EU261 Claims: Newsletter #19
- OSS Team
- Sep 12
- 3 min read
Welcome to the 19th 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:
Hungary: Legal requirements for the validity of assignment agreements signed by electronic signature
Germany: Right to compensation for denied boarding in case of late arrival to gate but aircraft still at gate
Italy: Six-Month Statute of Limitations for Claims Under EU Regulation 261/2004
HUNGARY
Law firm:
Bényi és Partner Law Firm (Bényi, Tamási & Schümeky) https://www.belegal.hu/en/
Legal topic:
Legal requirements for the validity of assignment agreements signed by electronic signature
Date:
15.01.2025
Court:
Metropolitan Court as court of second instance
Case number:
2.Gf.75.488/2024/6-II.
Party names:
AirAdvisor International Inc. v. [not disclosed]
The passenger assigned his claim under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to AirAdvisor Inc. by means of an assignment agreement. The Assignment of Claim has been signed electronically using “ZohoSign.” In connection with this process, an additional document entitled AirAdvisor Certificate of Completion has been created.
However, as ZohoSign does not constitute a qualified electronic signature or an advanced electronic signature within the meaning of the eIDAS Regulation, there is no verified proof that the Assignment of Claim was indeed signed by the passenger, nor that the passenger thereby transferred the compensation claim to the claimant. Consequently, AirAdvisor’s legitimacy in the proceedings has not been proven.
GERMANY
Law Firm:
Vogeler Rechtsanwälte
Legal topic:
Right to compensation for denied boarding in case of late arrival to gate but aircraft still at gate
Date:
05.06.2025
Court:
Landgericht Frankfurt
Case number:
2-24 S 93/24
Party names:
Confidential
Five passengers, booked on a flight from Frankfurt to Doha, and regularly checked in on time, arrived at the boarding gate shortly after the scheduled closing time of 5.15 pm. Even though the aircraft was still at the gate, an airline employee denied them boarding.
The passengers subsequently sued the Airline seeking for the €600 compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 for denied boarding. The court of first instance dismissed their claim. On appeal, however, the Landgericht Frankfurt overturned this decision and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
While Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 does not stipulate a fixed time by which passengers must present themselves at the gate, it is generally expected that passengers are near the gate at the time indicated on their boarding pass. However, the court held that in cases where departure is delayed—so that boarding is not completed and aircraft doors remain open—the airline must accommodate arriving passengers. Consequently, a refusal to board under those circumstances is unlawful, giving rise to a claim for compensation under the Regulation.
ITALY
Law Firm:
EO Legal
Legal topic:
Six-Month Statute of Limitations for Claims Under EU Regulation 261/2004
Date:
24.06.2025
Court:
Court of Treviso
Case number:
4989/2024
Party names:
I. R. S.R.L., acting on behalf of D. M., S. B., A. M., and S. M.
In a recent judgment, the Court of Treviso dismissed passengers’ appeal for compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, upholding the lower court’s finding that the claim was time-barred pursuant to Article 418 of the Italian Navigation Code, which prescribes a sixmonth limitation for actions arising from passenger air transport contracts.
The appellants contended that the more favourable two-year limitation period under the Montreal Convention should apply. The Court, however, relying on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling of 22 November 2012 and the Italian Supreme Court’s 2024 decision, rejected this argument, reaffirming that claims under Regulation 261/2004 fall outside the scope of the Montreal Convention and are therefore subject to national limitation rules.
This judgment further consolidates the prevailing Italian case law that actions under Regulation 261/2004 must be brought within six months, rather than the two-year period advocated by the appellants.
