EU261 case law
Much of what you can actually claim is not written in the regulation. It was decided afterwards by the Court of Justice of the European Union, whose rulings bind airlines in every member state. These are the judgments that decide most claims — and the official text of each, so you can check it yourself.
The regulation itself
Everything below interprets one law: Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, which establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers. It is short, and reading it is the fastest way to see what the airline is actually obliged to do.
Read the official text on EUR-Lex
EUR-Lex is the European Union's official law database. The link opens the authentic text, not our summary of it.
The judgments that decide claims
Ordered as a claim meets them: first what makes a delay claimable at all, then what an airline can raise against it.
| Case | What it decided | Official text |
|---|---|---|
| Sturgeon and Others C-402/07, C-432/07 · 2009 |
Passengers who reach their final destination three hours or more late are entitled to the same compensation as if the flight had been cancelled. This is the ruling the entire delay claim rests on. The regulation itself sets no compensation for delay — the three-hour rule comes from here. |
EUR-Lex |
| Nelson and Others C-581/10, C-629/10 · 2012 |
Confirmed the three-hour rule and held it compatible with the Montreal Convention. Airlines spent years arguing Sturgeon was wrongly decided. This closed that argument. |
EUR-Lex |
| Folkerts C-11/11 · 2013 |
Compensation is owed when the delay at the final destination reaches three hours — even if the first flight departed on time or only slightly late. This is the missed-connection ruling. What counts is when you arrived where your ticket said you were going, not how late any single leg was. |
EUR-Lex |
| Wallentin-Hermann C-549/07 · 2008 |
A technical problem is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance. Only events outside the airline's actual control and not inherent in normal operation qualify. "Technical fault" is the most common refusal letter there is, and on its own it is not a defence. |
EUR-Lex |
| van der Lans C-257/14 · 2015 |
A component failing early and unexpectedly is still not extraordinary, even where the airline maintained it properly. It closes the gap Wallentin-Hermann left: "but this one broke without warning" is not enough either. |
EUR-Lex |
| Krüsemann and Others C-195/17 · 2018 |
A wildcat strike by the airline's own staff, following a surprise restructuring announcement, is not an extraordinary circumstance. A strike by the airline's own people is part of running an airline. Air traffic control strikes are a different question. |
EUR-Lex |
| Pešková and Peška C-315/15 · 2017 |
A bird strike is extraordinary — but the airline must still prove it took all reasonable measures. Where a delay has both extraordinary and ordinary causes, only the extraordinary part may be deducted. Even a genuine extraordinary event does not excuse the whole delay. The airline has to account for the rest of it. |
EUR-Lex |
| Finnair C-22/11 · 2012 |
Denied boarding is not limited to overbooking, and a strike does not release the airline from compensating a passenger it refused to carry. It matters when an airline reshuffles passengers after a disruption and calls it something other than denied boarding. |
EUR-Lex |
This page is general information about published court rulings, not legal advice about your situation. Summaries are ours; the official text is on EUR-Lex.
See whether these rulings help your flight
Check your flight against the rules for free — it takes about a minute, and there is no fee unless you win.
Check my flightCase law FAQ
Do these rulings apply in my country?
Yes. Court of Justice judgments interpret EU law for every member state, so a national court and the airline are both bound by them. After Brexit the UK retains EU261 as UK261, and pre-2021 judgments continue to apply there.
Why is the 3-hour rule not in the regulation?
Because it is not written there. The regulation provides for care and, at five hours, a refund. The right to compensation for a long delay comes from the Sturgeon judgment, which reads the regulation as treating badly delayed passengers like cancelled ones.
The airline quoted a case at me. Should I give up?
Not on that basis alone. Airlines cite the rulings that favour them and rarely mention Pešková, which requires them to prove they took all reasonable measures and to account for the part of the delay that was ordinary. Check the official text before accepting a refusal.
Where can I read the judgments in full?
Every case above links to its official text on EUR-Lex, the EU's own law database. It is free and needs no account.