Check compensationCheck

LOT v Budapest Government Office (C-597/20)

A plain-English summary of the Court of Justice of the EU judgment of 29 September 2022: 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: EU countries may let their national enforcement body order an airline to pay a passenger’s compensation, provided both sides can still go to court.

CasePolskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala
CitationC-597/20
CourtCourt of Justice of the EU (Third Chamber)
Date
Full textEUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

The facts

Passengers whose LOT flight from New York to Budapest arrived more than three hours late complained to the Hungarian consumer protection authority. By a decision of 20 April 2020 the authority found that LOT had breached the regulation and ordered it to pay each passenger €600.

LOT challenged the decision before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court), arguing that the relationship between an airline and a passenger is a civil matter for the courts, so the authority had no power to order payment.

The question

Can a Member State give its national enforcement body under Article 16 the power to order an airline to pay compensation to an individual passenger?

What the Court ruled

Article 16 allows Member States to authorise their national enforcement body to compel an airline to pay compensation due under Article 7, following an individual complaint by a passenger, provided both the passenger and the airline can bring proceedings before the courts.

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

What it means for you

Depending on the country, the national enforcement body may be able to do more than give an opinion. Whether it can order payment depends on that country’s law.

The ruling came after 2020 and does not apply to the UK, where you escalate to the CAA’s Passenger Advice and Complaints Team or an approved ADR scheme, and then to court.

Read more: Enforcement bodies, ADR and courts · Flight delay compensation · ADR schemes in the UK.

Status in the UK

Decided after the end of the Brexit transition period (31 December 2020), so it does not bind UK courts applying UK261, although they may have regard to it. It applies in full to flights covered by EU261 in EU courts.

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.

  • LE v TAP (C-74/19, 2020) – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
  • Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18, 2019) – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary
  • Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17, 2019) – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
  • Wegener v Royal Air Maroc (C-537/17, 2018) – EU departures with a non-EU stopover are covered all the way
  • Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17 etc., 2018) – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
  • Gahan v Emirates ([2017] EWCA Civ 1530, 2017) – Connections via Dubai etc.: delay at final destination counts

All cases in the library

Sources

  1. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 29 September 2022, Case C-597/20, LOT v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala – 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.