EU261 Claims: Newsletter #22
- OSS Team
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
Welcome to the 22nd edition of the One Sky Solutions Newsletter!
In this section of our Newsletter, we take a dynamic look at EU261 litigation across Europe, bringing together selected case law that can support airlines and lawyers in shaping their defence strategies and settlement decisions.
Although EU261 is designed as a harmonised European framework, its practical application often varies significantly from one jurisdiction to another.
Through our network, member law firms contribute key rulings and insights from the field. By consolidating this knowledge, we aim to provide a clearer, more informed perspective on how EU261 is being interpreted and applied across Europe.
IN THIS NUMBER YOU WILL READ ABOUT case law from:
Israel: Flight cancellation due to ballistic missile strike: extraordinary circumstance?
Denmark: The exception in Article 5(1)(c)(ii) regarding compensation for cancellations
Germany: EU flight compensation – final destination and connecting flights
Italy: Liability in Package Travel Contracts and Compensation for Damaged Holiday
ISRAEL
S. Horowitz
Legal topic:
Flight cancellation due to ballistic missile strike: extraordinary circumstance?
Date:
09.03.2026
Court:
Herzliya Small Claims Court
Case number:
7006-08-25
Party names:
Optik v. Ryanair Ltd.
The passenger claimed (i) statutory compensation under Israel’s Aviation Services Law for a cancellation notified less than 14 days before departure and (ii) reimbursement of hotel cancellation fees after Ryanair cancelled flights following a ballistic missile strike at Ben Gurion Airport and subsequent security escalation. The court found that the airline proved the existence of“extraordinary/special circumstances” under Section 6(e)(1), exempting it from statutory compensation. It also accepted that the cancellation decision was taken following a careful and phased security assessment. Furthermore, the court held that the Aviation Services Law is an exhaustive framework. In line with the principle of “exclusivity of cause of action” (under the Montreal Convention/Air Transport Law), passengers cannot seek damages related to cancellations outside these regimes. As a result, the claim for hotel cancellation fees was rejected.
The claim was dismissed, and the passenger was ordered to pay legal costs.
DENMARK
Law Firm:
NJORD Law Firm
Legal topic: The exception in Article 5(1)(c)(ii) regarding compensation for cancellations
Date:
04.02.2026
Court: Danish City Court
Case number: BS-41447/2023-KBH
Party names: Travelrefund ApS (represented by Eva Toftberg Persson) v. Brussels Airlines
Comments: Njordlaw welcomes the outcome, as the judgment confirms that the Article 5(1)(c)(ii) re-routing exception applies provided that the carrier has complied with the Regulation by, inter alia, notifying the cancellation between 14 and 7 days before the scheduled departure, offering a re-routing that enables passengers to depart no more than two hours earlier than scheduled and to arrive at their final destination no later than four hours after the scheduled arrival time, and retaining adequate documentary evidence of these steps. We are pleased with the result, as this exception is seldom upheld and is, in many respects, difficult to litigate successfully, particularly given the narrow 14–7 day notice window.
The case concerned whether passengers were entitled to compensation under EU261 after Brussels Airlines cancelled the CPH–BRU sector due to a nationwide strike in Belgium. The airline notified the cancellation seven days in advance and rebooked the passengers promptly, accommodating their request for an alternative departure. As a result, the passengers arrived in Mumbai 1 hour and 30 minutes earlier than originally scheduled.
Travelrefund argued that extraordinary circumstances had not been proven and that the re-routing offered did not comply with Articles 5(1)(c) and 8. Brussels Airlines maintained that the strike constituted an extraordinary circumstance and, alternatively, that the re-routing met the requirements of Article 5(1)(c)(ii).
The court focused on the re-routing exception and found that, by notifying within the 7–14 day window and offering an alternative itinerary via Zurich with an earlier arrival, the airline had fulfilled its obligations. The claim for compensation was therefore dismissed, and Brussels Airlines was awarded DKK 2,000 in costs.
GERMANY
Law Firm:
Vogeler Rechtsanwälte
Legal topic: EU flight compensation – final destination and connecting flights
Date:
20.12.2025
Court: Amtsgericht Hamburg
Case number: 44 C 472/24
Party names: Confidential
The Hamburg District Court clarified that entitlement to compensation under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 depends on whether multiple flight segments form part of a single, unified contract of carriage. The key consideration is whether the operating air carrier offered or created a combined itinerary with a common final destination.
Where the carrier operates only point-to-point flights and no such overall connection exists, the legally relevant journey is deemed to end at the transfer airport. As a result, any delay affecting the onward destination does not give rise to a right to compensation.
ITALY
Law Firm: EO Legal
Legal topic: Liability in Package Travel Contracts and Compensation for Damaged Holiday
Date: 25.11.2025
Court: District Court of Salerno
Case number: 8281/2023
Party names: A.F. and C.R. vs. M. C. S.A. and Deutsche Lufthansa
The case concerned a claim brought by a group of passengers against a cruise company for damages arising from a “ruined holiday” in the context of a package travel arrangement.
The passengers requested a refund of the package holiday, EU261 compensation, and damages for non-pecuniary loss resulting from the alleged loss of enjoyment of their trip. The cruise company contested the claim and, in turn, brought the airline into the proceedings, arguing that the flight cancellation was attributable to the carrier and that all resulting damages should therefore be borne by the airline.
The airline successfully demonstrated that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances (force majeure), supported by weather reports and airport operational data.
On the merits, the Court found no contractual breach on the part of the airline, as the cancellation was attributable to force majeure. As a result, no compensation—pecuniary or non-pecuniary—was awarded against the airline. The passengers were, however, entitled to a refund of the package holiday cost, which was to be borne by the cruise company. The cruise company was also ordered to pay the airline’s legal costs, the latter being fully exempt from liability.
