Setting the standard in European air passenger rights: Flightright’s key judgments
At Flightright, we work to ensure your rights as an air passenger aren’t just written into law, but can actually be enforced. Over the years, we have initiated numerous proceedings before national supreme courts and the European Court of Justice—securing landmark decisions across Europe that have led to clearer rules, stronger protection, and better enforcement options for passengers.
Good to know
Even though the decisions from 2020 and 2024 were made after Brexit and do not have to be followed by UK courts, they remain important for passengers and are considered by judges when deciding similar cases
Below is an overview of the most significant rulings we have secured for air travelers.
Court judgments won by Flightright for extraordinary circumstances
2016 · Federal Court of Justice Case X ZR 78/15 · Flightright v. Air Namibia
Judgment: Baggage cart collision is not an extraordinary circumstance
A parked aircraft was damaged by a baggage cart on the tarmac, causing a significant delay. The airline argued that this was an “extraordinary circumstance” and therefore no compensation had to be paid to the passengers. Flightright represented the passengers affected.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that:
an accident caused by ground personnel or ground equipment is not an extraordinary circumstance,
because airport operations are part of the airline’s normal operational sphere,
even if the ground personnel are provided by the airport or third parties,
and “stationary traffic” (i.e., a stationary aircraft) is also part of the airline’s operational risk.
The airline cannot transfer responsibility to external service providers.
Significance for passengers
This ruling established clear guidelines for the first time and made it clear that ground accidents must result in compensation for passengers. Airlines cannot use the argument “it wasn’t our fault” to get out of paying.
2020 · Cour de cassation in France Pourvoi n° 19-12.294 · Flightright v. Air India
Ruling: Sick pilot is not an extraordinary circumstance
An Air India international flight was canceled at short notice because the pilot fell ill. The airline claimed that this was an “extraordinary circumstance” that exempted it from its obligation to pay compensation. Flightright represented the passengers affected and argued that staff organization was clearly the responsibility of the airline.
The French Court of Cassation ruled that:
staff scheduling is part of the airline’s operational sphere,
cases of illness are foreseeable and must be covered by replacement staff,
illness-related absences therefore do not constitute extraordinary circumstances,
the airline remains liable for compensation.
Significance for passengers
The ruling clarifies that cases of illness among cabin crew do not constitute an obstacle to compensation. Air passengers retain their entitlement even if a crew is unable to work at short notice. Flightright has thus reinforced an important principle: staffing problems, shift planning, and illness are normal operational risks and must not be borne by passengers.
2024 · Federal Court of Justice Case X ZR 146/23 · Flightright v. KLM
Ruling: De-icing in winter is foreseeable and not an extraordinary circumstance
A flight was significantly delayed because the aircraft had to be de-iced before takeoff. The airline KLM argued that this was an extraordinary circumstance because the de-icing process was carried out by an external service provider and was unavoidable due to weather conditions.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that:
De-icing in winter is a predictable and normal procedure,
airlines must allow for time buffers and organizational precautions,
the use of an external de-icing service does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance,
the airline therefore remains liable for compensation.
Significance for passengers
The ruling strengthens the rights of air passengers, especially in the winter season. Airlines cannot invoke normal weather conditions to avoid paying compensation. Delays due to de-icing are considered a normal operational risk. With this landmark ruling, Flightright has made it clear that predictable seasonal events do not exempt airlines from their responsibility.
2022 · UK Court of Appeal Case CA-2022-000501 – Flightright v. easyJet
Ruling: “Extraordinary circumstances” only exonerate airlines if they can prove that they took all reasonable measures
In this case, two passengers booked a flight with EasyJet from Milan to Alghero in June 2019 that was delayed by seven hours, giving rise to a clear entitlement to compensation. However, EasyJet refused to pay, arguing that the passengers had failed to comply with its terms and conditions by not first submitting their compensation claim directly through its online portal as required under Clause 19.6 of the contract of carriage. Flightright represented the passengers affected and made it clear: Even if there are extraordinary circumstances, the obligation to pay compensation only ceases to apply if the airline can also prove that it did everything reasonable to avoid the cancellation or the consequences for passengers.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that:
an airline cannot simply invoke “extraordinary circumstances” to avoid paying compensation,
airlines must specifically explain what extraordinary circumstances existed and why they were uncontrollable,
they must also prove that the cancellation could not have been avoided even if they had taken all reasonable measures,
this includes, in particular, airlines having to actively explore alternatives within the realm of possibility (e.g., other organizational measures, replacement equipment, rescheduling, use of available capacity),
the burden of proof lies with the airline—not the passenger.
