EU261 Claims: Newsletter #23
Welcome to the 23rd 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: The Israeli Supreme Court clarifies airlines’ duty to offer passengers a choice between a refund and re-routing following cancellation
Denmark: Responsibility under EU Regulation 261/2004 for one booking involving two separate air carriers
Poland: Can Extraordinary Circumstances Be Deducted from Total Flight Delay?
Italy: Are passengers entitled to compensation for strike-related cancellations?
Italy: Delayed Baggage – No Montreal compensation is due without proof of damage
ISRAEL
S. Horowitz
Legal topic:
The Israeli Supreme Court clarifies airlines’ duty to offer passengers a choice between a refund and re-routing following cancellation
Date:
04.06.2026
Court:
Israeli Supreme Court
Case number:
LCA 17685-01-26
Party names: Arkia vs 97 passengers
Practical impact: Airlines operating to or from Israel should proactively offer passengers the legally required choice between reimbursement and re-routing. Failure to do so may result besides the compensation also in exemplary damages, with the amount depending on the seriousness of the violation and any additional breaches.
The case concerned the cancellation of Arkia flight IZ 776 from Grenoble to Tel Aviv on 29 January 2022. The flight was cancelled and passengers rebooked to the following day without prior notice, and without offering them a choice between a refund and an alternative flight. Ninety-seven passengers claimed compensation, which was upheld on appeal, with reduced exemplary damages.
The Supreme Court confirmed that airlines have an affirmative duty to inform passengers of their right to choose between reimbursement and re-routing following a cancellation. This obligation follows from the Israeli Aviation Services Law and is consistent with EU Regulation 261/2004.
The Court also held that exemplary (punitive) damages may be awarded for failing to offer this choice, without requiring proof that the passenger would have chosen differently if duly informed. The violation itself infringes the passenger's statutory right. However, exemplary damages should be reserved for particularly serious cases, especially where other statutory obligations have also been breached.
DENMARK
Law Firm:
NJORD Law Firm
Legal topic: Responsibility under EU Regulation 261/2004 for one booking involving two separate air carriers
Date:
26.02.2026
Court: Danish City Court
Case number: BS-27542/2025-KOL
Party names: Flightright GmbH (represented by Flyhjælp ApS) v. Brussels Airlines
Comments: NJORD Law Firm is pleased to see that, despite American Airlines v Flightright (C-436/21), Danish courts may treat flights as separate journeys, even if they were booked under one booking code through a travel agency, where the circumstances support this conclusion
The case concerned whether Brussels Airlines was liable for compensation under EU261 after a passenger missed a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt to Billund.
The passenger travelled from Brussels to Frankfurt on a flight operated by Brussels Airlines, which arrived 51 minutes late. As a result, the passenger missed his connecting Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt to Billund. Flightright claimed EUR 250 in compensation, arguing that the two flights formed a single journey with a connecting flight for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. Brussels Airlines argued that its flight had been delayed by only 51 minutes and that the connecting flight was operated by Lufthansa, not Brussels Airlines.
The Court found that Flightright had failed to establish that the two flights constituted a single journey. In reaching this conclusion, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the itinerary had been arranged by a travel agency and that the booking confirmation required the passenger to check in separately for each flight, despite both flights being listed under the same booking code. The Court therefore considered the two flights to be separate journeys.
As the Brussels–Frankfurt flight was delayed by only 51 minutes and Brussels Airlines was not the operating air carrier of the connecting flight, the Court concluded that Brussels Airlines could not be held liable for compensation under EU261.
Brussels Airlines was therefore acquitted and awarded DKK 1,200 in costs.
POLAND
Law Firm:
KKLW
Legal topic: Extraordinary Circumstances Can Be Deducted from Total Flight Delay
Date:
27.03.2026
Court: Supreme Administrative Court of Poland
Case number: II GSK 161/23
Party names: A.K., Z.K., S.K. and P.K. v President of the Civil Aviation Authority (case concerning air carrier P. S.A.)
The Supreme Administrative Court held that where a flight delay results from both extraordinary and non-extraordinary circumstances, the delay attributable to the extraordinary circumstances should be deducted from the total delay when assessing entitlement to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. In this case, the total delay was 4 hours 49 minutes, of which 2 hours 36 minutes resulted from a technical fault, while the remaining delay was caused by a medical emergency requiring a diversion. As the delay attributable to non-extraordinary circumstances remained below three hours, no compensation was due.
ITALY
Law Firm: EO Legal
Legal topic: Are passengers entitled to compensation for strike-related cancellations?
Date: 01.04.2026
Court: Civil Court of Naples
Case number: 21562/2025
Party names: S.F. vs Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesllschaft
The Court of Naples confirmed that the airline is not liable for EU261 compensation when flight cancellations are caused by extraordinary circumstances such as large-scale strikes.
In this case, a passenger appealed after his claim was rejected at first instance, arguing that the airline had not proven the exceptional nature of the event.
However, the Court found that a widespread union strike affecting major German airports constituted a well-documented and unavoidable circumstance.
The airline had also acted properly by offering an alternative flight, which the passenger declined.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, confirming that no compensation or damages were due. The passenger was also ordered to pay the airline’s legal costs.
ITALY
Law Firm: EO Legal
Legal topic: Delayed Baggage – No Montreal compensation is due without proof of damage
Date: 06.03.2026
Court: Justice of the Peace of Milan
Case number: 35271/2024
Party names: B.F. vs Swiss International Air Lines Ltd
The Justice of the Peace of Milan stated that compensation for delayed baggage under the Montreal Convention requires concrete proof of harm.
In the case at hand, a passenger sought €100 after his suitcase was delivered 24 hours late on a flight from Malé to Milan. The Court rejected the claim, noting that although carrier liability is presumed under Article 17, damages are not automatic.
The claimant failed to show any actual financial loss or significant non-pecuniary damage, particularly as the delay occurred upon return home. The Court reaffirmed that mere inconvenience is not compensable.
The claim was dismissed, and the passenger was ordered to pay the airline’s legal costs.
