EU261 Claims: Newsletter #17
- OSS Team
- Mar 20
- 6 min read
The article reports on case law regarding EU261 claims from around Europe that may be interesting for airline defence strategies or settlement decisions. Although EU261 is a European regulation, national courts unfortunately take very different approaches in its interpretation. Furthermore, court decisions from many jurisdictions are not published and are therefore difficult to access.
Given that our member law firms are experts in dealing with EU261 claims within their respective jurisdictions, they have access to important precedents and are happy to sharethem.
CROATIA
Legal topic:
Right to compensation for flight delay pursuant to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the "Montreal Convention")
Date:
10.9.2020
Court:
High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia
Case number:
57 Pž-5434/2018-2
Party names:
E. Z., d.d. (plaintiff) vs.Croatian airline (defendant)
The plaintiff sought compensation for damages due to a delayed flight on 2 November 2016 from Z. to B., claiming financial loss. The defendant argued that the delay was caused byadverse weather conditions, constituting force majeure under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, finding no liability on the defendant’s part, as the plaintiff failed to prove both the defendant’s responsibility and the actual damage suffered. The High Commercial Court upheld the decision, confirming that the delay was due to uncontrollable weather conditions and that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof under the Croatian Civil Procedure Act.
Legal topic:
Right to compensation for flight delay pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council of 11 February 2004
Date:
16.12.2024
Court:
Municipal Court in Zadar (PermanentService in Benkovac)
Case number:
P-eu-3/2020-7
Party names:
ŠZ (plaintiff) vs. AirBaltic(defendant)
The plaintiff sought €400 in compensation for a delayed flight from Riga to Split on 10 June 2019, claiming a delay of 256 minutes under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The defendant failed to respond to the claim within the 30-day period prescribed by Regulation (EC) No861/2007. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as the Flightstats screenshot, to prove the delay. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of procedural costs, citing the plaintiff’s failure to meet the burden of proof under the Croatian Civil Procedure Act.
Legal topic:
Air Passenger Rights (EU Regulation261/2004)
Date:
31.7.2024
Court:
Commercial Court in Zagreb
Case number:
P-eu-48/2020-8
Party names:
DG (Plaintiff) vs. AustrianAirlines AG (Defendant)
The plaintiff sought €400 in compensation for a delay caused on the connecting flight from Zagreb to Vienna. The delay caused the plaintiff to miss a connecting flight to Stockholm resulting in a 3-hour late arrival. Although the plaintiff did not submit any documents to prove the delay, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant passively did not contest the claim or provide any evidence of extraordinary circumstances.
CZECH REP.
Legal topic:
Non-award of legal costs in the absence of pre-action communication by the airline
Date:
14.2.2025
Court:
District court of Prague 6
Case number:
17 C 234/2024
Party names:
Confidential
The plaintiffs withdrew the lawsuit after we, on behalf of the defendant airline, had filed a defence statement with the court alleging extraordinary circumstances that exonerated the defendant from liability to compensate the passengers in connection with a delayed flight. Ordinarily, the court would have terminated the proceedings and awarded the defendant airline legal costs for a successful defence. Here, however, the court terminated the proceedings without awarding us any legal costs. The court justified its decision on the basis that the plaintiffs had been advocating for their rights up until the time the court proceedings had commenced, but that the defendant had not provided them with any information at the pre-action stage which would have potentially been able to deter the passengers from bringing a frivolous action. In other words, the Court concluded that defendant airlines have a duty to inform passengers, at least in general terms, of the reasons for the flight delay/cancellation, so that they can assess whether bringing an action would be worthwhile. In the absence of any proactive communication in this sense by the defendant prior to the action being filed (as was the case here), the defendant is not entitled to be awarded legal costs. This conclusion has also been upheld by the higher courts and will therefore be the standard for assessing cost issues in the future.