Significance for passengers
This ruling is significant for UK passengers because it confirms that procedural requirements imposed by airlines — such as first using an online portal — must not create barriers that undermine the statutory rights created by the Regulation. It also clarifies that passengers may lawfully be assisted by a third party (including a representative acting on their behalf) when using online claims systems, and that this does not negate their entitlement to compensation. Flightright has thus sent an important signal: passenger rights must not be undermined by unclear or error-prone processes.
Flightrights court ruling on deadlines, limitation periods, and alternative transportation
2018 · European Court of Justice (ECJ) Case C-130/18 · Flightright v. Eurowings
Ruling: The “time limits” for exemption from compensation in the event of cancellation must be interpreted strictly
In this case, a flight was canceled at short notice. Eurowings refused to pay compensation on the grounds that alternative transportation had been offered. However, the alternative transportation provided by Eurowings only reached the destination airport two hours later than the originally scheduled flight. Flightright represented the affected passengers and argued: EU Regulation 261/2004 only effectively protects passengers if airlines cannot extend the legal exceptions. This is precisely why the time limits specified in Art. 5 (1) (c) (iii) must be applied strictly and unambiguously (departure no more than 1 hour earlier / arrival no more than 2 hours later).
The regulation provides for the following time limits: In the event of a flight cancellation, passengers are generally entitled to compensation. This does not apply if the airline provides information at least 14 days before departure. If the information is provided between 14 and 7 days before departure, there is no entitlement to compensation if alternative transportation is offered that departs no more than 2 hours earlier and reaches the destination no more than 4 hours later. If notification is given less than 7 days before departure, even stricter limits apply: departure no more than 1 hour earlier and arrival no more than 2 hours later.
The European Court of Justice clarified that:
the exceptions to the obligation to pay compensation must be interpreted narrowly,
compensation is only waived if the alternative transport offered fully complies with the specified time limits,
airlines cannot invoke “comparable” or “almost met” time limits if the legal limits are exceeded.
Significance for passengers
This ruling, which Flightright fought for, creates legal certainty: in the case of last-minute cancellations, it is not important whether a replacement flight is offered, but whether it complies exactly with the clear legal time limits. As soon as airlines exceed these limits, the right to compensation remains.
Court rulings won by Flightright for international bookings
2018 · European Court of Justice Case C-274/16 · Flightright v. Air Nostrum
Ruling: Lawsuit at the destination of the entire connection is admissible
The passengers concerned had a single flight booking with departure and stopovers in Spain and a final destination in Germany. The delayoccurred on a domestic Spanish flight operated by Air Nostrum. The issue in dispute was whether the passengers were entitled to sue in Germany, even though the delayed flight segment departed from elsewhere.
Flightright represented the travelers and argued that, in the case of a single booking, the destination must be decisive for jurisdiction.
The European Court of Justice ruled that:
all legs of a single booking are considered a single transport unit,
the destination of the entire connection is the decisive criterion for jurisdiction,
passengers are therefore entitled to take legal action in Germany, even if the delayed flight segment departed from abroad,
it is irrelevant that different airlines are involved or that the delay occurred on a different route segment.
Significance for passengers
This ruling makes it much easier to enforce the law in the case of international bookings. Those affected no longer have to take legal action abroad and can choose the place of jurisdiction at their destination. Especially in the case of complex travel connections involving several airlines, this decision ensures that passengers can assert their claims more easily, more quickly, and without additional hurdles. As a representative of air passenger rights, Flightright has thus created a landmark ruling that ensures more effective enforcement throughout Europe.
2023 · Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling X ZR 15/20 · Flightright v. American Airlines
Ruling: Compensation is also payable if the delay occurs on a partial flight outside the EU – provided that it was a single booking
This case concerned a travel chain consisting of several partial flights that were booked as a whole. The decisive question was whether the Air Passenger Rights Regulation also applies if the significant delay occurs on a partial flight outside the EU – even though the journey began in the EU.
