Flight Delay Compensation After the EU261 Reform: What You Can Claim

Introduction

Flight delay compensation of €250, €400, or €600 remains available under European Union law following the adoption of the 2026 EU261 reform. Passengers whose flights arrive at their final destination at least three hours late may still qualify for compensation, provided their journey falls within the regulation's scope and the operating airline cannot establish a valid legal exemption. The European Union did not adopt the proposed four- and six-hour compensation thresholds that would have restricted the existing entitlement.

The distinction between the legislation's entry into force and its application is essential. Regulation (EU) 2026/2202, adopted on September 16, 2026, and published in the Official Journal on October 2, entered into force on October 22, 2026. Its substantive amendments generally become applicable on October 23, 2027. Until then, passengers continue to rely on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in its existing form, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Although the reform preserves the principal compensation amounts, it changes several conditions governing passenger rights. The revised rules define arrival time differently, establish procedures for submitting compensation requests, introduce requirements concerning refunds and alternative transport, and clarify the treatment of extraordinary circumstances. These changes may affect the outcome of individual claims even though the principal three-hour compensation framework remains intact.

International journeys raise a further question under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Convention establishes liability for damage caused by delay in international air carriage, whereas EU261 provides standardized compensation for specified disruptions. The two regimes may operate alongside each other, but their scope, legal conditions, remedies, and procedural requirements differ.

1. What the EU261 Reform Changed and Preserved

Regulation 261/2004 originally established passenger rights concerning denied boarding, cancellations, and long delays. Its provisions included fixed compensation for certain disruptions and separate obligations to provide reimbursement, rerouting, and assistance. The Court of Justice subsequently interpreted the regulation to extend fixed compensation to passengers experiencing substantial arrival delays, creating a protection that was not expressly stated in the original Article 6.

The 2026 reform retains the central compensation structure while incorporating aspects of that judicial interpretation into legislation. It also revises the legal definitions used to calculate delays and establishes more detailed procedures for exercising passenger rights. These amendments affect both airlines' obligations and the circumstances in which passengers can enforce their entitlements.

The legislative outcome reflects a compromise between protecting passengers and addressing the operational consequences of disruptions for air carriers. The final regulation does not reproduce every proposal advanced during negotiations. Distinguishing those proposals from the enacted text is necessary because the abandoned compensation thresholds continue to appear in accounts of the reform.

1.1 Why the Four- and Six-Hour Proposals Were Rejected

On June 5, 2025, the Council of the European Union announced a negotiating position that proposed significant changes to fixed compensation. The Council supported a €300 payment for qualifying journeys of up to 3,500 kilometers delayed by at least four hours, and €500 for longer journeys delayed by at least six hours. This would have restricted the circumstances in which passengers could obtain compensation compared with the established three-hour rule.

The European Parliament opposed raising the thresholds. In its second-reading position of January 21, 2026, Parliament insisted on maintaining compensation after three-hour arrival delays and preserving the existing €250, €400, and €600 categories. The disagreement concerned the substantive extent of passenger protection rather than merely the administrative arrangements for processing claims.

A compromise was reached through the legislative conciliation procedure on June 15, 2026. Parliament approved the agreement on July 7, followed by Council approval on July 13. The resulting Regulation 2026/2202 was signed on September 16 and published on October 2.

The adopted Article 7 preserves the three principal compensation amounts. Revised Article 6(4) expressly recognizes entitlement to compensation for qualifying arrival delays exceeding three hours. The earlier four- and six-hour proposals did not become binding law. Reports presenting those thresholds as the final outcome describe a superseded legislative position.

1.2 The Application Date of the Revised Rules

Article 3 of Regulation 2026/2202 establishes two different dates. The regulation entered into force on October 22, 2026, twenty days after publication. Its provisions generally apply from October 23, 2027. Entry into force establishes the regulation as an adopted legal instrument, while the later application date determines when its substantive amendments become operative.

A passenger whose flight is delayed in November 2026 remains subject to the existing EU261 provisions and relevant CJEU jurisprudence. The new nine-month compensation-request deadline, revised arrival-time definition, and amended procedural obligations do not yet govern that disruption. Existing national procedural rules remain relevant where EU law has not established a uniform requirement.

The delayed application affects several parts of the regulation. It concerns compensation, reimbursement, passenger care, and other rights introduced or amended by the legislation. The reform also updates rules concerning air carrier liability, baggage, ticketing practices, and information obligations, although those subjects are governed by provisions distinct from the central flight-compensation rules.

The distinction requires care where a ticket was purchased before October 2027 for travel after the application date. The amended regulation specifies when its provisions become applicable but does not expressly resolve every possible contractual or transitional dispute involving earlier bookings. The legal treatment must be determined from the applicable provisions and circumstances rather than assuming that the ticket's purchase date controls every question.

2. Flight Delay Compensation: Who Can Claim €250–€600?

Fixed compensation under EU261 is designed to address specified travel disruptions without requiring passengers to calculate the monetary value of the time they have lost. The amounts are determined by the relevant journey category, principally its distance. They do not depend on the passenger's income, the ticket price, or whether the journey was undertaken for business or leisure.

For long delays under the existing framework, entitlement generally arises when a passenger reaches the final destination at least three hours after the originally scheduled arrival time. The journey must fall within the regulation's scope, and the applicable eligibility conditions must be satisfied. An airline may avoid fixed compensation where it establishes the legal requirements of the extraordinary-circumstances defense.

This entitlement is distinct from the right to assistance during disruption. A passenger delayed at departure may qualify for meals, refreshments, or accommodation before meeting the arrival-delay threshold for compensation. Conversely, an airline's provision of refreshments does not extinguish an otherwise valid compensation claim.

2.1 The €250, €400, and €600 Compensation Categories

Article 7(1) of Regulation 261/2004 establishes three compensation amounts. Passengers receive €250 for qualifying journeys of 1,500 kilometers or less. The €400 category covers intra-EU journeys exceeding 1,500 kilometers and other journeys between 1,500 and 3,500 kilometers. Journeys outside those categories fall within the €600 category.

