(AGENPARL) – Wed 04 March 2026 PRESS RELEASE No 26/26
Luxembourg, 4 March 2026
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-656/24 | European Air Charter
An airline may not rely on an extraordinary circumstance which affected
an earlier flight if the delay of the subsequent flight is caused by an
autonomous decision taken by the airline, provided that that decision is
the determining cause of that delay
That may be the case where the airline decides, in the context of a flight rotation, to wait for the passengers of
an earlier flight, who are delayed because of widespread shortcomings in the security checks at the airport in
question
Two air passengers seek compensation from the airline European Air Charter amounting to €400 each on the
ground of a delay of more than three hours in their flight from Düsseldorf (Germany) to Varna (Bulgaria).
Before the Regional Court, Düsseldorf, the question is raised whether the airline can rely, in respect of a subsequent
flight in a flight rotation, on an exemption from its obligation to pay compensation for delay on the ground that an
extraordinary circumstance affected an earlier flight.
Following an exceptionally long waiting time at the security checks of Cologne-Bonn Airport caused by a heavy
workload for the staff carrying out the security checks, all the passengers of a flight preceding the flight at issue in
the main proceedings were delayed in presenting themselves for boarding. European Air Charter therefore decided
to wait for those passengers, which led to a delay of more than five hours in the departure of that flight.
Furthermore, European Air Charter decided to reschedule the subsequent flights, including the flight at issue in the
main proceedings, on a replacement aircraft.
The Regional Court, Düsseldorf, has doubts as to whether that autonomous decision taken by European Air Charter
prevents that airline from relying on the extraordinary circumstance which arose in connection with the earlier
flight. 1 That court therefore referred questions to the General Court of the European Union in that connection. 2
The General Court answers that the airline may not rely on the extraordinary circumstance in question which
affected an earlier flight in a rotation if the autonomous decision taken by the airline to wait for the passengers
delayed by the security checks is the determining cause of the delay of the subsequent flight, and provided that the
air carrier in question was not obliged to take that decision, in particular under a legal obligation, which it is for the
Regional Court, Düsseldorf, to ascertain. 3 4
In any event, the airline may not rely on the interest of the passengers of the earlier flight in being transported
within a reasonable time. The airline is not required to weigh up the interests of the various groups of passengers
affected.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the
interpretation of EU law or the validity of an EU act.
The General Court has jurisdiction to deal with requests for a preliminary ruling coming exclusively within the
following areas 1) the common system of value added tax (VAT), 2) excise duties, 3) the Customs Code, 4) the tariff
classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature, 5) compensation and assistance to passengers in the
event of denied boarding or delay or cancellation of transport services, or 6) the system for greenhouse gas
emission allowance trading. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction to deal with all other requests for a preliminary
ruling.
Preliminary rulings by the General Court may, exceptionally, be reviewed by the Court of Justice, on a proposal from
the First Advocate General, where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of EU law being affected. If no
such proposal is made within one month of the ruling by the General Court, that ruling will become final. However, if
the First Advocate General makes a proposal for review, it will be necessary to wait for the outcome of the
proceedings before the Court of Justice either in order for the ruling by the General Court to become final or in
order for the ruling by the Court of Justice to be substituted for the ruling by the General Court.
Neither the Court of Justice nor the General Court decides the national dispute itself. It is for the national court or
tribunal to resolve the case in accordance with the ruling by the Court of Justice or by the General Court.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
The Regional Court, Düsseldorf, starts from the premiss that the shortcomings in the security checks were widespread at the airport in question and
that they therefore constituted an extraordinary circumstance. Accordingly, it has doubts only as to the causal link between the extraordinary
circumstance which affected the earlier flight and the delay in the arrival of the flight at issue.
The General Court, more specifically, is asked to interpret Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or
long delay of flights.
The General Court specifically answers as follows: the autonomous decision of the airline to wait for the passengers of a flight who have not yet
cleared security, due to shortcomings in the security checks, is capable of breaking the direct causal link between the extraordinary circumstance of
those shortcomings and the delay of at least three hours in the arrival of a subsequent flight, scheduled for the same day on the same aircraft, if that
decision is the determining cause of the delay. According to the General Court, since Regulation No 261/2004 does not set out the requirements
relating to the direct nature of the causal link between the extraordinary circumstance and the cancellation or the delay of a flight, it is necessary to
refer, by analogy, to the causal link criteria applicable to non-contractual liability of the European Union. Those criteria require that that link must be
sufficiently direct, so that the conduct complained of must be the determining cause of the damage.
According to the General Court, the decision of the airline at issue is capable of breaking the direct causal link between the extraordinary
circumstance and the delay of the subsequent flight if it is the determining cause for the delay of the flight at issue and provided that the air carrier in
question was not obliged to take that decision, in particular under a legal obligation.
Communications Directorate