Air Passenger Rights Case Law Developments from 1 January to 31 July 2025

From 16 June to 9 December 2024, there have been limited case developments concerning air passenger rights. The first part of this article highlights recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that have shed light on the interpretation of EU Regulation No 261/2004 and Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. The second part presents a non-exhaustive overview of selected significant rulings from non- EU countries. In the case joined Case E EAD v. DW (C-650/23) and Flightright GmbH v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH, the Court clarified that passengers can rely on the rights provided under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, even when their flights are part of package tours. In JX v. FTI Touristik GmbH, the Court determined that Article 18 of (B) Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 not only governs international jurisdiction but also specifies territorial jurisdiction, allowing the consumer to sue in the court of their domicile. In the case International Air Transport Association v. Canada (Transportation Agency), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) do not violate the Montreal Convention’s exclusivity principle. In the case Lipton and another v. BA Cityflyer Ltd, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the cancellation of a flight, does not qualify as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under EU Regulation 261and that causes of action arising before Brexit should be governed by the EU law in force immediately before the UK’s exit, as retained EU law. div/div

While consumers in the European Union (EU) are generally afforded a high level of protection, the law on air passenger rights, by example, draws debate over the cost of such protection. In the absence of a clear definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in Regulation (EC) 261/2004, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has not always balanced consumer interests with business realities in its many preliminary rulings on interpretation of these words. Workers joined this picture in the case of Airhelp/SAS [2021], in which the CJEU held that a lawful strike by an air carrier’s own pilot unions does not amount to ‘extraordinary circumstances’. This article explores this ruling in the light of EU air passenger rights and social dialogue objectives. air passenger rights, compensation, collective bargaining, social dialogue

In Sturgeon, the European Court of Justice considered that EC Regulation 261/2004 on Air Passenger Rights breaches the principle of equal treatment. It held that air passengers with a delay of three hours or more have a right to compensation, unless the airline can prove that the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances. After a brief look into how airlines generally perform with regards to their obligations under Regulation 261/2004 (section 1), I will summarize the Sturgeon decision as it was handed down by the European Court (section 2), set out the airlines' response to Sturgeon, which amounts to a boycott of the European Court's decision (section 3), analyse the questions referred to the European Court by the High Court in London in which the airlines challenge the validity of Sturgeon (section 4), and briefly comment on questions referred by the German Federal Court on the application of Sturgeon (section 5). My conclusion (section 6) will be that the European Court cannot but confirm Sturgeon, because the decision is compatible with both the Montreal Convention and the Grand Chamber decision in International Air Transport Association (IATA). This conclusion is in line with the opinion I published in January 2010. This article may be misunderstood as presenting a consumer view on Air Passenger Rights. However, it only aims to predict, from an independent perspective, what the European Court will decide in the pending cases with respect to Sturgeon.

This article comparatively analyses limitations regarding the submission of passenger claims in Thailand and the EU. Thailand transposed EU Regulation 261/2004 on denied boarding, delay and cancellation of flights into its national law. Since EU Regulation 261/2004 does not contain any provision referring to a statute of limitations for legal actions, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found that the limitation period was governed, and continues to be governed, by the domestic law of each Member State, as opposed to the Montreal Convention of 1999 which prescribes a single standard for limitation period. Despite importing this piece of secondary EU legislation, the Thai judicial branch has, so far, not followed the said CJEU judgment. The Thai court selected the two-year limitation period under its domestic law which implemented the Montreal Convention of 1999. Since this lack of harmonization does not benefit the orderly development of international civil aviation, this author suggests that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should take action. Limitation of Actions, Air Passenger Rights, Thailand, Denied Boarding, Time Bar