The compensation amount is not calculated according to the fare paid. A passenger traveling on a discounted ticket may receive the same fixed compensation as another passenger on the same qualifying journey who purchased a more expensive fare. Distance is calculated using the great-circle method, which measures the relevant geographical separation rather than the length of the route actually flown.

Connecting journeys require attention to the contractual itinerary. Under the applicable rules, the relevant distance is not necessarily obtained by adding together the distances of every separate flight segment. The final destination, the booking arrangement, and the legal treatment of the journey determine which compensation category applies.

A possible reduction concerns the €600 category. In Sturgeon and Others, Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, the Court of Justice held that compensation for an eligible long-haul delay could be reduced by 50% where the delay was less than four hours. The resulting payment may be €300 rather than €600.

The revised Article 7(2) expressly permits a 50% reduction in the €600 category where the arrival delay does not exceed four hours and the specified conditions concerning delay or rerouting are satisfied. Unlike the existing Sturgeon formulation, the amended provision includes a delay of exactly four hours within the potential reduction. The difference is relevant at the precise boundary.

This €300 payment must not be confused with the rejected Council proposal. It remains a conditional reduction of the €600 category, not a separate standard compensation band applicable to every flight delayed by four hours.

2.2 The Legal Basis of the Three-Hour Rule

The three-hour compensation entitlement originated in judicial interpretation. In Sturgeon and Others, decided on November 19, 2009, the Court of Justice considered whether passengers experiencing prolonged flight delays should receive fixed compensation comparable to that available when flights were cancelled.

The Court reasoned that passengers whose arrival was substantially delayed suffered a loss of time comparable to that experienced by passengers whose flights were cancelled and rerouted. Treating those passengers differently solely because their original flight ultimately operated would undermine the regulation's equal-treatment objective. It recognized fixed compensation where passengers reached their final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time.

The judgment extended the practical reach of Article 7 beyond the circumstances expressly described in the original compensation provisions. The interpretation was confirmed in Nelson and Others, Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10, decided on October 23, 2012. The Court maintained that the long-delay compensation entitlement was consistent with the regulation's objectives and the international liability framework established by the Montreal Convention.

The 2026 legislature has now incorporated an express arrival-delay compensation right into Article 6(4). Its wording refers to a delay exceeding three hours. Although this preserves the main compensation framework, the textual difference from the existing judicial formulation raises a question concerning a delay of exactly 180 minutes.

3. How the Three-Hour Delay Is Calculated

Departure delay and arrival delay are legally distinct. An aircraft may leave its departure airport four hours late but recover enough time during the journey to reach its destination less than three hours behind schedule. Under the existing compensation jurisprudence, the departure delay alone would not establish entitlement to fixed compensation for a long arrival delay.

The opposite situation can occur with connecting flights. A relatively short delay on the first flight may cause a missed connection and an arrival several hours behind schedule. The relevant legal measurement concerns the final destination, subject to the conditions governing the passenger's contractual journey.

The reform changes the legal definition of the time at which an aircraft arrives. Under existing CJEU jurisprudence, arrival is generally associated with passengers being permitted to leave the aircraft. The revised regulation instead uses the aircraft's arrival at its designated stand and the engagement of its parking brakes.

3.1 The Existing Rule: When Aircraft Doors Open

In Germanwings GmbH v Henning, Case C-452/13, decided on September 4, 2014, the Court of Justice addressed the moment at which a flight should be considered to have arrived. The available possibilities included touchdown, arrival at the aircraft's parking position, and the opening of its doors.

The Court held that actual arrival occurs when at least one aircraft door opens and passengers are permitted to leave. Its reasoning concerned the restrictions passengers continue to experience while confined aboard an aircraft. Landing does not necessarily restore their ability to resume ordinary activities, particularly where the aircraft remains parked with its doors closed.

Consider a flight scheduled to arrive at 18:00. If it touches down at 20:55 but passengers are first permitted to disembark at 21:05, the legally relevant arrival delay under Germanwings is three hours and five minutes. The passenger may consequently satisfy the existing three-hour threshold, assuming the other conditions for compensation are met.

The judgment also requires a distinction between a door being opened and passengers being permitted to disembark. A technical opening that does not permit passengers to leave would not necessarily establish the relevant arrival moment. The Court's interpretation focuses on the termination of the restrictions associated with remaining aboard the aircraft.

3.2 The Revised Rule: Arrival at the Aircraft Stand

Regulation 2026/2202 introduces a statutory definition of arrival time in amended Article 2(x). Under that provision, arrival occurs when the aircraft reaches the arrival stand and its parking brakes are engaged. The definition uses on-block time, an operational measure corresponding to the aircraft's arrival at its parking position.

This differs from the rule established in Germanwings. An aircraft may reach its stand before passengers can leave because a boarding bridge is unavailable, ground personnel have not arrived, or disembarkation has been delayed. Under the revised definition, those additional minutes do not ordinarily increase the arrival delay in the same way as under the existing door-opening approach.

An aircraft scheduled to arrive at 18:00 might reach its stand and engage its parking brakes at 20:58, while its doors remain closed until 21:06. The existing judicial approach would calculate the delay as three hours and six minutes. Under the amended on-block definition, the calculation would instead produce two hours and fifty-eight minutes, potentially placing the journey below the compensation threshold.

The revised legislation also establishes specific rules for calculating delay after rescheduling. Amended Article 2(o) generally uses the scheduled arrival time recorded when the ticket was originally issued, but provides exceptions for flights rescheduled at least fourteen days before the relevant departure date and for specified earlier rescheduling. In those circumstances, the rescheduled arrival time may become the relevant reference point.

Rerouting is addressed separately. The amended definition generally measures the arrival delay of a rerouting flight against the schedule issued for that flight, while Article 6b establishes a specific reference point for missed connections under a single air transport contract. The correct calculation consequently depends on whether the passenger experienced an ordinary delay, rescheduling, or rerouting following disruption.

3.3 Does a Delay of Exactly Three Hours Qualify?

Under the existing jurisprudence, the Court of Justice describes the threshold as three hours or more. A passenger arriving exactly 180 minutes late can satisfy that temporal requirement where the arrival time is calculated according to the applicable judicial interpretation.