DENMARK
Legal topic:
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 regarding whether a flight cancellation due to a national strike constitutes an"extraordinary circumstance" exempting the airline from its obligation to pay compensation to the passengers under the Regulation
Date:
3.2.2025
Court:
City Court of Copenhagen
Case number:
BS-20571/2023-KBH
Party names:
Travelrefund ApS vs. BrusselsAirlines
The Court found that the airline had sufficiently demonstrated that the cancellation was caused by a national strike in Belgium, which led to the preemptive cancellation of 70% of flights, and thereby qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" under Article 5(3) of the Regulation. The Court found that the strike was beyond the airline's control and that all reasonable measures had been taken to minimize the impact on the passengers.
Based on these findings, the airline was deemed exempt from paying compensation underArticle 5(3) of the Regulation.
Our Comments
This judgment is significant as it reinforces the interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances"to include national strikes, providing a clear precedent for similar future cases. This judgement should also be considered alongside a previous successful judgement, in which the airport's efficiency was reduced by 80% due to a national strike.
ITALY
Legal topic:
Air carrier not liable for missed connections inseparate bookings
Date:
24.12.2024
Court:
Court of Civitavecchia
Case number:
1319/2018
Party names:
R.G.S. S.r.l. and A.P.I.A.I vs.easyJet Airline Company Limited
The Court of Civitavecchia determined that, in cases of separate bookings, an air carrier is not obligated to compensate passengers who miss a subsequent flight due to a delay on a preceding leg of their journey.
The case involved a group trip that was disrupted when a flight delay caused passengers to miss their connection, preventing them from reaching their destination and enjoying the planned journey.
The Court found that the tour operator had purchased two separate tickets for two independent flights. Consequently, the air carrier operating the first flight had no legal responsibility to rebook the passengers, as such an obligation arises only when delays occur on connecting flights under a single booking.
Liability was therefore assigned to the tour operator, which had scheduled the flights within sufficient time in between without accounting for potential delays. As a result, the tour operator was ordered to pay damages for the disrupted trip.
Legal topic:
Personal injury - Passenger assault during flight
Date:
21.11.2024
Court:
Court of Civitavecchia
Case number:
455/2021
Party names:
C.M. vs. Ryanair DAC
The Court of Civitavecchia ruled in favor of the air carrier, rejecting the claim of a passenger seeking compensation for damages allegedly incurred due to an assault by a drunken
passenger during a flight from Palermo to Rome.
The Court excluded the airline’s liability, referencing the judgment of the European Court ofJustice in Case C-532/18. Specifically, in accordance with that ruling, the Court of Civitavecchia stated that Article 17(1) of the 1999 Montreal Convention must be interpreted to mean that the term ‘accident’ should not be understood as any kind of ‘event,’ but rather as an‘unforeseen involuntary harmful event.’
In this case, the alleged assault by another passenger did not qualify as an ‘accident’ under the Montreal Convention, as it was a voluntary and intentional act. A voluntary assault committed by a third party against a passenger, even if it occurs during a flight, cannot be classified as an ‘accident,’ which requires the involuntariness of the harmful event.
Moreover, the passenger failed to provide sufficient evidence that the assault occurred during the flight. Accordingly, the claim for compensation was rejected and the legal costs were awarded to the airline.
SWEDEN
Legal topic:
Choice of law regarding the statute of limitations for claims
Date:
30.1.2025
Court:
Gothenburg District Court
Case number:
FT 13101-24
Party names:
Confidential
The question in this case was which country's law should be applied and whether the claim was time-barred. The plaintiff argued that Swedish law should apply with a limitation period of ten years. The air carrier argued that Belgian law should apply and that the claim was therefore time-barred. The District Court held that it had not been shown that the passenger, from whom the plaintiff had acquired the claim, was bound by the air carrier's general conditions of carriage. The contractual terms on choice of law could therefore not be applied. However, the District Court found that Belgian law should be applied in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Rome I Regulation. This was because neither the place of departure nor the flight destination were located in the country of the passenger's habitual residence. The law of the country of the carrier’s habitual residence, i.e., Belgium, was therefore applicable. TheCourt thus found that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.
