Nelson v Lufthansa ruling: CJEU definitively locks in the 3-hour rule

The Emeka Nelson and others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc Airline Co. Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority ruling, delivered by the CJEU on 23 October 2012 (Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), is the definitive locking-in of the 3-hour delay rule set out by Sturgeon three years earlier.

The context: Sturgeon contested

The Sturgeon ruling (2009) was an earthquake: without amending the text of Regulation (EC) 261, the CJEU established that a 3h+ delay at arrival triggered the same compensation as cancellation. Unhappy airlines launched multiple proceedings to obtain a finding that this case law was:

• Contrary to the Montreal Convention (which caps compensation for delays)
• Contrary to the principle of proportionality (excessive amounts vs actual loss)
• Contrary to legal certainty (text of Regulation = cancellation and denied boarding, not delay)

Several national courts, seized by Lufthansa, TUI, British Airways and referred preliminary questions. The CJEU ruled in Grand Chamber.

The decision: Sturgeon fully confirmed

The Court dismisses all contestation arguments. In substance:

1. Compatibility with the Montreal Convention

The Court recalls (paragraph 51) that the Montreal Convention and EC 261 pursue different purposes:

• Montreal Convention = individual compensation for proven damages (baggage loss, personal injury, actual costs)
• EC 261 = standardised flat-rate compensation for "uniform" damage suffered by all passengers (time lost, inconvenience)

Both regimes are cumulative, so EC 261 does not breach Montreal's cap.

2. Proportionality respected

The Court holds (paragraph 75) that the amounts (€250, €400, €600) are proportionate to the "uniform" damage suffered by passengers: lost time, missed engagements, inconvenience. The three distance tiers ensure reasonable calibration.

3. Legal certainty preserved

The Court concludes (paragraph 81) that Sturgeon's interpretation by analogy (3h+ delay equates to cancellation) complies with the principle of equal treatment between passengers in comparable situations. A passenger arriving 3h late suffers the same loss as a passenger whose flight was cancelled and who was rerouted with arrival 3h late.

Practical impact

Since Nelson, no airline can seriously contest the 3-hour rule. All challenges (before national courts, before mediation bodies) are dismissed. The rule is settled law.

Concrete cases:

• Paris-Lagos flight arriving 3h05 late → €600 per passenger due
• Madrid-Helsinki flight arriving 3h30 late → €400 per passenger due
• Paris-Rome flight arriving 4h late → €250 per passenger due

The exact threshold: minute by minute

Nelson confirms the threshold is precise: 2h59 = no compensation, 3h00 = compensation due. The airline cannot round to its advantage.

The arrival time used is the opening of the aircraft doors allowing passengers to disembark (Germanwings v Henning ruling, 2014, C-452/13), not the wheels-down time on the runway.

Summary

To check your eligibility, use our simulator.

Related articles

• Full CJEU case law on EC 261
• Folkerts ruling: connections
• EC 261 regulation summary
• Compensation amounts