The revised Article 6(4) uses the expression exceeding three hours. In ordinary legal usage, a delay exceeding three hours is longer than precisely 180 minutes. The provision consequently differs in wording from the existing judgments, even though the reform's general objective was to preserve the three-hour compensation framework.

The interpretation of the new wording must account for the amended regulation's scheme and purpose. No judicial determination applying Article 6(4) to a post-October 2027 dispute involving a delay of exactly 180 minutes has yet resolved the question. Its eventual interpretation cannot be assumed from the judgments applying the earlier legislative text.

The new arrival definition may make this distinction especially significant for borderline claims. Both the reference time and the legally relevant arrival event must be identified before calculating the delay. A few minutes can determine whether the statutory threshold is crossed.

4. Which Flights Are Covered by EU261?

EU261 does not apply to every flight involving European passengers or airlines. Its territorial scope depends principally on the airport of departure and, for certain flights arriving from outside the European Union, the status of the operating carrier. Passenger nationality does not independently determine whether the regulation applies.

The operating carrier is the airline responsible for performing the flight. This distinction becomes relevant when tickets are marketed through codeshare arrangements or sold by an intermediary. The airline named on a booking confirmation may not be the carrier legally responsible for compensation under EU261.

Eligibility also depends on the passenger satisfying the regulation's conditions concerning reservations, tickets, and travel arrangements. The 2026 reform changes some of these requirements, making it necessary to distinguish the existing rules from those applicable from October 2027.

4.1 EU Departures and Flights Arriving from Abroad

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation 261/2004 generally covers passengers departing from airports situated within the territory of an EU Member State to which the Treaties apply. The operating carrier need not be established in the European Union. A passenger departing from Paris for New York may consequently qualify for EU261 compensation even when traveling with an American airline.

Flights arriving in the European Union from third countries are subject to an additional carrier requirement. Under Article 3(1)(b), the existing regulation generally applies where the flight is operated by a Community carrier, subject to the provision concerning benefits, compensation, and assistance already received in the third country. The revised Article 3(1)(b) uses the term Union air carrier and specifies the relevance of equivalent benefits corresponding to the regulation's purpose.

The European Economic Area and Switzerland require consideration of the legal arrangements extending EU passenger-rights rules beyond EU Member States. Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland are not EU members, although relevant aviation agreements extend the passenger-rights regime to them under their applicable conditions.

The United Kingdom operates a separate passenger-rights system derived from EU261 following Brexit. That domestic legislation retains important compensation protections, but subsequent EU amendments do not automatically become part of UK law. A journey involving the United Kingdom must be assessed according to the applicable territorial and domestic provisions.

Under the existing Article 3(2), passengers generally need a confirmed reservation and must present themselves for check-in at the time specified in advance by the airline or its authorized representative. Where no time is indicated, the default requirement is check-in at least 45 minutes before the published departure time. The regulation provides an exception to the check-in requirement for cancellations and separately covers passengers transferred to another flight under the prescribed conditions.

The revised Article 3(2) instead makes possession of a ticket for the relevant flight, or qualifying transfer from another flight, the principal eligibility condition. Amended Article 4 separately regulates presentation for boarding in denied-boarding cases. The distinction means that check-in requirements under the existing system should not be presented as an unchanged general condition of the revised Article 3.

Both versions also restrict protection for passengers traveling free of charge or at reduced fares unavailable to the public, while preserving coverage for qualifying frequent-flyer and commercial-program tickets. The amended provision contains further specified exceptions. Eligibility must consequently be established from the applicable legislative conditions, rather than inferred solely from possession of a boarding pass.

4.2 Missed Connections and the Final Destination

Connecting flights create compensation questions that cannot be resolved by examining the initial departure delay alone. A passenger may experience a delay of less than an hour on the first leg but miss a connecting service and reach the final destination several hours late. Under the relevant CJEU jurisprudence, the resulting loss of time may qualify for fixed compensation.

In Air France v Folkerts, Case C-11/11, decided on February 26, 2013, the Court held that compensation for a long arrival delay does not depend on the preceding flight having exceeded the departure-delay thresholds established by Article 6. The legally significant delay is assessed at the final destination.

The contractual structure of the itinerary remains important. Connecting flights covered by a single reservation may be treated as one journey for relevant compensation purposes. Independently purchased tickets do not automatically receive equivalent treatment simply because the passenger intended to use the first service to reach the second.

The revised Article 6b expressly addresses missed connections under a single air transport contract. Where a disruption affecting a preceding flight causes the passenger to miss a connection, the operating carrier of that preceding flight assumes specified rerouting and assistance obligations. Compensation may also be payable where the passenger reaches the final destination more than three hours late, subject to the regulation's conditions.

Article 6b establishes a further protection where the airline cannot arrange rerouting within five hours of the departure time indicated on the ticket for the missed connection. In that situation, the carrier must also offer reimbursement under Article 8.

The revised provision specifies the relevant arrival-time reference for missed connections, using the scheduled arrival at the final destination recorded before the connection was missed. This avoids treating the later schedule of a replacement service as automatically eliminating the loss of time caused by the original disruption.

5. Extraordinary Circumstances and Compensation Exemptions

An arrival delay exceeding three hours does not automatically establish an airline's obligation to pay fixed compensation. Article 5(3) of the existing regulation provides an exemption where extraordinary circumstances caused the disruption and the carrier proves that it could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The Court of Justice has developed two principal elements of the extraordinary-circumstances assessment. The event must, by its nature or origin, fall outside the normal exercise of the carrier's activity and beyond its actual control. The carrier must also establish that the disruption could not reasonably have been avoided through appropriate measures.

A further question concerns causation. Even where an extraordinary event occurs, the airline must demonstrate its relationship with the particular cancellation or delay. The mere presence of adverse weather, air traffic restrictions, or industrial action somewhere in an airline's operations does not automatically justify refusal of every compensation claim affected during that period.

5.1 Technical Problems, Strikes, and Weather Disruptions

Technical failures present particular difficulties because aircraft maintenance is both essential to safety and inherent in airline operations. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia, Case C-549/07, decided in 2008, the Court explained that technical problems do not automatically qualify as extraordinary circumstances. Their classification depends on their nature, origin, and relationship with the carrier's normal activities.

