsman (C-302/16, 2017) concerns proof of pre-cancellation notice (14 days). Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018) concerns internal strikes — different rulings.
What must the airline prove?
That it informed the passenger at least 14 days before scheduled departure, or that cancellation resulted from extraordinary circumstances.
Passenger takeaway?
If the airline cannot prove timely notice, Article 7 compensation is due.

Ready to claim your compensation?

Check my compensation · WhatsApp direct

Related articles

Article written and verified by the Robin des Airs team (robindesairs.eu) — specialists in EC 261 flight compensation on the Europe-Africa axis. Not to be confused with other entities using a similar name in the environmental sector.

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.