From 1 August 2025 to 31 March 2026, there have been several new court decisions concerning air passenger rights. The first part of this article highlights recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) and the General Court of the European Union (the General Court) that have shed light on the interpretation of EU Regulation No. 261/2004, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention 1999) and Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. The second part presents a nonexhaustive overview of selected significant rulings from non-EU countries.
In AirHelp Germany GmbH v. Austrian Airlines AG (C-399/24), the Court confirmed that a lightning strike constitutes an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004. In Corendon Airlines v. Myflyright (C-558/24), it held that delay must be assessed against the originally scheduled arrival time, notwithstanding prior notification of postponement. In Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. KLM (C-45/24), the Court ruled that reimbursement under Article 8(1)(a) includes intermediary commissions
Under the Montreal Convention 1999, in Felicísima v. Iberia (C-218/24), the Court confirmed that pets qualify as ‘baggage’ within Article 17(2), subject to the liability limits of Article 22(2). Separately, in Deutsche Lufthansa v. AirHelp (C-551/24), the Court clarified that assignment of claims does not affect jurisdiction under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 1215/2012.
At General Court level, in D S.A. v. P S.A. (T-134/25), air traffic management decisions were held capable of constituting extraordinary circumstances, subject to a strict assessment and a direct causal link. In NI and HZ v. European Air Charter (T-656/24), the General Court clarified that such a link is broken where delays result primarily from the carrier’s own operational decisions.
Outside the EU, courts have increasingly emphasized carrier responsibility and evidentiary discipline. In Air Canada v. Landry (2026 ONSC 222) and Jutras v. Air Canada (2026 QCCS 420), Canadian courts strengthened obligations relating to rebooking and contractual performance. In Brazil, REsp 2.232.322/MT restricted moral damages to cases of proven harm, while ARE 1.560.244 (Tema 1417) limited the suspension of litigation to force majeure scenarios. In Air India v. Sundarapariporanam (2025), airlines were held liable for outsourced onboard services, and in Mexico (Tesis aislada No. 2031818), denial of boarding due to system failure was attributed to the carrier.
Air and Space Law