Guiding principle: Passengers are entitled to compensation if a portion of a journey with multiple connecting flights is significantly delayed, even if other segments operated as scheduled.

Judgment:
Nuremberg District Court, judgment of March 24, 2023 – 22 C 6651/22
In this case, it was determined that passengers are entitled to compensation if a flight segment of a journey with multiple connecting flights is delayed.
The plaintiff sought compensation for a delay of more than three hours on one segment of her journey. The court ruled in her favor, clarifying that the different flights are to be considered separate segments if they involve different dates and longer layovers.

Guiding principle:
Although a passenger can claim both compensation under the Air Passenger Rights Regulation and damages under national law, double compensation for the same damage is excluded. The compensation can be offset against the claim for damages even if it has not yet been paid out.
Judgment summary:
In its judgment of December 4, 2024 (case number 15 S 318/24), the Landshut Regional Court ruled that the compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 can be offset against national claims for damages in the event of unjustified refusal of transport, even if the compensation has not yet actually been paid. The aim is to avoid overcompensation of the passenger, as otherwise he would be compensated twice.
In the underlying case, the plaintiff had claimed both compensation of 1,200 euros and additional claims for damages due to frustrated expenses (including hotel costs and transport). The court considered the offsetting of the flat-rate compensation against these specific damage items to be justified, as both claims were intended to compensate for the same damage.
The court based its decision on the principles of balancing benefits in German tort law and on Article 12 of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, which expressly prohibits overcompensation. The decision is in line with the previous case law of the Federal Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice, which also allowed such an offsetting.
The plaintiff ultimately received 1,920 euros in compensation, with the previously claimed hotel and travel costs being taken into account on a pro rata basis.

Guiding principle:
A passenger whose tour operator incorrectly notifies a flight cancellation is entitled to compensation from the air carrier under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, even if the flight was carried out as scheduled and the air carrier was not informed of the notification.
Judgment summary:
In its judgment of October 17, 2024 (case numbers C-650/23 and C-705/23), the ECJ ruled that passengers travelling as part of a package holiday and who are incorrectly informed by their tour operator of the cancellation of their booked flight can claim compensation from the operating air carrier. This also applies if the company itself had no knowledge of the incorrect cancellation notification and the flight was carried out as planned.
The ECJ clarified that tour operators are legally considered actors whose actions can be attributed to the operating air carrier. The Air Passenger Rights Regulation aims to ensure a high level of consumer protection, which is why the airline is liable for incorrect information passed on by the tour operator. However, the airline has the right to assert recourse claims against the tour operator.
This ruling strengthens the protection of package holidaymakers and prevents passengers from being disadvantaged for faulty communication processes between tour operators and airlines.

Guiding principle:
Airlines can cancel flights if extraordinary circumstances such as extreme weather conditions affect the flight schedule. They have discretion to minimize the impact on subsequent flights and stabilize the operating mode.
Judgment summary:
In the judgment of September 24, 2024 (case number X ZR 136/23), the BGH ruled that the airline was right to invoke extraordinary circumstances in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation. In the specific case, a snowstorm in Stuttgart had led to significant disruptions in the flight schedule. In order to avoid delays and cancellations the following day, the airline canceled the flight from Stuttgart to Hamburg.
The court emphasized that the airline has discretion in assessing appropriate measures. This decision is lawful if it enables the overall operational process to be better guaranteed. Since no faster alternative transport was possible, the plaintiff’s claim to compensation was lost.
The ruling confirms that airlines can take measures to stabilize the flight schedule under exceptional circumstances without automatically being obliged to pay compensation.
BGH strengthens airlines’ discretion in the case of flight cancellations due to exceptional circumstances

Guiding Principle: Passengers are entitled to compensation if notified of changes less than seven days before departure and the new flight does not meet timing requirements.
Case Text:
CJEU, Decision of 2 December 2022 – C-229/22
The CJEU clarified that passengers are entitled to compensation if a replacement flight offered less than seven days before departure departs more than one hour earlier or arrives more than two hours later than the original schedule. The decision strengthened protections for passengers facing last-minute flight changes.

Guiding Principle: Passengers are entitled to compensation for delays caused by multi-segment flights, even when segments are operated by different airlines.
Case Text:
BGH, Judgment of 9 May 2023 – X ZR 15/20
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that flight delays on one segment of a multi-segment journey, even when operated by different airlines, entitle passengers to compensation. The court emphasized that flights booked under a single reservation are treated as a single journey for compensation purposes.

Guiding Principle: Passengers are entitled to compensation if cancellation notices are sent only to travel agents and not directly to passengers, even when the agent fails to forward the notice.
Case Text:
CJEU, Decision of 27 September 2022 – C-307/21
The Court ruled that airlines must compensate passengers for cancellations if the notification is sent solely to travel agents and not directly to passengers. The airline bears the responsibility of ensuring that the passenger receives the notice. However, airlines can seek recourse against the party responsible for not forwarding the notification to passengers.

Guiding Principle: Airlines must prove that no reasonable alternative transport options were available to avoid long delays.
Case Text:
BGH, Judgment of 10 November 2022 – X ZR 97/21
The Federal Court of Justice overturned a lower court’s ruling and referred the case back for further clarification. The case involved passengers delayed due to a weather-related flight rerouting, with a subsequent delay caused by a medical emergency during the alternative flight. The court emphasized that airlines must prove that no reasonable alternative options were available. The ruling reinforced the burden on airlines to explore all possibilities to minimize delays.

Guiding Principle: Bird strikes qualify as extraordinary circumstances exempting airlines from compensation, provided all reasonable mitigating measures are taken.
Case Text:
CJEU, Decision of 3 October 2022 – C-302/22
The CJEU ruled that a bird strike, which forced an emergency stop and caused tire damage, constitutes an extraordinary circumstance under EU Regulation 261/2004. This exempts airlines from liability if they demonstrate that all reasonable steps to minimize delay were taken. In this case, the airline’s argument that the bird strike was beyond its control was accepted, and compensation was denied.

Passengers are entitled to compensation for significant delays in multi-segment flights booked as a package, even when operated by different airlines.
Case Text:
CJEU, Judgment of 6 October 2022 – C-436/21
The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that “direct connecting flights” under EU Regulation 261/2004 include flight chains offered as a package by travel agencies, even when operated by different, independent carriers. A passenger booked a multi-leg journey through a travel agency, resulting in a significant delay at the destination. The court ruled that such travel arrangements qualify as a unified journey under the regulation, entitling the passenger to compensation. This decision strengthens passenger protections, even for complex itineraries.