EU261 is short. The Court of Justice built the rest. These are the judgments claims turn on — what each one held, and what it means for yours.
What the Court held: Passengers whose flight arrives three hours or more late are entitled to the same fixed compensation as passengers whose flight was cancelled, even though the Regulation's text only names cancellations.
What it means for you: This is the ruling the entire delay-compensation system rests on. If you landed 3+ hours late, you don't need to prove a cancellation — the delay itself is the claim.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: The Court confirmed Sturgeon against a coordinated airline challenge: the three-hour rule stands, and it is compatible with the Montreal Convention.
What it means for you: Airlines sometimes imply the delay rule is contested law. It isn't — it was challenged at the highest level and upheld.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: A technical problem is NOT an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless it stems from events outside the airline's actual control — ordinary maintenance issues are part of running an airline.
What it means for you: "Technical fault" is the most common excuse in rejection letters, and this ruling is why it usually fails. An aircraft that breaks is the airline's business risk, not yours.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: Even a spontaneous, unforeseeable component failure is generally within the airline's control — premature defects are inherent in operating aircraft.
What it means for you: The stronger version of Wallentin-Hermann: 'it broke without warning' still doesn't excuse the airline from paying.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: A 'wildcat strike' of the airline's own staff, triggered by the airline's own restructuring announcement, is not an extraordinary circumstance.
What it means for you: When the airline's own crews strike, compensation is usually still due. Only strikes truly external to the airline — air traffic control, airport staff — tend to qualify as extraordinary.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: For connecting flights on one booking, the delay that counts is measured at the FINAL destination — even if the first flight's delay was short.
What it means for you: A 45-minute delay that made you miss your connection and arrive five hours late is a full claim. One booking, one journey, one arrival time that matters.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: A bird strike IS an extraordinary circumstance — but the airline must still show it took all reasonable measures, and delay caused by its own slow response doesn't count as extraordinary.
What it means for you: Even genuinely extraordinary events don't give airlines a blank cheque: the part of the delay that was their own handling remains theirs to answer for.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: Even in truly extraordinary circumstances (the 2010 volcanic ash cloud), the duty of CARE — meals, accommodation, transport — never lapses, without any time or money limit.
What it means for you: Extraordinary circumstances can cancel the fixed compensation, but never the airline's duty to feed and house you. Keep receipts; those costs are recoverable even when compensation isn't.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗What the Court held: EU261 sets no time limit of its own — the deadline for bringing a claim is governed by each country's national law.
What it means for you: Why deadlines range from one year (Poland) to six (UK). Your old flight may still be claimable — check the deadline for the country you flew from.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex ↗Plain-language summaries for orientation, not legal advice — the judgments themselves are the authority, and their application depends on each claim's facts.
Airlines refuse valid claims in standard language. A citation is what turns a refusal into a negotiation, because it moves the argument from what the airline prefers to what a court has already decided. Five steps.
The rulings above sit behind the everyday guides: what a delayed flight is worth comes from Sturgeon, what a cancellation owes you comes from Articles 5 and 8 as the Court has read them, and the EU261 guide puts both in order. If you would rather not argue it yourself, check your flight and we will make the citation for you.
It applies to yours. A Court of Justice ruling interprets the regulation for everyone it covers, not just the parties who fought the case. National courts and enforcement bodies across the EU are bound by that interpretation, which is why citing the case number carries weight with an airline's claims team.
The Sturgeon ruling, in 2009. The regulation's text names cancellations, not delays; Sturgeon held that passengers arriving three or more hours late suffer comparable inconvenience and are owed the same fixed sum. Nelson v Lufthansa confirmed it in 2012 against a coordinated airline challenge.
Largely yes. UK261 retains EU261's wording, and case law decided before the end of 2020 remains part of retained law. UK courts may depart from later Court of Justice rulings, but in practice they still read the same judgments when interpreting the same words.
As a starting point. The judgments themselves are the authority, and how they apply turns on your facts — the cause, the notice, the arrival time. Use the summaries to find the right ruling, then cite the judgment.
We argue the case law so you don't have to. Free check, no win, no fee.
Check my flight