In short: The ruling behind delay compensation: passengers who reach their final destination three hours or more late can claim the same fixed sums as for a cancellation.
| Case | Christopher Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH; Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA |
|---|---|
| Citation | C-402/07 and C-432/07 |
| Court | Court of Justice of the EU (Fourth Chamber) |
| Date | |
| Full text | EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union) |
The facts
The Sturgeon family booked return tickets with Condor between Frankfurt am Main and Toronto. Their return flight was due to leave Toronto at 16.20 on 9 July 2005. After check-in they were told it was cancelled, spent the night in a hotel and flew the next day on a flight with the same number, arriving in Frankfurt some 25 hours after the scheduled time. They claimed €600 each. Condor said the flight had only been delayed, and the German courts agreed, so no compensation was due. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) referred the case to the Court of Justice.
In the second case, Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz had return tickets with Air France from Vienna to Mexico City via Paris. At check-in for the Mexico City–Paris flight on 7 March 2005 they were told it was cancelled, because of a technical breakdown on the aircraft due to fly in from Paris and the crew’s legal rest period. They accepted seats on a Continental Airlines flight the next day. The Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) asked when a long delay becomes a cancellation and whether a technical problem is an extraordinary circumstance.
The question
Is a very long delay a “cancellation”? If not, do passengers whose flight is delayed have any right to the fixed compensation in Article 7? And can a technical problem with the aircraft be an extraordinary circumstance?
What the Court ruled
- A delayed flight, however long the delay, is not a cancellation if it is operated in accordance with the airline’s original planning.
- But passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated like passengers whose flights are cancelled for the purposes of compensation. They can rely on Article 7 where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled.
- No compensation is due if the airline proves that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
- A technical problem in an aircraft which leads to a cancellation or delay is not an extraordinary circumstance, unless it stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the airline’s activity and are beyond its actual control.
Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
Sturgeon is the reason “flight delay compensation” exists. The text of Regulation 261/2004 only gives fixed compensation for cancellations and denied boarding. Since this judgment, arriving three hours or more late at your final destination gives you the same €250, €400 or €600 – or £220, £350 or £520 under UK261.
The three hours are measured at arrival at your final destination, not at departure. A flight that left four hours late but made up time and arrived 2 hours 50 minutes late does not qualify.
Airlines asked the Court to reverse the ruling. It refused, in Nelson and TUI Travel (2012). In the UK, Sturgeon was decided before the end of 2020, so it is part of the assimilated case law that county courts must follow.
Read more: Flight delay compensation · Cancelled flight compensation · Extraordinary circumstances · Technical faults.
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
- Germanwings v Pauels – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- van der Lans v KLM – Unexpected component failure is not extraordinary
- Siewert v Condor – Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary
- Jet2 v Huzar – Unforeseen technical faults are not extraordinary (UK)
- Wallentin-Hermann – Technical problems are normally the airline’s risk; the two-part test
Sources
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 19 November 2009, Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, Sturgeon and Others – 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.