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 seven do the heavy lifting — quote them by name in a letter and an airline knows you are serious.
C-402/07 & C-432/07 · 2009 · passenger won
Sturgeon and others
The case that created the three-hour rule.
The Regulation’s text only spells out compensation for cancellations, not delays. In Sturgeon the Court held that a passenger delayed three hours or more at their final destination suffers the same loss as one whose flight was cancelled — so the same compensation is due. Every delay claim in Europe rests on this judgment. The 2026 reform left it untouched.
C-549/07 · 2008 · passenger won
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia
Technical faults are usually the airline’s problem, not an act of God.
Alitalia blamed a technical defect. The Court held that technical problems which come to light in the ordinary running of an airline are inherent in the job and are not extraordinary circumstances. It also set the two-limb test that governs every extraordinary-circumstances argument: the airline must prove the event was outside its normal activity and beyond its actual control, and that it could not have avoided the consequences with all reasonable measures.
C-257/14 · 2015 · passenger won
van der Lans v KLM
A part that simply fails is still the airline’s risk.
A spontaneous component failure, not flagged in maintenance, still did not count as extraordinary. Wear and breakdown are part of running an airline, so compensation remained payable. A useful counter when an airline calls a routine breakdown “unforeseeable.”
C-195/17 · 2018 · passenger won
Krüsemann v TUIfly
A wildcat strike by the airline’s own staff is not extraordinary.
When TUIfly staff called in sick en masse after a restructuring announcement — a “wildcat strike” — the Court held this flowed from the airline’s own management decisions and was part of its normal activity. Compensation was due. Recital 14 mentions strikes, but the Court treats a strike as a possible source of extraordinary circumstances, not an automatic shield.
C-315/15 · 2017 · clarified the defence
Pešková and Peška
A bird strike is extraordinary — but the airline still lost.
A bird strike counts as an extraordinary circumstance: it is external and outside the airline’s control. Yet the airline still lost, because a qualified technician had already cleared the aircraft and the airline’s decision to wait for a second inspection caused the delay. The lesson for passengers: even a genuinely extraordinary event only excuses the delay it actually caused, not extra delay the airline piled on afterwards.
C-501/17 · 2019 · clarified the defence
Germanwings v Pauels
A screw on the runway that wrecks a tyre is extraordinary.
A stray screw on the runway punctured a tyre. The Court held that keeping the runway clear is the airport’s job, not the airline’s, so the damage was external and extraordinary. A clear example of where the defence legitimately applies — worth knowing so you can tell a real one from a stretched one.
C-12/11 · 2013 · passenger won
McDonagh v Ryanair
Care has no price ceiling, even in a volcano.
During the 2010 Icelandic ash cloud a passenger was stranded for days. Ryanair argued its duty to provide meals and hotels should be capped. The Court disagreed: the duty of care under Article 9 has no financial limit and no time limit, even in truly exceptional events. Keep every receipt.
Questions
What is the Sturgeon ruling?
The 2009 Court of Justice judgment that extended compensation to long delays. It held that arriving three or more hours late causes the same harm as a cancellation, so the same fixed compensation is due.
Do UK courts still follow these EU cases?
Broadly yes. UK261 retained the substance of EU261, and CJEU judgments handed down before the end of 2020 remain influential in UK courts, which may depart from them only in limited circumstances.