The judgments that decide claims
The cases that made the rules
The Regulation is short. Most of what it means was decided by the Court of Justice, one case at a time. These nine judgments do most of the work, and an airline knows you are serious when you cite them by name and number.
Checked against its sources
Sturgeon v Condor; Bock v Air France
C-402/07 and C-432/07 · 19 November 2009 · ECLI:EU:C:2009:716
The case that created the three-hour rule. The Regulation only provides compensation for cancellation and denied boarding. The Court held that passengers who reach their final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival suffer the same loss of time as cancelled passengers, so they can claim the same Article 7 compensation, unless the airline proves unavoidable extraordinary circumstances. It also held that a technical problem is not extraordinary unless it stems from events not inherent in the airline’s normal activity and beyond its actual control. Every delay claim rests on this judgment.
From 23 Oct 2027. Codified: compensation for an arrival delay exceeding three hours (new Art 6(4)).
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia
C-549/07 · 22 December 2008 · ECLI:EU:C:2008:771
Technical faults are usually the airline’s problem. Alitalia cancelled a flight over an engine defect. The Court held that a technical problem is not an extraordinary circumstance unless it stems from events that, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the airline’s activity and are beyond its actual control. How often an airline suffers technical problems proves nothing either way, and meeting the minimum maintenance rules does not by itself show it took “all reasonable measures”. This is the source of the two-limb test.
From 23 Oct 2027. Article 6c and the Annex list hidden manufacturing or design defects revealed by the manufacturer or a competent authority as extraordinary. Ordinary faults stay off the list.
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
van der Lans v KLM
C-257/14 · 17 September 2015 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:618
A part that simply fails is still the airline’s risk. Two components (the engine fuel pump and the hydromechanical unit) failed on a KLM aircraft in Guayaquil. The Court held that a technical problem which occurred unexpectedly, was not caused by poor maintenance and was not detected during routine checks is still not an extraordinary circumstance. A useful answer when an airline calls a routine breakdown “unforeseeable”.
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
Pešková and Peška v Travel Service
C-315/15 · 4 May 2017 · ECLI:EU:C:2017:342
A bird strike is extraordinary, but only for the delay it causes. The Court held that a collision with a bird is an extraordinary circumstance. But delay caused by the airline’s choice to have its own expert repeat safety checks that an authorised expert had already carried out is not. Where a delay has several causes, the time due to the extraordinary event is deducted, and compensation turns on whether what remains still reaches three hours. Whether this airline paid was left to the Czech court.
From 23 Oct 2027. Damage caused by animals or foreign objects is on the Annex list (point 3(i)).
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly
C-195/17 and others · 17 April 2018 · ECLI:EU:C:2018:258
A wildcat strike by the airline’s own staff is not extraordinary. After TUIfly announced a surprise restructuring, a large part of its flight crew went on sick leave, spontaneously and without any call from staff representatives. The Court held that this “wildcat strike” was not an extraordinary circumstance: it arose from the airline’s own decision and stayed within its control.
From 23 Oct 2027. Strikes at the airline itself count only where they “originate from demands that only public authorities can satisfy” (Annex point 3(h)).
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
Airhelp v SAS
C-28/20 · 23 March 2021 (Grand Chamber)
A lawful, union-called strike by the airline’s own pilots is not extraordinary either. SAS pilots in Denmark, Norway and Sweden struck lawfully, on notice, over their own terms of employment. The Court held that such a strike is not an extraordinary circumstance. It added that a strike originating from demands that only public authorities can satisfy may be one.
From 23 Oct 2027. That exception is now the Annex test for strikes at the airline (point 3(h)).
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
Germanwings v Pauels
C-501/17 · 4 April 2019 · ECLI:EU:C:2019:288
Debris on the runway that wrecks a tyre is extraordinary, but the airline must still act. A screw on the runway damaged a tyre. The Court held that damage caused solely by a foreign object on the runway is an extraordinary circumstance, since it is not intrinsically linked to the aircraft’s operating system. To avoid paying, though, the airline must prove it used all the staff, equipment and money at its disposal to stop the tyre change from causing a long delay.
From 23 Oct 2027. Foreign-object damage is on the Annex list (point 3(i)); the “all reasonable measures” burden stays with the airline (new Art 6c(2)).
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
McDonagh v Ryanair
C-12/11 · 31 January 2013 · ECLI:EU:C:2013:43
Care has no time or money limit, even in a volcanic ash cloud. Ms McDonagh’s Faro–Dublin flight was cancelled when Irish airspace closed in April 2010, and she could not fly home for a week. Ryanair gave her no care. The Court held that the ash cloud was an extraordinary circumstance, which removes compensation but not the duty of care, and that the Regulation sets no temporal or monetary limit on it. She could recover what was necessary, appropriate and reasonable. Keep every receipt.
From 23 Oct 2027. The airline may cap hotels at three nights where the disruption was extraordinary and unavoidable, but not for passengers with specific needs (new Art 9(6), Art 11(10)).
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
Germanwings v Henning
C-452/13 · 4 September 2014
Arrival means a door opens, not touchdown. The flight touched down 2 hours 58 minutes late, but the doors opened later. The Court held that arrival time, for measuring delay, is when at least one aircraft door opens, because that is when passengers can leave.
From 23 Oct 2027. Arrival becomes on-block time: the aircraft at its stand with parking brakes on (new Art 2).
Read the judgment on EUR-Lex →
The 2026 reform does not change how these cases apply to flights before 23 October 2027. What the reform changes →
Questions
What is the Sturgeon ruling?
The 2009 Court of Justice judgment (C-402/07 and C-432/07) that extended compensation to long delays. It held that arriving three hours or more late causes the same loss of time as a cancellation, so the same fixed compensation is due unless the airline proves unavoidable extraordinary circumstances.
Do UK courts still follow these EU cases?
Judgments given before the end of 2020 carried over into UK law and are now called assimilated EU case law. Only the higher appeal courts can depart from them. Later judgments, such as Airhelp v SAS (2021), do not bind UK courts.
Does the 2026 reform overturn these cases?
Not yet, and mostly not at all. Regulation (EU) 2026/2202 applies from 23 October 2027. It writes Sturgeon’s compensation into the text, adopts the strike test from Airhelp v SAS, caps hotels in some cases despite McDonagh, and changes the arrival-time rule from Germanwings v Henning.