Much of how EU261 works in practice comes not from the text of the regulation but from rulings of the Court of Justice. These are the key cases you can cite in a dispute with an airline.
Regulation 261/2004 explicitly provided compensation only for cancellation and denied boarding. The Court of Justice read it broadly: passengers arriving at their final destination three or more hours late are in a situation comparable to those whose flight was cancelled, and therefore have an equal right to payment. The three-hour threshold that underpins all current practice comes from this judgment.
The Court held that breakdowns inherent in the normal operation of an aircraft and detectable during routine maintenance are not extraordinary circumstances. Only a hidden manufacturing defect the carrier could not have known about may release it from liability — and the burden of proving that lies with the airline.
Technical problems arising unexpectedly, not attributable to poor maintenance and not detected during routine checks, still do not qualify as extraordinary circumstances. The Court reasons that breakdowns are inherent in air transport and the carrier, not the passenger, bears that risk.
The Court clarified that arrival time is neither touchdown nor arrival at the gate, but the moment at least one aircraft door opens and passengers are allowed to leave. The difference can be 15–30 minutes — often exactly what decides whether a flight crossed the three-hour threshold.
Where flights are booked under a single reservation, compensation depends on the delay at the final destination, not on the delay of an individual segment. Even a short delay on the first leg that causes a missed connection and hours of final delay gives a full entitlement.
A wildcat strike by the carrier’s own staff, triggered by a surprise restructuring announcement, was not recognised as an extraordinary circumstance. The Court held that disputes with one’s own workforce fall within a carrier’s ordinary management risk, and read the regulation so as to give passengers the highest level of protection.
A collision with a bird was recognised as an extraordinary circumstance releasing the carrier from compensation. But the Court added a significant limit: once an authorised expert has confirmed the aircraft airworthy, the carrier may not justify further delay by running a second inspection of its own accord.
These summaries are provided for understanding and do not replace legal advice. Full texts are available in the EUR-Lex database by case number.
File a claim in 3 minutesThe fee is deducted only from the compensation recovered. No payout — no fee.