Case Law EU 261: #18
- OSS Team
- Jun 19
- 6 min read
Welcome to the 18th edition of the One Sky Solutions Newsletter!
In this section of our Newsletter, we bring together case law on EU261 claims from across Europe, highlighting decisions that may be relevant for airlines when assessing their defence strategy or considering settlement. While EU261 is a single European regulation, in practice national courts often adopt very different interpretations. Many rulings are not publicly available, making them difficult to access.
Our member law firms, as leading experts in handling EU261 claims within their jurisdictions, have access to key precedents and share them here to provide valuable insights.
IN THIS NUMBER YOU WILL READ ABOUT case law from:
Czech Republic: Rejection of reimbursement of the oversized baggage fee – lost baggage
Sweden: Responsibility under EU Regulation (EC) No261/2004 in case of a single reservation involving two separate air carriers
Denmark: Interpretation of EU Regulation261/2004 Article 5(3), on whether a sandstorm, affecting a prior flight of the aircraft intended for the concerned flight, constitutes an unusual circumstance.
Italy: Jurisdiction - Choice-of-Court agreements - Passenger Complaints under Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
On the 5th June 2025 the Council of the European Union has reached a political agreement on the revision of the EU261 regulations on air passenger rights.
The updated framework aims to strengthen and clarify several existing air passengers rights, while introducing new protections for the passengers.
Key developments include:
Stricter rules on rerouting;
Clearer obligations for assistance in case of disruption;
Updated thresholds for compensation due to long delays;
New deadlines for airlines to process claims;
Measures addressing the use of the “no-show” policy;
Enhanced transparency and information for passengers.
After more than a decade without legislative progress, this marks a significant step toward clarifying key principles and addressing long-standing ambiguities in the current regulation.
However, the compromise reached by the Council has already sparked concerns and criticism—both regarding the substance of the proposed changes and the approach adopted by the Council.
The Council’s position will be submitted to the European Parliament, which may approve it, propose amendments, or reject it.
We will continue to monitor developments in passenger rights regulation and keep you informed of any significant updates.
CZECH REPUBLIC
Law Firm:
Vyskočil, Krošlák a partneři
Legal topic:
Rejection of reimbursement of the oversizedbaggage fee – lost baggage
Date:
6.5.2025
Court:
District court of Prague 6
Case number:
10 C 273/2024
Party names:
disclosed upon request
The passenger was seeking the refund of a baggage fee paid at the gate for oversized/additional carry-on baggage. He claimed that the baggage was subsequently lost and therefore initiated legal action to recover the fee (not a claim under the MontrealConvention).
The court upheld the Airline's defence, which was based on the argument that—even if the baggage had been lost or destroyed—this would not justify a refund of the fee, as it was not an optional service but a mandatory charge for accepting the baggage for transport.
Since the baggage was in fact accepted, the conditions for applying the fee were met. Any subsequent loss, damage, or delay of that baggage does not give rise to a right to reimbursement of the fee.
SWEDEN
Law Firm:
Moll Wendén Law Firm
Legal topic:
Responsibility under EU Regulation (EC) No261/2004 in case of a single reservationinvolving two separate air carriers
Date:
26.5.2025
Court:
Svea Court of Appeal
Case number:
T 9544-23;
Party names:
Confidential
The dispute involved plaintiffs who had booked a round-trip flight from Kiruna to Bangkok under a single reservation involving two separate air carriers. Following the cancellation of the trip, the plaintiffs sought a full refund, claiming that Air Carrier A was liable under EU Regulation 261/2004.
Air Carrier A argued that it was not the contracting carrier, as the tickets were issued under Air Carrier B’s code and prefix, making Air Carrier B the liable party.
The court agreed, finding that Air Carrier A was not the contractual air carrier and had not received any fare. It further noted that Air Carrier A acted solely as an agent for Air Carrier B under the relevant agreement.
As a result, the plaintiffs’ demand for a full refund from Air Carrier A was denied.
DENMARK
Law Firm:
Njord Law Firm
Legal topic:
Interpretation of EU Regulation261/2004 Article 5(3), on whether a sandstorm, affecting a prior flight of theaircraft intended for the concerned flight,constitutes an unusual circumstance.
Date:
4.7.2023
Court:
Eastern High Court
Case number:
BS-63403/2023-OLR
Party names:
Rescue Money ApS v. SunclassAirlines
The flight in question was scheduled from Banjul (Gambia) to Copenhagen, with a stopover in Helsinki. The flight has been delyed as the aircraft was unavailable due to a prior flight having been affected by a sandstorm in the Canary Islands. The previous flight had to divert to Faro, Portugal and was then stranded in Tenerife.
The sandstorm, which had led to the closure of Gran Canaria Airport days earlier, was deemed by the Court to be an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3), beyond the airline’s control. The Court found that the airline had taken all reasonable measures to minimise the delay, including chartering a replacement aircraft to cover the affected and other scheduled flights.
The Court also noted that the faster rerouting of some passengers by other carriers did not alter the outcome. The airline’s position was supported by weather and pilot reports.
As a result, the Court ruled that the airline was exempt from paying compensation.
Comments:
This ruling highlights the importance of timely and proactive measures adopted by the Airline—such as chartering a replacement aircraft—in meeting the "all reasonable measures" standard. It may also serve as a precedent where delays are due to earlier flights affected by extraordinary events. The case further highlights the value of providing a pilot report as supporting evidence.
Legal topic:
interpretation of EU Regulation261/2004, Article 5(1), regarding the airline’s obligation to notify the passengers offlight cancellations when tickets arepurchased through an Online Travel Agent(OTA). The regulation stipulates that airlinesmust inform passengers of cancellations at least two weeks before the scheduleddeparture to avoid compensation claims.
Date:
23.10.2024
Court:
Western High Court
Case number:
BS-30618/2024-VLR
Party names:
Flyhjælp ApS v. Ryanair Limited
In this case, passengers booked their tickets via an OTA, using email addresses and payment details generated by the platform. The airline sent a cancellation notice over two weeks before departure to the OTA’s email address, offering a refund or rebooking.
The Court ruled that the airline had met its notification obligation by informing the OTA, who was responsible for relaying the information to the passengers. This was consistent with the airline’s terms and conditions, which specified that notifications would be sent to the email provided at the time of the booking.
As a result, the airline was exempt from paying compensation.
Comments:
The ruling confirms the responsibility of OTAs to forward flight notifications when their contact details are used in the booking. It also reinforces the importance of having clear communication clauses in airlines' terms and conditions.
Notably, this decision of the Western High Court reflects a more airline-favorable stance compared to the Krijgsman case (C-302/16), where the airline was not exempted from liability- even though it was found that the airline had provided the OTA with information more than 14 days in advance, but the OTA had not passed the information on to the passengers. Nevertheless, based on other judgements by the Danish Courts, this ruling can not be considered as shift in Danish court practice toward mitigating the impact of OTA-related communication failures.
ITALY
Legal topic:
Codeshare agreements and compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Date:
1.4.2025
Court:
Court of Turin
Case number:
786/2024
Party names:
S.R. vs Deutsche Lufthansa AG
The Court of Turin dismissed a passenger’s compensation claim under Regulation (EC) No261/2004, ruling that only the actual carrier is liable for damages resulting from a flight cancellation.
The passenger sought compensation from the contractual air carrier, but the Court found that, since the flight was operated by another carrier under a codeshare agreement, liability rested solely with the actual air carrier.
The Court confirmed that claims under EU261 Regulation must be made against the actual air carrier, and not against the contractual carrier or intermediaries.
The claim was dismissed, and the passenger was ordered to refund the legal costs.