In Van der Lans v KLM, Case C-257/14, decided in 2015, the Court held that an unexpected technical problem arising during ordinary aircraft operations was not necessarily extraordinary merely because it was unforeseen. Routine operational responsibility includes addressing technical difficulties that may arise despite preventive maintenance.

Strikes are assessed according to the particular circumstances. In Airhelp v SAS, Case C-28/20, decided on March 23, 2021, the Court held that a strike organized by an airline's own employees in pursuit of employment demands did not constitute extraordinary circumstances under the facts considered. The classification differs where industrial action involves independent airport services and satisfies the applicable legal requirements.

A separate example concerns compensation following the Brussels Airport strike of October 2026. Industrial action affecting ground-handling services raises questions about the airline's control over the service provider, the direct cause of the disruption, and the alternative arrangements reasonably available. The fact that a strike occurs outside the airline's workforce does not independently establish every element of the defense.

Severe weather can qualify where conditions are incompatible with safe flight operations. The assessment must distinguish exceptional meteorological circumstances from ordinary weather-related operational difficulties. A carrier relying on a storm, airport closure, or similar event must establish its effect on the particular service and the measures reasonably available to reduce the disruption.

The distinction between an official airspace restriction and an operational risk assessment can also be important. International aviation law recognizes state authority over national airspace, but a warning or recommendation issued in response to security risks is not necessarily equivalent to a legally binding closure. The legal treatment of aviation restrictions following threats to civilian airports illustrates why the source and legal effect of a restriction must be identified before its consequences are assessed.

5.2 Air Traffic Control and the October 2026 Judgment

Air traffic management decisions can delay aircraft by restricting departure slots, closing portions of airspace, or regulating airport capacity. Such decisions often originate outside the operating airline. Their external origin, however, does not automatically establish that every resulting delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances.

On October 8, 2026, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in D (Air traffic management decision), Case C-108/26 RX. The proceedings concerned a flight from Izmir to Warsaw that arrived more than three hours late. An earlier flight operated by the same aircraft had experienced restrictions associated with adverse weather affecting Hungarian and Romanian airspace, while a technical problem was subsequently discovered.

The legal question concerned whether an air traffic management decision could itself be treated as extraordinary regardless of the event prompting the decision. The General Court had adopted an interpretation emphasizing the external nature of air traffic management decisions. The Court of Justice considered that approach incompatible with the established interpretation of Article 5(3).

The Court held that an air traffic management decision does not automatically constitute extraordinary circumstances. Airlines regularly encounter such decisions during ordinary operations. The assessment must identify the event that caused the decision and determine whether that underlying event was outside normal airline activity and beyond the carrier's actual control.

The judgment arose through an exceptional review of the General Court's decision in Case T-134/25. The Court of Justice set aside the relevant interpretation because it adversely affected the unity and consistency of EU law. Its holding concerns the legal classification of air traffic management decisions, not an automatic determination that every delay involving such a decision generates compensation.

Aviation-security incidents may also cause externally imposed operational restrictions. False bomb warnings, for example, can trigger diversions, aircraft searches, and airport disruption. The international legal treatment of flight bomb threats concerns a distinct aviation-security regime, including the 1971 Montreal Convention. Whether such an incident excuses compensation under EU261 requires a separate assessment of extraordinary circumstances, causation, and reasonable measures.

5.3 The New Article 6c and the Airline's Burden of Proof

Regulation 2026/2202 introduces Article 6c, expressly addressing extraordinary circumstances. The amended regulation includes a non-exhaustive annex identifying events that may fall within the extraordinary-circumstances framework. These include specified natural disasters, meteorological conditions, airspace restrictions, technical defects of particular origin, and industrial action affecting certain external services.

The annex does not eliminate the need to establish the relationship between the event and the disruption. Article 6c(2) requires a direct causal link and provides that the operating carrier must demonstrate that the cancellation, delay, or missed connection could not have been avoided despite all reasonable measures.

The revised provision places the evidentiary burden on the operating carrier. It must establish both the direct causal connection and the reasonable measures taken. A general statement that a flight was affected by weather, technical difficulties, or air traffic control is insufficient without the factual explanation required by the applicable conditions.

The reform also strengthens the obligation to explain compensation refusals. Revised Article 7(9) requires the airline to identify the extraordinary circumstance invoked and provide a clear, substantiated explanation addressing the relevant requirements. Where the event does not appear in the annex, the carrier must explain why it should nevertheless be classified as extraordinary.

An exemption from fixed compensation does not necessarily remove the airline's other obligations. Passengers may remain entitled to reimbursement, rerouting, meals, accommodation, and assistance under the relevant provisions. These rights must be evaluated separately from the circumstances permitting an airline to refuse compensation for lost time.

6. Cancellations, Refunds, and Assistance After the Reform

Fixed compensation is only one remedy available to passengers following flight disruption. Cancellation, lengthy departure delays, and missed connections may give rise to separate rights involving reimbursement, alternative transportation, or immediate assistance. These rights respond to different consequences of disruption and are governed by distinct legal conditions.

Reimbursement concerns the return of money paid for transportation that the passenger will not use under the applicable statutory circumstances. Rerouting concerns the continuation of the intended journey. Assistance provides practical support during waiting periods, including refreshments, accommodation, and communication facilities.

The revised legislation makes several of these obligations more specific. It establishes procedures for refunds, regulates independently arranged alternative transport, and introduces detailed provisions concerning vouchers and onboard delays. Their significance must be assessed without treating every disruption as creating an identical set of remedies.

6.1 Cancellation Compensation and the 14-Day Rule

Under the existing Article 5, passengers whose flights are cancelled may qualify for fixed compensation unless one of the specified exceptions applies. The airline may avoid compensation where passengers receive sufficient advance notification or where qualifying rerouting arrangements satisfy the relevant statutory conditions. Extraordinary circumstances provide a separate possible defense.

