EU261 Claims: Newsletter #21
- OSS Team
- 11 hours ago
- 5 min read
Welcome to the 21st 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:
Poland: Flight delay due to hidden engine design defect
Poland: ATC slot restrictions imposed on a previous flight as an extraordinary circumstance
Poland: The method of calculating flight delay time
Denmark: Debt collection and reminder fees under the Danish Interest Act
Germany: is an airline required to explore alternative connections during delay due to holding pattern?
Czech Republic: Reimbursement for alcoholic beverages
POLAND
KKLW Law Firm
Legal topic:
Flight delay due to hidden engine design defect
Date:
29.09.2025
Court:
Regional Court in Warsaw
Case number:
V Ca 1224/25
Party names:
Confidential
In its judgment, the Regional Court in Warsaw examined whether a flight delay caused by an engine malfunction could qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004, thereby exempting the air carrier from the obligation to pay compensation. The court held that the pre-flight detection of a previously hidden engine design defect constituted an extraordinary circumstance capable of relieving the carrier of liability. It further ruled that the carrier’s prior awareness of a potential defect did not alter that legal assessment.
The court also found that the air carrier had taken all reasonable measures to prevent or limit the delay, including arranging for a replacement aircraft to be repositioned. On this basis, the passengers’ claim for compensation was dismissed, and the court ordered the passengers to bear the carrier’s costs.
POLAND
KKLW Law Firm
Legal topic:
ATC slot restrictions imposed on a previous flight as an extraordinary circumstance
Date:
13.05.2025
Court:
Regional Court in Warsaw
Case number:
XXVII Ca 2879/24
Party names:
Confidential
The court held that the flight delay resulted from air traffic control restrictions imposed on the preceding flight in the aircraft’s rotation, which necessitated a change to the slot allocated to the flight in question and contributed to the length of the delay. Such circumstances were found to constitute “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
POLAND
KKLW Law Firm
Legal topic:
Method of calculating flight delay time
Date:
14.03.2024
Court:
Regional Court in Warsaw
Case number:
V Ca 4024/23
Party names:
Confidential
The court held that there were no grounds to aggregate the delay attributable to extraordinary circumstances (25 minutes) with the delay giving rise to the defendant’s liability, which resulted from a technical fault and amounted to 2 hours and 35 minutes. As the portion of the delay imputable to the defendant was less than three hours, the claim was dismissed.
DENMARK
Law Firm:
NJORD Law Firm
Legal topic: Debt collection and reminder fees under the Danish Interest Act
Date:
03.11.2025
Court: Danish City Court
Case number: BS-31038/2025-KBH
Party names: Fuga Mora ApS (represented by Rescue Money) v. Brussels Airlines
Comments: Njordlaw welcomes the outcome, as the judgment clarifies that recovery of a collection fee is contingent on demonstrable prior assignment and actual extrajudicial recovery conducted by a distinct, independent collector. It is therefore of particular relevance to Danish cases concerning collection fees, and it helps to preclude proceedings brought solely on the basis of a 100 DKK collection fee as principal where these conditions are not met, while also promoting out‑of‑court resolution of minor fee claims
After the Carrier had paid the EU261 compensation to which the passenger was entitled, the dispute concerned whether an additional reminder fee of DKK 100 and a collection fee of DKK 100 were payable, as claimed by Fuga Mora and pursued through its affiliated entity, Rescue Money. It should be noted that the court’s legal analysis related to Danish rules on late payment and extrajudicial debt recovery costs, rather than Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 as such. The judgment therefore primarily affects Danish cases involving claims for reminder and collection fees.
Fuga Mora argued that the statutory requirements for both fees under the Danish Interest Act and the applicable debt collection rules were satisfied, relied on established practice, and asserted that the claim had been assigned to Rescue Money for collection. The Airline accepted liability for the reminder fee but contested the collection fee, arguing that no genuine third-party collection had taken place, that Fuga Mora and Rescue Money effectively operated as the same entity, and that the matter should have been resolved without court proceedings.
The court found that Fuga Mora had failed to demonstrate that the claim had been assigned to Rescue Money prior to the initiation of the proceedings and that Rescue Money had not undertaken any collection measures before the action was brought. As a result, the statutory prerequisites for awarding a collection fee were not met. The court awarded the DKK 100 reminder fee, dismissed the claim for the collection fee, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
GERMANY
Law Firm:
Vogeler Rechtsanwälte
Legal topic: is an airline required to explore alternative connections during delay due to holding pattern?
Date:
17.07.2025
Court: District court Cologne
Case number: 169 C 476/24
Party names: Confidential
The extent of an air carrier’s obligation to consider alternative transportation depends on the specific circumstances of each case, in particular the length of the expected delay at the destination airport.
In this instance, the flight was delayed because the preceding flight in the aircraft’s rotation was held in a holding pattern. The resulting delay slightly exceeded four hours, and the passengers argued that the airline should have explored alternative connections. The Court held that, under these circumstances, the carrier was not yet required to consider alternative options. It was therefore permissible for the airline to defer the assessment of rebooking possibilities until the aircraft had left the holding pattern.
CZECH REPUBLIC
Law Firm: Vyskočil, Krošlák a partneři s.r.o., advokátní kancelář
Legal topic: Reimbursement for alcoholic beverages
Date: 10.11.2025
Court: District Court of Prague 6
Case number: 17 C 130/2025
Party names: Confidential
The case concerned several claims brought by passengers in connection with a cancelled flight, including a request for reimbursement of expenses incurred for refreshments purchased at the airport, consisting of a main meal and an alcoholic beverage. One of the issues addressed during the proceedings was whether the passengers were entitled to reimbursement of the cost of one alcoholic drink, or whether such an expense should be regarded as superfluous and therefore excluded from the right to care under Regulation (EC) 261/2004.
Although the dispute was ultimately resolved amicably, the court expressed a legal view on this point in the course of the proceedings. It held that a restrictive interpretation of “refreshments” as being limited to the minimum sustenance necessary for survival is not appropriate. Where the overall expense (EUR 4 for the beverage in this case) is proportionate and reasonable in light of the refreshments purchased as a whole and the length of the waiting time, reimbursement may also extend to an alcoholic beverage consumed together with the main meal.
At the same time, the court emphasised that any entitlement to reimbursement of alcoholic beverages must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, applying the criteria of proportionality and reasonableness.
