The clock nobody tells you about
How long you have to claim
Regulation 261 sets no deadline for going to court, so each country’s own limitation period applies: six years in England, one in Poland and Belgium, and in Italy nobody can say for certain. Where the courts disagree, assume the shorter period.
Checked against its sources
A nine-month deadline arrives on 23 October 2027
Regulation (EU) 2026/2202, published in the Official Journal on 2 October 2026, adds a new Article 7(9): passengers must submit a request for compensation to the airline within nine months of the actual departure date on the ticket. The airline must then pay, or explain its refusal, within 30 days.
It applies from 23 October 2027, not before. It is a deadline for asking the airline, not for going to court, and the text does not say how it interacts with the national periods below; expect that to be argued. A flight taken today is governed by the national period alone. The habit worth forming now survives either way: write to the airline within weeks, not months. What else the reform changes →
| Country | Time limit | Legal basis | How settled |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 years (England, Wales, NI) · 5 years (Scotland) | Limitation Act 1980; Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 s.6; Dawson v Thomson Airways [2014] EWCA Civ 845 | Settled |
| Ireland | 6 years | Statute of Limitations 1957, s.11(1)(a) (contract) | Statute; no contrary ruling found |
| France | 5 years | Code civil art. 2224; Cass. 1re civ., 17 May 2017, no 16-13.352 | Settled |
| Spain | 5 years | Código Civil art. 1964.2 | Settled in practice (Moré came from Spain) |
| Greece | Often quoted as 5 years | Not found | Unconfirmed — treat as urgent |
| Germany | 3 years from 31 December of the flight year | BGB §195, §199(1) | Settled |
| Austria | 3 years (generally applied) | Not confirmed | Assume 3 years at most |
| Portugal | 3 years (usually quoted) | Linked to Código Civil art. 498; not confirmed for EU261 | Assume 3 years |
| Netherlands | 2 years (5 argued) | Art. 8:1835 BW, an expiry period: only proceedings stop it | Contested — assume 2 years |
| Poland | 1 year | Kodeks cywilny art. 778; Supreme Court, III CZP 111/16 (17 Mar 2017) | Settled by the Supreme Court |
| Belgium | 1 year (5 in narrow cases) | Law of 25 Aug 1891, art. 9(4); Cass. 11 June 2021, C.20.0185.N | Assume 1 year |
| Italy | Unsettled | Cass. ord. 4427/2024 ruled out Montreal’s 2 years; art. 418 cod. nav. (6 months) and art. 2951 c.c. (1 year) argued | Assume 6 months |
Which country’s period governs a claim is itself a legal question: it depends on where you sue, usually the country of departure or arrival or the airline’s home state, and on the law that governs the contract. Do not bank on the longer period. Plan on the shortest one that could apply.
Why national law decides
The Court of Justice settled it in Moré v KLM (C-139/11, 22 November 2012). KLM argued that the two-year limit in the Montreal Convention applied. The Court held that it does not: the time limit for claiming Article 7 compensation is “determined in accordance with the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions”. National courts have since fitted EU261 claims into their own systems, and they have not all landed in the same place.
Where the courts disagree
- Italy
- The Court of Cassation (ord. 4427, 20 February 2024) held that the two-year Montreal bar does not apply, without saying what does. Six months (art. 418 cod. nav.), one year (art. 2951 c.c.) and ten years (art. 2946 c.c.) have all been argued. The “26 months” some sites give appears in no statute or judgment we could find. Assume six months.
- Netherlands
- Most sources apply article 8:1835 BW, a two-year expiry period modelled on Montreal, which only proceedings can stop. Some commentators argue that after Moré the ordinary five-year period applies instead. We found no Supreme Court ruling. Assume two years.
- Belgium
- One year under the 1891 carriage law. The Court of Cassation (11 June 2021) allows five years where the airline’s wrongful refusal is an offence under the aviation law, which not every non-payment is. Assume one year.
- Poland
- The Supreme Court settled the civil claim at one year in 2017 (III CZP 111/16). The administrative courts treat complaints to the regulator as outside that limit, but that does not extend the time for suing. Assume one year.
- Greece, Austria, Portugal
- The figures in the table are the ones generally published. We could not tie them to a statute and a ruling, so treat them as the outer limit, not a promise.