In short: For a flight between two EU countries with one airline, you can choose to sue in the courts for the place of departure or the place of arrival.
| Case | Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation |
|---|---|
| Citation | C-204/08 |
| Court | Court of Justice of the EU (Fourth Chamber) |
| Date | |
| Full text | EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union) |
The facts
Mr Rehder, who lives in Munich, booked an Air Baltic flight from Munich to Vilnius, a distance of slightly under 1,500 km. About 30 minutes before departure the flight was cancelled. He was rebooked via Copenhagen and arrived in Vilnius more than six hours after the original flight should have landed.
He claimed €250 before the Amtsgericht Erding, the local court for Munich airport, which held that it had jurisdiction. On Air Baltic’s appeal, the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich) took a different view, and the case reached the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), which referred the question.
The question
For a flight from one Member State to another, which court has jurisdiction over a compensation claim under the rule for contracts for services in Regulation No 44/2001?
What the Court ruled
For air transport of passengers between two Member States under a contract with one airline that operates the flight, the court with jurisdiction over a compensation claim based on that contract and on Regulation 261/2004 is, at the claimant’s choice, the court for the place of departure or the place of arrival as agreed in the contract.
Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
Within the EU, you can usually bring your claim in the country you flew from or the country you flew to – often your home country – rather than where the airline is based.
These rules come from the EU Brussels regime, which no longer applies between the UK and the EU since the end of 2020. Cross-border claims involving UK courts follow different rules.
Read more: How to claim, step by step · Cancelled flight compensation · The European Small Claims Procedure.
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.
Related cases
- Lipton v BA Cityflyer – Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court)
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- flightright v Air Nostrum – Where to sue over connecting flights run by two airlines
- McDonagh v Ryanair – Care is owed even in extraordinary circumstances
Sources
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 9 July 2009, Case C-204/08, Rehder v Air Baltic – 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.