Notification at least fourteen days before scheduled departure generally excludes fixed cancellation compensation. Where passengers are informed between seven and fourteen days before departure, compensation may be excluded if rerouting permits departure no more than two hours before the original schedule and arrival less than four hours after the planned arrival time.

Where notice is given less than seven days before departure, the existing conditions are stricter. The alternative journey must permit departure no more than one hour before the originally scheduled time and arrival less than two hours afterward. Whether these exceptions apply depends on the timing of notification and the alternative transport offered.

Revised Article 5 changes the cancellation-compensation arrangements. Where passengers are informed less than fourteen calendar days before departure, compensation may be excluded if the carrier offers rerouting that permits departure no more than one hour earlier and arrival less than two hours after the original scheduled arrival time. The airline bears the burden of establishing whether and when passengers were informed of cancellation.

The amended definition of cancellation also expressly includes a flight brought forward by more than one hour. The classification is significant because a substantially earlier departure may interfere with the passenger's journey even where the aircraft ultimately operates.

Revised Article 7(3) establishes separate compensation reductions when rerouting after cancellation is scheduled to depart substantially earlier than the original service. Where departure is brought forward by more than one hour but less than two hours, the operating carrier may reduce the otherwise applicable cancellation compensation by 50%, provided the passenger takes the rerouted flight.

Where the rerouted departure is brought forward by at least two hours but less than three hours, the provision permits a 25% reduction under the corresponding conditions. These reductions concern earlier departure after cancellation and are distinct from the 50% reduction applicable to certain long-haul arrival delays under Article 7(2). They do not constitute a general power to reduce compensation whenever rerouting is offered.

A separate exception concerns diversion to an alternative airport. Revised Article 5(6) addresses flights that take off but land at an airport other than the destination specified on the ticket. Where both airports serve the same town, city, or region, the carrier may be exempt from the reimbursement, rerouting, and cancellation-compensation rights specified in the provision if it provides transport to the ticketed airport and the passenger reaches that airport no more than three hours late.

The carrier bears the burden of establishing the relevant arrival time at the originally intended airport. The exception is subject to additional safeguards for passengers with specified needs and accompanying persons who cannot use the alternative transport because of safety requirements, physical impossibility, or unavailable assistance. The carrier must make reasonable efforts to enable their access to suitable transport.

This exception does not establish that every diversion is legally equivalent to an ordinary arrival. Its application depends on the geographical relationship between the airports, the transport actually provided, the resulting arrival delay, and the statutory protections for passengers with additional needs.

6.2 Ticket Refunds and the Right to Alternative Transport

The existing regulation provides reimbursement rights in specified circumstances, including cancellations and departure delays reaching five hours. Article 8 allows passengers to choose among reimbursement and the applicable rerouting options. Reimbursement may cover unused parts of a journey and, where the journey no longer serves its original purpose, qualifying portions already completed.

The revised Article 8 expressly preserves the passenger's choice between reimbursement and continuation of the journey through rerouting. It also recognizes rerouting at a later date convenient to the passenger, subject to seat availability. Where reimbursement is selected, the amended provision generally requires automatic payment within seven calendar days, including applicable intermediation fees.

The regulation permits extension of that deadline to thirty calendar days where the airport managing body activates the specified contingency arrangements. Such an extension is conditional rather than a general right for airlines to delay refunds.

A significant change concerns self-arranged alternative transportation. Under revised Article 8(3), passengers who have indicated their intention to continue the journey may arrange their own rerouting if the carrier fails to offer comparable transport within the prescribed three-hour period. The passenger must inform the airline of the decision and comply with the statutory requirements.

Reimbursable expenses must be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate. The amended provision establishes a ceiling of 400% of the full original ticket price, including applicable intermediation fees. It also generally requires payment within fourteen calendar days of the reimbursement request, subject to the stated contingency-plan exception.

The ceiling does not grant unconditional permission to purchase a replacement ticket costing four times the original fare. Reimbursement depends on the airline's failure to offer suitable rerouting, the required communication by the passenger, and the nature and amount of the resulting expenses.

The revised Article 8a introduces additional protections concerning vouchers. An airline may offer a voucher instead of monetary compensation or reimbursement, but acceptance requires the passenger's explicit consent on a durable medium. The passenger cannot be compelled to accept travel credit in place of payment.

Vouchers ordinarily have a maximum validity period of twelve months, with one possible extension of up to twelve additional months by explicit agreement. The airline must automatically reimburse any unused balance after the voucher expires, generally within seven calendar days. These provisions distinguish voluntary acceptance of travel credit from the statutory right to monetary payment.

Package travel requires separate treatment. The revised Article 12 provides that passengers whose flights form part of package travel contracts do not have a right to reimbursement under EU261 insofar as a corresponding reimbursement right arises under Directive (EU) 2015/2302. The provision preserves the relationship between the two legal regimes while preventing overlapping recovery of the same reimbursement.

That restriction should not be confused with a general exclusion of package travelers from EU261 compensation. Depending on the circumstances, package travelers may retain a separate fixed-compensation claim even where reimbursement must be pursued under package travel legislation.

6.3 Hotel Accommodation and Assistance During Delays

Article 9 of the existing regulation requires airlines to provide care during qualifying disruptions. Depending on the duration and circumstances, that includes meals, refreshments, communication facilities, accommodation, and transport between the airport and the accommodation.

The obligation to provide assistance is separate from fixed compensation. In McDonagh v Ryanair, Case C-12/11, decided in 2013, the Court of Justice held that extraordinary circumstances do not automatically release airlines from their duty to provide care. The proceedings arose from the widespread disruption caused by the 2010 volcanic ash crisis.

The revised Article 9 specifies refreshments every two hours of waiting time and meals after three hours, followed by meals at specified intervals, subject to a maximum of three per day. It also provides for internet access and two telephone calls. These entitlements are subject to the provision's qualifications, including circumstances in which supplying assistance would further delay departure or rerouting.

Accommodation remains required where an overnight stay becomes necessary under the applicable conditions. Airlines must also provide transport between the airport and the accommodation. Where the required assistance is not supplied, the revised provisions permit reimbursement of necessary, reasonable, and proportionate expenses incurred by passengers.

