Rulings Of The Court Of Justice Of The European Union

2021

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-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

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.

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.