From 1 January to 15 November 2023, there have been limited case developments in relation to air passenger rights. The first part of this article highlights recent decisions from the Court of Justice of theEuropean Union that have shed light on the interpretation of EU Regulation No 261/2004. The second part presents a non-exhaustive overview of selected significant rulings from non-EU countries. In the case Austrian Airlines v. TW, the Court defined the rules applicable to rerouted flights in the context of the coronavirus crisis. In the case FW v. LATAM Airlines Group SA (Latam Airlines), the Court clarified the rules applicable to passengers denied boarding. In the case TAP Portugal v. flightright GmbH and Myflyright GmbH, the Court ruled that passengers are entitled to compensation following a flight cancellation as the death of a crew member away from the airline’s base is not an extraordinary situation. In the case Lufthansa v. Vadhera, an Indian Court decided that moral damages may be awarded for lost and delayed luggage in the absence of any physical injury suffered by a passenger. The Mexican Supreme Court recently declared a provision of the national Civil Aviation law unconstitutional and declared that airlines must compensate passengers denied boarding due to overbooked flights with at least 25% of the ticket price, regardless of the different options offered to them. The District Tribunal of New Zealand awarded damages to a passenger as it found an airline liable of misrepresentation and set a precedent in the way airlines promote their inflight experiences. passenger rights, flight delay, flight cancellation, flight compensation, overbooking, extraordinary circumstances, repatriation flight, luggage, moral damages, misrepresentation, aviation sector, aviation law, air law

Air passenger right is a crucial aspect of modern aviation law, ensuring the protection of passengers and promoting accountability among air carriers. This research examines the legal framework governing air passenger rights in Indonesia and Madagascar, comparing them to international standards such as the Montreal Convention of 1999 and Core Principles on Consumer Protections of ICAO and IATA. The research method is comparative law method, complemented with normative and conceptual approaches, using secondary data analysed qualitatively to obtain a deductive analysis. While both countries have regulations protecting passenger interests and outlining carrier obligations, Indonesia demonstrates stronger compliance, particularly in compensation provisions and enforcement mechanisms, whereas Madagascar lacks fixed compensation rules and explicit protections for passengers with disabilities. Through a detailed analysis of relevant laws and regulations, this research highlights where national laws fall short of global norms, emphasising the need for greater alignment with international standards to ensure consistency and accountability in air travel. Recommendations include revising Madagascar’s legal framework to introduce fixed compensation rules, establish clear complaint-handling procedures, and incorporate explicit protections for passengers with disabilities. For both countries, strengthening enforcement mechanisms and adopting mandatory insurance requirements would improve passenger protection, legal certainty, and alignment with international standards.Keywords: Air Passenger Rights, Indonesia, International Air Law, Madagascar AbstrakHak penumpang pesawat merupakan aspek penting dari hukum penerbangan kontemporer, yang menjamin perlindungan penumpang dan mendorong akuntabilitas maskapai penerbangan. Penelitian ini mengkaji kerangka hukum nasional yang mengatur hak penumpang pesawat yang berlaku di Indonesia dan Madagaskar, dan membandingkannya dengan standar internasional seperti Konvensi Montreal tahun 1999 dan Prinsip Utama tentang Perlindungan Konsumen ICAO dan IATA. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode hukum komparatif, dilengkapi dengan pendekatan normatif dan konseptual, menggunakan data sekunder yang dianalisis secara kualitatif untuk memperoleh analisis deduktif. Meskipun kedua negara memiliki peraturan yang melindungi kepentingan penumpang dan menguraikan kewajiban maskapai, Indonesia di satu sisi, menunjukkan kepatuhan yang lebih kuat, khususnya dalam ketentuan kompensasi dan mekanisme penegakan hukum; sedangkan Madagaskar di sisi lain tidak memiliki aturan kompensasi tetap dan perlindungan eksplisit bagi penumpang penyandang disabilitas. Melalui analisis terperinci terhadap undang-undang dan peraturan yang relevan, penelitian ini menyoroti di mana undang-undang nasional tidak memenuhi norma global, yang menekankan perlunya penyelarasan yang lebih baik dengan standar internasional untuk memastikan konsistensi dan akuntabilitas dalam perjalanan udara. Rekomendasi yang diberikan meliputi revisi kerangka hukum Madagaskar untuk memperkenalkan aturan kompensasi tetap, menetapkan prosedur penanganan pengaduan yang jelas, dan memasukkan perlindungan eksplisit bagi penumpang penyandang disabilitas. Bagi kedua negara, penguatan mekanisme penegakan hukum dan penerapan persyaratan asuransi wajib akan meningkatkan perlindungan penumpang, kepastian hukum, dan keselarasan dengan standar internasional.Kata Kunci: Hak Penumpang Udara, Indonesia, Hukum Udara Internasional, Madagaskar