One significant restriction concerns prolonged disruption caused by extraordinary circumstances. Revised Article 9(6) permits an airline to limit hotel accommodation to three nights where the prescribed conditions are satisfied. The restriction does not create a universal three-night limit for every cancellation or delay.

Article 11(10) excludes specified passengers with additional needs, and qualifying accompanying persons or recognized assistance dogs, from that limitation. Protected categories include persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, qualifying pregnant passengers, infants, unaccompanied minors, and persons requiring specified medical assistance. The relevant notification and eligibility conditions remain applicable.

The reform also introduces Article 6a concerning tarmac delays. During qualifying periods when passengers remain aboard an aircraft on the ground, airlines must provide specified information and assistance, including adequate cabin conditions and access to toilets, subject to safety and security constraints.

Where a tarmac delay reaches two hours at a covered EU airport, the aircraft must generally proceed to a gate or suitable point where passengers can disembark. The regulation permits continued confinement beyond that period only for the specified safety, immigration, air traffic control, or security reasons. These protections operate separately from fixed compensation for delayed arrival.

7. EU261 and the 1999 Montreal Convention

International flight delays may engage both EU passenger-rights legislation and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, adopted in Montreal on May 28, 1999. The Convention entered into force on November 4, 2003, and establishes an international liability framework covering specified passenger, baggage, and cargo claims.

The Convention's scope is not identical to EU261. Article 1 defines international carriage according to the agreed places of departure and destination, the relevant treaty relationships, and specified arrangements involving agreed stopping places abroad. A journey involving two countries does not automatically establish every condition for the Convention's application.

The two regimes also provide different remedies. EU261 establishes fixed compensation for qualifying disruptions without requiring an individual calculation of financial loss. The Montreal Convention governs liability for legally recoverable damage, subject to its own conditions, defenses, jurisdictional rules, and liability limits.

7.1 Article 19: Liability for Damage Caused by Delay

Article 19 of the Montreal Convention establishes liability for damage caused by delay in the carriage of passengers, baggage, or cargo. It does not provide an automatic payment whenever an international flight arrives late. The claimant must establish legally compensable damage and the necessary causal relationship with the delay.

A passenger may incur additional accommodation expenses, lose prepaid services, or experience other financial consequences following delayed international travel. Whether those losses are recoverable depends on the Convention's requirements and the applicable legal assessment. Evidence of expenditure, causation, and the nature of the claimed damage is central to the claim.

Article 19 provides a defense where the carrier proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures reasonably required to avoid the damage or that taking such measures was impossible. This differs from the extraordinary-circumstances defense under EU261. The two provisions address different forms of liability and should not be treated as interchangeable.

Article 22(1) establishes a limit on liability for damage caused by delay in the carriage of persons. Following the periodic review under Article 24, the limit increased to 6,303 Special Drawing Rights per passenger on December 28, 2024.

Special Drawing Rights are international reserve assets defined by the International Monetary Fund, with a value determined by a currency basket. Their monetary equivalent varies over time. The 6,303 SDR figure is a liability limit, not an automatic amount payable to each passenger experiencing delay.

Article 22(5) provides an exception to specified liability limits where the required intentional or reckless conduct, accompanied by knowledge that damage would probably result, is established. The exception does not eliminate the claimant's obligation to establish compensable damage under the applicable provisions.

7.2 Article 29 and the Exclusivity of Convention Remedies

Article 29 of the Montreal Convention governs the legal basis of actions for damages within its scope. It requires such actions, whether framed under the Convention, contract, tort, or another legal basis, to comply with the Convention's conditions and liability limits. The provision also excludes punitive, exemplary, and other noncompensatory damages.

The exclusivity rule prevents a claimant from avoiding the treaty's liability requirements merely by presenting the same damage claim under another legal characterization. Its operation depends on whether the claim falls within the Convention's substantive scope.

The interpretation of the Convention is governed by established principles of treaty law. Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the general approach to interpreting treaty language in context and in light of its object and purpose, together with the permitted supplementary means of interpretation.

Article 29 must be read alongside the Montreal Convention's provisions establishing particular forms of liability. It does not automatically invalidate every regulatory obligation imposed on airlines by another legal system. The Court of Justice has distinguished individualized damages under the Convention from standardized assistance and compensation established by EU261.

The Convention also establishes jurisdictional rules for damages proceedings. Under Article 33(1), qualifying actions may be brought, at the claimant's option, before specified courts in a state party, including courts connected with the carrier's domicile, principal place of business, the place of business through which the contract was made, or the place of destination.

Article 33(2) provides an additional jurisdictional possibility in specified cases involving death or injury of passengers. That additional ground should not be extended automatically to ordinary claims for damage caused by delay. The applicable jurisdictional provisions must be identified according to the nature of the claim.

7.3 IATA and Nelson: The Coexistence of the Two Regimes

The Court of Justice considered the relationship between EU261 and the Montreal Convention in IATA and ELFAA, Case C-344/04, decided on January 10, 2006. The proceedings challenged aspects of EU261 concerning assistance to passengers affected by long delays.

The Court distinguished standardized measures designed to address immediate inconvenience from individualized damages governed by the Montreal Convention. Obligations to provide assistance during disruption were not equivalent to claims seeking compensation for individually established damage. The Court consequently upheld the relevant EU261 provisions against the treaty-based challenge.

Following Sturgeon, the compatibility of fixed compensation for long delays with the Montreal Convention became a more direct question. In Nelson and Others, Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10, decided on October 23, 2012, the Court examined whether the judicially recognized compensation entitlement conflicted with Articles 19 and 29.

The Court maintained that loss of time resulting from long delays could be addressed through standardized compensation without requiring an individualized assessment of damage. That inconvenience was distinct from the specific damage for which compensation might be sought under the Montreal Convention. The Court confirmed the compatibility of the fixed-compensation framework with the treaty.

The judgments establish that EU261 and the Montreal Convention may operate alongside one another. A passenger may have an entitlement to fixed compensation under EU261 and a separate claim for proven individual damage under the Convention. Each remedy remains subject to its own legal requirements.