Flightright argued that airlines should not be able to circumvent their responsibility by “splitting” a journey into individual segments. In the case of a single booking, the entire connection must be considered as a single transport unit – and therefore the protection of EU Regulation 261/2004 must apply.
The BGH clarified (based on ECJ case law) that:
multiple flights in a single booking are to be considered as a whole,
the Air Passenger Rights Regulation remains applicable if the journey begins in an EU member state,
a claim for compensation is not invalidated by the fact that the delay occurred on a non-European segment, as long as the entire journey falls within the scope of protection.
Significance for passengers
This ruling is particularly important for long-haul flights with transfers: for example, passengers who depart from Germany and later experience connection problems outside the EU do not lose their right to compensation. The decisive factors are the EU departure of the entire connection and the existence of a single booking. As a result, international connecting flights must not lead to “legal loopholes,” and passengers can assert their claims much more easily in such cases.
Flightrights court ruling on compensation amounts based on flight distance
2020 · European Court of Justice Case C-939/19 · Flightright v. Eurowings
Ruling: Compensation is calculated based on the total distance of the booking
The passengers had a single booking with several connecting flights. The delay only occurred on the last leg of the flight, but Eurowings wanted to calculate thecompensation based only on the short leg.
The European Court of Justice ruled that:
in the case of a single booking, the entire flight distance serves as the basis,
the section on which the delay occurred is irrelevant to the amount of compensation,
EU Regulation 261/2004 must be interpreted in a consumer-friendly manner and passengers must not be disadvantaged.
This means that higher compensation is regularly payable for long-haul flights – even if only a short section was delayed.
Significance for passengers
Passengers benefit from a much clearer and fairer calculation of compensation. Those who book a long journey will receive the full amount in the event of a significant delay, even if the delay only occurs on a short final leg of the flight. Flightright has thus obtained a crucial ruling that will strengthen connecting flights in the long term.
Flightright’s court rulings on flight cancellations and replacement transportation
2023 · Federal Court of Justice Case X ZR 123/22 · Flightright v. Iceland Air
Ruling: Airlines must offer replacement flights as quickly as possible
After a last-minute flight cancellation, Icelandair offered passengers replacement flights only after a delay of several days. Objectively, there were earlier alternatives available—both with other airlines and via other routes.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that:
Airlines must examine all realistic alternatives – including those offered by other airlines.
A delay of several days is only permissible if no earlier connection exists.
Passengers are entitled to compensation if the airline does not conduct sufficient research or provide sufficient information.
The obligation to provide alternative transportation must be interpreted in a consumer-friendly manner.
Significance for passengers
This ruling clarified that airlines are not allowed to offer only their own flights. They must actively search for the earliest possible onward travel – regardless of who operates the connection. Flightright has thus achieved that passengers are significantly better protected against excessive waiting times in the event of flight cancellations and that the airline must fulfill its duty to provide information and take action.
2024 · Federal Court of Justice Case X ZR 109/23 · Flightright v. easyJet
Ruling: Airlines must consider all reasonable alternative connections
After a flight cancellation, EasyJet offered passengers only replacement flights with its own airline – even though there were earlier connections with other airlines on the same day. The passengers opted for a train journey and demanded reimbursement of their costs. EasyJet refused, arguing that it had already offered “reasonable” alternatives. Flightright represented the passengers and argued that the airline must provide comprehensive information about all available options.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that:
Airlines must consider all realistic alternatives – including those offered by other airlines and modes of transport.
They must provide passengers with full information about the alternatives available.
The airline bears the burden of proof that it has fulfilled its duty to provide information.
In the event of inadequate information, both compensation payments and the costs of alternative transport must be reimbursed.
Significance for passengers
This ruling significantly strengthens the position of air travelers in situations of flight cancellations. Passengers are entitled to switch to the fastest possible alternatives—including rail or other airlines—and claim their costs if they have not been fully informed.
Flightright has thus consolidated an important consumer protection principle: alternative transportation does not mean “only with your own airline,” but “as early as possible.”
