EU261 Claims: Newsletter #20
- OSS Team
- Nov 10
- 5 min read
Updated: Nov 11
Welcome to the 20th 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:
Norway: Court of Appeal rules in favour of passengers in flight delay compensation case
Norway: Court of Appeal upholds airline’s exemption from liability in flight delay case
Denmark: Western High Court confirms airline exemption in cascading delay case
Italy: Court of Naples clarifies travel agencies’ right to reimbursement for cancelled airline tickets
Germany: Court finds drone-related airport closure to be an extraordinary circumstance
Sweden: District Court dismisses passenger claim as time-barred under the selected Belgian law
NORWAY
Raeder Bing Law Firm
Legal topic:
Court of Appeal rules in favour of passengers in flight delay compensation case
Date:
28.05.2025
Court:
Court of Appeal (Eidsivating)
Case number:
LE-2025-50999
Party names:
[Passengers] against Eurowings GmbH
The case concerned a claim for compensation arising from a delayed flight, pursuant to Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. The Court of Appeal held that the passengers were entitled to standard compensation for the delay.
While the delay — caused by air traffic control (ATC) restrictions — qualified as an extraordinary circumstance, the airline had failed to reroute the passengers or take adequate measures to avoid or mitigate the consequences of that circumstance.
The Court emphasised that the Regulation imposes a strict duty of diligence on air carriers to take all reasonable measures to prevent or limit disruptions. In light of this, the Court ruled in favour of the passengers.
NORWAY
Raeder Bing Law Firm
Legal topic:
Court of Appeal upholds airline’s exemption from liability in flight delay case
Date:
14.04.2025
Court:
Court of Appeal (Eidsivating)
Case number:
LE-2025-17332
Party names:
[Passengers] against KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
The case involved a claim for compensation arising from a delayed flight under Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. The key issue was whether the conditions for exemption from liability under Article 5(3) of the Regulation were satisfied.
The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision, finding that the requirements of Article 5(3) had indeed been met. The delay was caused by an error in the check-in system, which the court deemed to constitute an extraordinary circumstance, and the airline was found to have taken all reasonable measures to avoid the delay.
Accordingly, the Court ruled in favour of the airline.
DENMARK
Law Firm:
NJORD Law Firm
Legal topic: Western High Court confirms airline exemption in cascading delay case
Date:
03.03.2025
Court: Western High Court (Vestre Landsret), Denmark
Case number: BS-56223/2024-VLR
Party names: Ryanair DAC vs.
AirHelp Germany GmbH
The aircraft was scheduled to operate four flights on the same day, with the disputed flight being the last in the sequence. ATC slot restrictions affecting two earlier flights — caused by severe weather — resulted in a cascading delay.
The airline supported its position with ATC Slot History reports and documentation demonstrating limited routing options. The Western High Court held that such ATC restrictions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, even when they affect subsequent flights within the same aircraft rotation. The Court also found that the airline had taken all reasonable measures, and was therefore exempt from paying compensation.
Aligning with previous EU case law, including C-826/19, the judgment confirms that cascading delays within the same aircraft rotation can be considered extraordinary circumstances, provided a direct causal link to the subsequent delay is established. It also highlights the importance of maintaining thorough documentation, such as ATC Slot History reports, to substantiate such claims.
ITALY
Law Firm:
EO Legal
Legal topic: Court of Naples clarifies travel agencies’ right to reimbursement for cancelled airline tickets
Date: 19.05.2025
Court: Court of Naples
Case number: 22320/2022
Party names: Confidential
A recent ruling by the Court of Naples has further clarified the extent to which travel agencies may seek reimbursement for cancelled airline tickets.
The case concerned a claim for the refund of unused flight tickets purchased through a travel agency. The agency argued that it was entitled to receive reimbursement on behalf of the passengers, asserting that airlines should issue refunds or vouchers to the intermediary through which the tickets had been purchased.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that the relevant legal provision applies exclusively to package travel contracts, and not to the mere sale of airline tickets. In the latter case, the agency acts solely as an intermediary, while the contract of carriage is concluded directly between the passengers and the airline. Consequently, only the passengers, and not the agency, have standing to claim reimbursement.
The Court also observed that the agency had failed to demonstrate either that it had refunded the passengers in advance or that it held a mandate authorising it to act on their behalf. Additional evidence showed that one of the passengers had paid for the tickets directly, confirming the absence of any independent right of action for the agency.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the travel agency was dismissed, and the agency was ordered to pay the airline’s legal costs.
GERMANY
Law Firm:
Vogeler Rechtsanwälte
Legal topic: Court finds drone-related airport closure to be an extraordinary circumstance
Date:
26.09.2025
Court: Amtsgericht Nürtingen
Case number: 45 C 1403/25
Party names: Confidential
The claimants were scheduled to travel on a flight from Stuttgart to Antalya on 28 June 2024, but the departure was delayed by slightly more than four hours. In addition to operational restrictions imposed by the aviation safety authority on preceding flights, Stuttgart Airport experienced a temporary closure due to drone sightings, resulting in a diversion and a subsequent positioning flight.
The court held that the temporary airport closure caused by drone activity constituted an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. A delay of two hours attributable to this uncontrollable event was deemed sufficient to exempt the airline from its obligation to pay compensation.
The judgment underscores that, in cases involving multiple contributing factors, a differential assessment must be undertaken to determine which portion of the delay is directly linked to an extraordinary circumstance. It also confirms that, under such conditions, the airline is not required to provide alternative transportation during the affected period.
SWEDEN
Law Firm: Moll Wendén
Legal topic: District Court dismisses passenger claim as time-barred under the selected Belgian law
Date: 26.09.2025
Court: Solna District Court
Case number: FT 2037-25
Party names: Confidential
The case concerned, among other issues, whether the claimant had brought the action before the court within the prescribed timeframe. The District Court noted that the passenger had accepted the Belgian airline’s general terms and conditions, which included a choice of law clause designating Belgian law. Under this clause, any legal action had to be filed within one year from the flight date.
The Court observed that, although the legal position in Belgium had been somewhat debated, the Belgian Supreme Court had previously held that claims under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 are subject to a one-year limitation period, and that this precedent must prevail.
As the passenger failed to initiate proceedings within that one-year period, the claim was dismissed as time-barred.