Their coexistence does not authorize unlimited duplication of recovery. Under the existing Article 12(1) of EU261, the regulation operates without prejudice to further compensation, and compensation granted under EU261 may be deducted from additional compensation where appropriate. The existing formulation permits a deduction but does not impose the same mandatory mechanism introduced by the reform.

Revised Article 12 substantially changes that position. It requires deductions between EU261 compensation and compensation or price reductions under other legal acts where the relevant rights safeguard the same interest or pursue the same objective. The provision expressly addresses interactions with Directive (EU) 2015/2302 concerning package travel.

The amended rule also requires deduction of compensation or reimbursement already paid under third-country legislation from the corresponding EU261 amount. It does not establish that every remedy available under a separate legal regime necessarily protects the same interest.

The relationship between standardized EU261 compensation and Montreal Convention damages must consequently be assessed according to the legal character of the claims. The CJEU's distinction between loss of time and individually established damage remains relevant, while the revised Article 12 introduces additional rules concerning overlapping compensation and reimbursement.

8. How Passengers Can Claim Compensation

An entitlement under EU261 does not automatically result in payment. The passenger must identify the operating airline, establish the relevant journey, and demonstrate the facts supporting compensation. Where the carrier refuses payment, the applicable procedures determine how that refusal may be challenged.

Evidence is especially important where the dispute concerns arrival time, a missed connection, cancellation notification, or the existence of extraordinary circumstances. The parties' evidentiary responsibilities differ according to the legal issue. A passenger establishes the relevant journey and disruption, while the airline bears the burden of proving the statutory conditions supporting specified defenses.

The 2026 reform introduces new deadlines and procedural obligations. These changes distinguish compensation requests, complaints to airlines or intermediaries, and judicial proceedings. Treating them as a single procedure would misstate the amended regulation.

8.1 Claiming Compensation Under the Current Rules

A passenger seeking compensation should establish the flight number, date, operating carrier, itinerary, booking arrangements, scheduled arrival time, and actual arrival time. These facts determine whether the journey falls within EU261 and whether the relevant delay threshold has been satisfied.

Booking confirmations, boarding passes, airline notifications, and reliable arrival records may provide relevant evidence. For connecting journeys, documentation showing that the flights formed part of a single reservation can be particularly important.

Where reimbursement of additional expenses is sought, receipts and records of the circumstances in which those expenses arose may also be necessary. Such evidence concerns a different legal question from the standardized compensation amount.

An airline relying on extraordinary circumstances must establish the relevant conditions of Article 5(3) as interpreted by the Court of Justice. Passengers are not required to disprove every hypothetical cause of disruption. The airline must demonstrate the extraordinary event, its causal connection with the disruption, and the reasonable measures relevant to the defense.

The existing regulation does not prescribe one uniform limitation period for judicial compensation actions across the European Union. In Cuadrench Moré v KLM, Case C-139/11, decided on November 22, 2012, the Court held that the applicable period for bringing compensation proceedings under Articles 5 and 7 is determined by national law, subject to the relevant principles of EU law.

A passenger must consequently identify the applicable national procedural rules before assuming that a claim remains enforceable. Deadlines advertised by commercial claims services do not establish a universal limitation period governing every EU261 dispute.

8.2 The New Nine-Month Compensation Request Deadline

Revised Article 7(9) requires passengers to submit fixed-compensation requests within nine months of the actual date of departure indicated on the passenger's ticket. The requirement applies under the amended legislation from October 23, 2027.

The carrier must immediately acknowledge receipt of the request on a durable medium. Within thirty calendar days, it must either pay the compensation or provide a justification for refusing payment. A refusal must also include information concerning the complaint procedure under Article 15a.

Where extraordinary circumstances are invoked, the airline must identify the event relied upon and explain how the requirements concerning direct causation and reasonable measures are satisfied. The obligation creates a more specific framework for assessing compensation refusals.

Revised Article 7(4) introduces an additional information requirement. Where a passenger may be entitled to compensation for cancellation, long arrival delay, or a qualifying missed connection, the operating carrier must electronically provide information concerning that right and clear instructions for submitting a request.

The information must be provided on a durable medium within 96 hours of the journey's termination. This obligation is distinct from the subsequent deadline for submitting the compensation request.

Payment is generally required through electronic bank transfer unless the passenger explicitly agrees to another method on a durable medium. The airline bears the burden of proving the required agreement. The new rules also address requests submitted through authorized third-party representatives.

The nine-month period governs the compensation-request procedure established by revised Article 7. It should not be described as a universal period for commencing court proceedings or as a deadline automatically applicable to claims arising before October 23, 2027.

8.3 Complaints, Litigation, and Limitation Periods

Revised Article 15a establishes a separate complaint-handling mechanism for airlines and intermediaries. Passengers may complain about matters falling within the respective responsibilities of those entities under the regulation.

The complaint must generally be submitted within twelve months of the date on which the flight was performed or scheduled to be performed, or within three months after submitting a compensation request, whichever period ends later. This differs from the nine-month period governing the initial compensation request.

The addressee must acknowledge receipt within seven working days. It must ordinarily provide a reasoned reply within one month, although a limited extension is permitted in duly justified circumstances. The amended provision also requires information concerning the appropriate complaint-handling authority.

National enforcement bodies supervise compliance with passenger-rights legislation, but their powers concerning individual compensation disputes depend on the applicable legal framework. The Court of Justice confirmed in LOT Polish Airlines v Budapest Capital Government Office, Case C-597/20, that Member States may empower national enforcement bodies to order compensation payments where domestic law grants that authority.

Administrative enforcement and judicial recovery remain distinct. A passenger may need to pursue civil proceedings where the relevant enforcement body cannot order payment in an individual dispute or where judicial determination is otherwise necessary.

Cross-border litigation also raises questions of judicial competence. The law of adjudicatory jurisdiction distinguishes a court's authority to hear a dispute from the substantive law governing the claim and the separate procedures required to recognize or enforce a judgment abroad.

For EU261 claims, the competent court and applicable limitation period must be identified through the relevant European and national rules. The location of the passenger, airline, departure airport, and destination may be legally significant, but those connections do not automatically establish jurisdiction in every available forum.