Flightright’s court rulings for package tours
2023 · Federal Court of Justice Case X ZR 91/22 · Flightright v. Iberia
Ruling: Reimbursement of the full ticket price for package tours, including return flights
The travelers had booked a package tour with several connecting flight segments, including outbound and return flights. The first leg of the flight was canceled, meaning that the entire trip could no longer take place. However, the airline Iberia only wanted to reimburse the canceled leg of the flight.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that:
Outbound and return flights on a package tour constitute a single transport service,
the cancellation of the first leg of the flight makes the entire trip impossible,
the airline must therefore refund the full ticket price – including the return flight,
it is irrelevant whether several airlines were involved in the operation.
Significance for passengers
The ruling protects long-haul and package travelers in particular from financial losses. If the first flight is canceled and the entire trip is therefore ruined, passengers will receive a full refund of the flight price. Flightright has thus sent a clear signal: in the case of connected travel services, airlines are liable for the entire booking – not just for individual segments.
2024 · Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Case X ZR 62/23 · Flightright v. Air Cairo
Ruling: The regular 3-year statute of limitations also applies to compensation claims for package tours
This case involved two travelers who had flown as part of a package tour. After a delay of more than three hours, they were entitled to compensation. However, the airline Air Cairo argued that different (shorter) rules could apply to package tours, meaning that the claim was already time-barred.
Flightright represented the passengers concerned and made it clear that air passenger rights should not depend on whether someone booked the flight individually or as part of a package tour. If different limitation rules were allowed for package tours, airlines could more easily undermine legitimate claims by allowing time to pass – a clear contradiction to the consumer protection concept of the regulation.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that:
claims for compensation under the Air Passenger Rights Regulation are generally subject to the standard limitation period of three years,
this applies regardless of whether the flight was part of a package tour,
and it is not permissible to disadvantage package tour travelers by applying different time limits.
Significance for passengers
This ruling, which was won by Flightright, is an important safeguard against “time-out tactics”: airlines cannot claim that different limitation periods apply to package tours. For those affected, this means greater legal certainty and more time to assert claims – and above all, equal rights for all, regardless of whether the flight was part of a package tour booking or booked individually.
2024 · European Court of Justice Case C-705/23 · Flightright v. Condor
Ruling: Airline also liable for errors made by tour operator
The passengers had booked a package tour. The tour operator incorrectly informed them that the original outbound flight had been canceled and rebooked them on a later flight. In reality, the original flight took place as scheduled – the airline Condor was not informed about the rebooking. When the passengers were not transported, Condor refused to pay compensation on the grounds that the error lay with the tour operator.
The European Court of Justice ruled that:
“denied boarding” occurs when passengers are unable to board their booked flight, even if the error was caused by a third party,
the airline remains liable to compensate passengers,
internal information problems between the tour operator and the airline must not be at the expense of the passengers,
the airline can subsequently seek recourse from the tour operator (Art. 13 Regulation 261/2004).
Significance for passengers
This ruling, which was won by Flightright, prevents passengers from being caught between different parties—tour operators, travel agencies, and airlines. They retain their right to compensation regardless of who caused the organizational error. Flightright has thus obtained a very consumer-friendly ruling: the obligation to transport passengers applies without restriction – information errors by third parties do not relieve the airline of its responsibility.
Flightright’s court ruling won for consumer protection
2022 · Court of Appeal in the UK – Flightright v. easyJet
Ruling: Airlines may not force passengers to use complicated online portals
EasyJet required passengers to submit their compensation claims exclusively via its own online portal. Those who did not do so or could not provide proof of using the portal were not to receive any compensation. Flightright represented the passengers affected and argued that technical hurdles should not be an obstacle for air travelers.
The UK Court of Appeal ruled that:
Airlines may offer digital reporting channels, but these must be easily accessible, reliable, and understandable.
passengers do not lose their rights if a system specified by the airline does not work,
Article 15 of EU Regulation 261/2004 prohibits any restriction of passenger rights through contractual terms and conditions.
Significance for passengers
This ruling protects air passengers from non-transparent or technically flawed portal solutions offered by airlines. Airlines may continue to refer passengers to their own portals, but if these are difficult to understand or do not work properly, passengers should not be disadvantaged as a result. Flightright has thus sent an important signal: passenger rights must not be undermined by unclear or error-prone processes.