Welcome aboard : revisiting regulation 261/2004 / Jeremias Prassl and Michal Bobek -- Regulation 261 : three major issues in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU / Jiři Malenovský-- Regulation 261 : the passenger rights framework / Frank Benyon -- EU law and the Montreal Convention of 1999 / David McClean -- Luxembourg v Montreal : time for the Hague to intervene / John Balfour -- EU regulations in the member states : incorporating international norms / Silvia Ferreri -- Austria and Germany : well-informed passengers, extensive case law and a strong demand for legal certainty / Irena Gogl-Hassanin -- The Benelux :small is not less / Pablo Mendes de Leon and Wouter Oude Alink -- Bulgaria : blurred lines / Alexander Kornezov -- A pair of wings : air passenger rights in the Czech Republic and Slovakia / Kristian Csach -- Estonia : all well, or is there something in the air? / Tatjana Evas and Silvia Ustav -- France : air passengers facing long-haul judicial journeys / Fabien Le Bot -- The Italian experience and trend / Laura Pierallini -- Poland : do not adjust your seat, passengers' rights are assured / Krystyna Kowalik-Banczyk -- Spain : defeating air passengers' rights through procedural rules / Mireia Artigot i Golobardes -- United Kingdom and Ireland : passenger protection turns a corner / Benjamin Jones -- Extraterritorial application : exporting European consumer protection standards / Brian Havel and John Mulligan -- The turbulent life of regulation 261 : continuing controversies surrounding EU air passenger rights / Sacha Garben -- European private law : up in the air? / Joasia Luzak -- Tackling diversity through uniformity? : revisiting the reform of regulation 261/2004 / Jeremias Prassl -- Uniform rights? : the nature of regulations revisited / Michal Bobek.

The coronavirus crisis has been extremely disruptive for the international passenger transportation market. It has also triggered a major legal disruption in the field of passenger rights. In recent decades, the focus of air passenger policy has largely shifted from safety to rights in case of delay and cancellation, a change predominantly induced by the EU. COVID-19 has led to a major paradigm shift, with safety again becoming the number one policy target. Passengers have a wide range of tools to enforce their rights to timely travel and these remedies have made an effective contribution to a reduction in delays and cancellations in air transport. Passengers’ remedies in case of unsafe transport seem largely limited to the possibility of bringing an action in case of bodily injury, lésion corporelle, based on the Montreal Convention (MC). This contribution aims firstly to evaluate the effectiveness of this remedy as a preventive tool for increasing passenger safety. Secondly, it aims to assess the impact of COVID-19 on existing passenger rights in respect of cancellation and delay, as well as the impact of existing passenger rights policy on airlines’ operational margin for enhanced safety management. Based on this analysis, we aim to make recommendations for a more effective model for the protection of passengers’ safety, while at the same time embedding safety in the existing passenger rights policy instead of overriding it. Sommaire: La crise du coronavirus a extrêmement perturbé le marché du tra

This article summarizes air passenger rights in the UK post-Brexit, the status of European Union (EU) law that has been retained by the UK and how it is to be interpreted. It concludes that in practical terms there is little material change to date. Further, divergence is unlikely due to a combination of the statutory scheme adopted by the UK in respect of the implementation of Brexit and the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) made with the EU – unless and until the EU departs significantly from what its law provided as at Brexit in relation to air passenger rights. Air Passenger Rights, Brexit, UK, Status, Interpretation

From 1 December 2023 to 15 June 2024, there have been several case developments in relation to air passenger rights. The first part of this article highlights recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union that have shed light on the interpretation of EU Regulation No 261/2004, Package Travel Directive (EU) 2015/2302 and Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts.In the case Laudamotion GmbH v. flightright GmbH the Court stressed the standardized nature of compensation for a flight delay and held that for compensation claims under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 due to a significant flight delay, passengers must adhere to the check-in requirements specified by the airline, even if they have already completed online check-in.In the case Eventmedia Soluciones SL v. Air Europa Líneas Aéreas SAU, the Court defined the rules governing the inclusion, in a contract of carriage, of a clause prohibiting the transfer of rights by passengers and the right of claim management companies to bring proceedings against airlines. In the case Cobult UG v. TAP Air Portugal SA (TAP), the Court clarified the rules applicable to passengers’ consent to the reimbursement of the cost of their ticket by a travel voucher rather than by a sum of money. In the case Touristic Aviation Services Limited (TAS) v. Flightright GmbH, the Court ruled that the shortage of staff at the airport responsible for baggage handling could be considered an extraordinary circumstance, provided the airline could demonstrate that they had taken all reasonable measures to prevent the delay.In the case QM v. Kiwi Tours GmbH, the Court held that to establish the existence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly impacting the performance of a travel package, for the purpose of claiming a refund under Directive (EU) 2015/2302, only the situation prevailing on the date when the traveler terminated their travel contract should be considered. In the case Eventmedia Soluciones SL v. Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, the Court ruled on the fairness of clauses governing the assignment of rights by passengers to third parties under Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts.