Claims under the Montreal Convention are governed by a different procedural framework. Article 33 identifies the available jurisdictional grounds, while Article 35 provides that the right to damages is extinguished if an action is not brought within two years of the applicable arrival date, the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or the date on which carriage stopped.

Article 35(2) leaves the method of calculating that period to the law of the court hearing the case. The Convention's extinguishment provision must be distinguished from the national limitation periods applicable to EU261 litigation and from the administrative deadlines introduced by the 2026 reform.

A compensation request submitted to an airline should not be presumed to satisfy the Convention's requirement to bring an action within the prescribed period. Passengers seeking recovery under both regimes must establish the procedural conditions governing each remedy separately.

Conclusion

The 2026 EU261 reform preserves the principal right to fixed compensation for qualifying long flight delays. Passengers may continue to claim €250, €400, or €600 according to the applicable journey category and legal conditions. The four- and six-hour thresholds proposed during earlier legislative negotiations were not adopted.

The preservation of the three-hour framework does not mean that the reform leaves compensation rules unchanged. From October 23, 2027, the amended legislation introduces a new definition of arrival time, revised eligibility conditions, express rules governing missed connections, and additional procedures for submitting compensation requests. It also changes provisions concerning cancellations, reimbursement, vouchers, extraordinary circumstances, and passenger assistance.

For claims arising before the new provisions become applicable, Regulation 261/2004 and the established CJEU jurisprudence remain decisive. The distinction is particularly significant for delays close to three or four hours, where the applicable calculation method and compensation-reduction conditions may affect entitlement.

International journeys may also engage the Montreal Convention of 1999. Its provisions establish a separate system of liability for individually proven damage caused by delay, subject to the Convention's scope, defenses, liability limits, jurisdictional rules, and time restrictions. EU261 compensation and Montreal Convention damages can coexist, but their respective legal conditions must be respected, including the rules governing overlapping recovery.

The outcome of an individual claim depends on whether the journey is covered, the legally calculated arrival delay, the relevant compensation category, any extraordinary circumstances established by the carrier, and compliance with the applicable procedure. The 2026 reform retains substantial passenger protections while changing several conditions through which those rights will be calculated, claimed, and enforced.

References

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971) Adopted at Montreal, 23 September 1971; entered into force 26 January 1973. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 974, p. 177. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280107e32 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) (1999) Adopted at Montreal, 28 May 1999; entered into force 4 November 2003. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2242, p. 309. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280078e04 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Council of the European Union (2025) ‘Council sets position on clearer and improved rules for air passengers’, 5 June [online]. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/06/05/council-sets-position-on-clearer-and-improved-rules-for-air-passengers/ (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Council of the European Union (2026) ‘Council and Parliament reach landmark agreement on stronger EU air passenger rights’, 15 June [online]. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/06/15/council-and-parliament-reach-landmark-agreement-on-stronger-eu-air-passenger-rights/ (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2006) The Queen, on the application of International Air Transport Association and European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport (IATA and ELFAA), Case C-344/04, judgment of 10 January, ECLI:EU:C:2006:10. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0344 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2008) Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA, Case C-549/07, judgment of 22 December, ECLI:EU:C:2008:771. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0549 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2009) Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Böck and Lepuschitz v Air France SA, Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, judgment of 19 November, ECLI:EU:C:2009:716. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-402%2F07 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2012a) Nelson and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and TUI Travel plc and Others v Civil Aviation Authority, Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10, judgment of 23 October, ECLI:EU:C:2012:657. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-581%2F10 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2012b) Cuadrench Moré v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Case C-139/11, judgment of 22 November, ECLI:EU:C:2012:741. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0139 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2013a) McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd, Case C-12/11, judgment of 31 January, ECLI:EU:C:2013:43. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0012 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2013b) Air France SA v Folkerts, Case C-11/11, judgment of 26 February, ECLI:EU:C:2013:106. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0011 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2014) Germanwings GmbH v Henning, Case C-452/13, judgment of 4 September, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2141. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0452 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2015) Van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Case C-257/14, judgment of 17 September, ECLI:EU:C:2015:618. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0257 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2021) Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark – Norway – Sweden, Case C-28/20, judgment of 23 March, ECLI:EU:C:2021:226. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0028 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2022) Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ SA v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala, Case C-597/20, judgment of 29 September, ECLI:EU:C:2022:735. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0597 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2026) D (Air traffic management decision), Case C-108/26 RX, judgment of 8 October, ECLI:EU:C:2026:838. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62026CJ0108 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2015) On package travel and linked travel arrangements, 25 November. Official Journal of the European Union, L 326, 11 December, pp. 1–33. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/2302/oj (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

European Parliament (2026a) ‘European Parliament stands behind air passenger rights’, 21 January [online]. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260116IPR32442/european-parliament-stands-behind-air-passenger-rights (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

European Parliament (2026b) ‘European Parliament achieves upgrade to air passenger rights’, 7 July [online]. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260703IPR46273/ (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

General Court of the European Union (2026) D SA v P SA (Air traffic management decision), Case T-134/25, judgment of 21 January, ECLI:EU:T:2026:35. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62025TJ0134 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (2024) ‘International air travel liability limits set to increase, enhancing customer compensation’, 18 October [online]. Available at: https://www.icao.int/news/international-air-travel-liability-limits-set-increase-enhancing-customer-compensation-0 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (2024) 2024 Revised Limits of Liability Under the Montreal Convention 1999. Montreal: ICAO. Available at: https://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/LEB%20Treaty%20Collection%20Documents/2024_Revised_Limits_of_Liability_Under_the_Montreal_Convention_of_1999_en.pdf (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2004) Establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, 11 February. Official Journal of the European Union, L 46, 17 February, pp. 1–8. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/261/oj (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Regulation (EU) 2026/2202 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2026) Amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, 16 September. Official Journal of the European Union, L 2026/2202, 2 October. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32026R2202 (Accessed: 10 November 2026).

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Adopted at Vienna, 23 May 1969; entered into force 27 January 1980. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?chapter=23&mtdsg_no=XXIII-1&src=IND (Accessed: 10 November 2026).