Check compensationCheck

LE v TAP (C-74/19)

A plain-English summary of the Court of Justice of the EU judgment of 11 June 2020: the facts, the question, what was decided and what it means for your claim.

By the EU261 Flight Delay editorial team Last reviewed: Reading time: 4 min How we write our guides

Check compensation or start a claim with AirHelp straight away

In short: A diversion to offload an unruly passenger can be extraordinary and excuse a knock-on delay, but rebooking only on the airline’s next-day flight is not enough.

CaseLE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (TAP)
CitationC-74/19
CourtCourt of Justice of the EU (Fourth Chamber)
Date
Full textEUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

The facts

LE booked a TAP journey from Fortaleza (Brazil) to Oslo with a stopover in Lisbon, on 21 and 22 August 2017, and arrived in Oslo almost 24 hours late. The first flight reached Lisbon late, so LE could not board the connection to Oslo and was flown on TAP’s next flight the following day.

The first flight was late because, on its previous trip from Lisbon to Fortaleza, the same aircraft had been diverted to Las Palmas de Gran Canaria to disembark an unruly passenger who had bitten a passenger and assaulted other passengers and crew. LE claimed €600; TAP refused, and the District Court in Lisbon referred questions.

The question

Is an unruly passenger an extraordinary circumstance? Can an airline rely on an event that hit an earlier flight of the same aircraft? And is rebooking the passenger on its own flight the next day a “reasonable measure”?

What the Court ruled

  1. The unruly behaviour of a passenger which justified the captain in diverting the flight to disembark that passenger is an extraordinary circumstance, unless the airline contributed to that behaviour or failed to take appropriate measures in view of warning signs.
  2. An airline may rely on an extraordinary circumstance that affected a previous flight operated with the same aircraft, provided there is a direct causal link between that circumstance and the delay or cancellation of the later flight.
  3. Re-routing a passenger on the airline’s own flight arriving the next day is not a reasonable measure, unless there was no other possibility of direct or indirect re-routing on a flight operated by it or by any other airline arriving earlier, or such re-routing would have been an intolerable sacrifice for the airline.

Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.

What it means for you

Knock-on delays can be excused, but only where there is a direct causal link to a genuinely extraordinary event on an earlier flight. A late incoming aircraft is not, by itself, an excuse.

The airline must also look for faster re-routing, including on other airlines. If it simply put you on its own flight the next day when earlier options existed, compensation can still be due.

Read more: Extraordinary circumstances · Flight delay compensation · Missed connection compensation · Security incidents and unruly passengers · Knock-on delays.

Status in the UK

Decided before the end of the Brexit transition period (11 pm on 31 December 2020), so it is assimilated EU case law in the UK. County courts and sheriff courts must follow it when they apply UK261; the UK Supreme Court and the appeal courts listed in the 2020 regulations (including the Court of Appeal in England and Wales) may depart from it.

How EU rulings apply after Brexit is explained on our case-law overview.

This is a plain-English summary written by our editorial team, not legal advice. Judgments turn on their facts, and later rulings can refine them. Before relying on a case in a dispute, read the full judgment or get advice.

All cases in the library

Sources

  1. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 11 June 2020, Case C-74/19, LE v TAP – EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

We check every rule against the sources above. Spotted an error? Tell us – see our editorial policy.