Supporting the needs of special assistance (including PRM) passengers: An international survey of disabled air passenger rights legislation

The outbreak of the COVID-19, which rapidly reached the level of a pandemic, has dramatically affected the aviation industry this year. An important number of flights have been cancelled and passengers are seeking reimbursement and compensation for their travel disruption. The European Regulation No 261/2004 on air passenger rights establishes a specific liability regime in case of flight cancellation. This article analyses the effects of this unparalleled health situation with respect to the passenger rights set out in this European regulation. It discusses the question of reimbursement, rerouting, care, and compensation with regard to the concept of extraordinary circumstances. It also calls for a realistic response from the European Institutions to further protect the aviation industry. Cancellation, Compensation, Flight, Reimbursement, 261/2004

The early summer of 2014 has seen a series of high-profile judicial decisions by senior United Kingdom courts in the field of EU aviation law. The present article explores two decisions on the interpretation and application of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation 261/2004, analysing them with particular emphasis on their relationship with existing CJEU precedent and their economic and operational impacts on carriers. In Huzar v. Jet2.com, the Court of Appeal ruled that the extraordinary circumstances defence in Article 5(3) of the Regulation had to be interpreted narrowly, and did not extend to technical defects arising in the ordinary operation of a carrier's activity. Dawson v. Thomson Airways, handed down in the subsequent week, rejected the airline's contention that claims under the EU Regulation should be limited to two years, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention. A third section turns to the shifting enforcement landscape, highlighting in particular the curious role of the NEBs' Draft List of Extraordinary Circumstances, and the role of the Civil Aviation Authority in enforcing air passengers' rights.

In recent years, the volume of passengers and aircraft travelling through airports and airspace has increased dramatically, making aviation a key driver of economic trade, growth and jobs. Although air travel is a very important sector for consumers, it results in increased risk of problems such as flight delays and cancellations. The purpose of this study is to better understand consumers’ experiences of disruption to their journeys and to explore the implementation of the regulation associated with air passenger rights, according to the European Commission, in the case of 224 respondents flying from Chios Airport. The results indicated that, despite publicity campaigns and different travel apps by the European Commission, passengers are unaware of their rights and did not receive either much information about their legal rights, or the necessary compensation as foreseen by the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, when their flight was delayed or canceled. In addition, “refund of flight cost”, “rescheduling/rebooking (free)”, “financial compensation”, “information on legal rights” and “flight status information” are critical factors for delayed or cancelled flights, while “transfer to home or hotel”, “comfortable waiting area”, “overnight accommodation” and “food and drink” also play an important role in the case of flight delay or cancellation.

Based on a regulation the European Union issues common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. Nevertheless, since the regulation came into force in February 2005, one could observe that the legal framework itself has suffered from many undefined terms and loopholes, so that it had to be supplemented by an increasing body of case law. Several reasons like the unclear legal situation, high transaction costs for a lawsuit in relation to a relatively low amount of compensation and the strategical behavior of the airlines not to handle passengers’ complaints in a correct manner, led to the situation that affected air passengers were deterred from enforcing their rights. The objective of the paper is to analyze, how new business models in form of claims management companies (e.g. Flightright, EUclaim, FairPlane, … etc.) have successfully established themselves on the market. In comparison, as another effective tool for the enforcement of air passenger rights, recently founded conciliation bodies are taken into consideration; whereby the Conciliation Body for Public Transport in Germany serves as an exemplary model.