Corendon Airlines v Myflyright GmbH (2025) C-558/24 CJEU (8th Chamber)
Court of Justice of the European Union, Eighth Chamber
Facts
8 Four air passengers with a booking confirmation from Corendon Airlines for a flight departing from Munich (Germany) at 10:20 (local time) and arriving in Antalya (Türkiye) at 14:20 (local time) on 2 August 2022 received, on the day before their departure, a new booking confirmation for that flight from the tour operator concerned, informing them that the scheduled departure time of that flight was postponed to 11:20 (local time), which would result in the arrival time of that flight being postponed to 15:20 (local time).
9 On 2 August 2022, the flight did not depart, however, until 14:37 (local time), and the passengers in question finally arrived at their destination at 18:16 (local time).
10 Myflyright, to which those passengers assigned their rights to compensation, brought an action before the Amtsgericht Erding (Local Court, Erding, Germany), seeking compensation totalling EUR 1600, or EUR 400 per passenger, on the basis, inter alia, of Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
11 By judgment of 30 August 2023, that court upheld that action, holding that the postponement of flight times by one hour did not constitute a ‘cancellation’ within the meaning of Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004, but rather a delay the duration of which had to be determined on the basis of the initial flight times.
12 Corendon Airlines brought an appeal against that judgment before the referring court, the Landgericht Landshut (Regional Court, Landshut, Germany), claiming that, in the present case, the duration of that delay should be determined on the basis of the flight times set out in the new booking confirmation, and not the initial flight times.
Issue(s)
The national court referred this question:
Where a flight is postponed and a new [booking confirmation] is issued for it, must the assessment of whether there is a “long” delay in the arrival at the final destination be based on the originally scheduled arrival time or the arrival time indicated in the new booking confirmation?
Discussion
16 It should be noted, in the first place, that the concept of ‘delay’ of a flight is not defined by Regulation No 261/2004, unlike that of ‘cancellation’, to which Article 5 of that regulation relates and which is defined in Article 2(l) of that regulation as ‘the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved’.
17 As regards the concept of ‘delay’ of a flight, the Court has held that there is a ‘delay’, within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, where a flight is operated in accordance with the original planning, but its actual departure time is later than the originally scheduled departure time (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 November 2009, Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, EU:C:2009:716, paragraph 32). It has also held that it would be contrary to the customary interpretation of the terms of Regulation No 261/2004 and to its scheme to take the view that a flight which has been postponed, but is otherwise unchanged, constitutes a ‘cancellation’ within the meaning of Article 2(l) of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2021, Corendon Airlines, C-395/20, EU:C:2021:1041, paragraph 22).
18 Moreover, the Court has specified that Regulation No 261/2004 does not make the classification as a ‘cancelled’ flight, within the meaning of Article 5, or as a ‘delayed’ flight, within the meaning of Article 6, dependent solely on the prior announcement that the departure of the flight concerned will be postponed (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2021, Corendon Airlines, C-395/20, EU:C:2021:1041, paragraph 21).
19 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the passengers concerned were informed, the day before their departure, that the departure of their flight had been postponed and that a new booking confirmation was sent to them, indicating new times, without any change in the airports of departure or arrival or in their flight number. Those factors thus characterise a ‘delay’ within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, as interpreted in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the present judgment.
20 In the second place, Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 2 of that regulation and the principle of equal treatment, must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may, first, be treated in the same way as passengers whose flights are cancelled for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation provided for in Article 7(1). Secondly, those passengers may rely on that right to compensation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, an irreversible loss of time equal to, or in excess of, three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 January 2024, Laudamotion and Ryanair, C-54/23, EU:C:2024:74, paragraphs 19 and 21 and the case-law cited).
21 That delay of three hours, as a condition for obtaining compensation, was defined taking into account the fact that Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 allows air carriers, in the specific context of the re-routing of passengers following a cancellation of a flight at the very last moment, to bring forward the passengers’ departure time by up to one hour and to defer their arrival by up to two hours (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 October 2012, Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, EU:C:2012:657, paragraph 31).
22 It thus follows from the two preceding paragraphs that, when the delay in arrival of a flight is equal to, or in excess of, three hours, the passengers concerned are entitled to compensation on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, like passengers whose original flight has been cancelled and to whom an air carrier is not able to offer re-routing in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of that regulation, given that they also suffer an irreversible loss of time (judgment of 4 September 2014, Germanwings, C-452/13, EU:C:2014:2141, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
23 In the present case, it should be noted that, if the duration of the delay suffered by the passengers concerned in arriving at their destination is determined on the basis of the originally scheduled arrival time, those passengers will be able to rely on a right to compensation, in so far as, as is apparent from the order for reference, they have suffered a delay of more than three hours by comparison with the originally scheduled time of arrival. By contrast, if the duration of that delay were to be determined on the basis of the arrival time indicated in the new booking confirmation, those passengers would not be able to claim such compensation, given that, in that situation, the delay in arrival would be less than three hours.
24 Nothing in the wording of the provisions of Regulation No 261/2004 whose interpretation is sought precludes the duration of the delay suffered by passengers in arriving at their final destination from being determined on the basis of the time of departure initially agreed between those passengers and the air carrier at the time of the booking of the flight concerned, irrespective of the subsequent unilateral postponements of the departure and arrival times of that flight and of the issue of new booking confirmations by that carrier.
25 That method of determining the duration of the delay in question is supported, first, by the objectives of Regulation No 261/2004 of ensuring a high level of protection for passengers, taking full account of the requirements of consumer protection in general, as set out in recital 1 of that regulation. Secondly, it is supported by recital 4 of that regulation, which sets out the intention of the legislature to ‘raise’ the standards of protection set by the previous regulation both to strengthen the rights of passengers and to ensure that air carriers operate under harmonised conditions in a liberalised market.
26 By contrast, to determine the duration of the delay in question on the basis of the arrival time set out in the new booking confirmation would amount to allowing the air carrier concerned unilaterally to change, by the mere issue of such a confirmation, the time of departure of the flight, even though that time was contractually agreed between the passengers and that air carrier at the time of the booking. That would run counter to the primary objective pursued by Regulation No 261/2004, consisting in ensuring a high level of protection for air passengers, an objective which requires that the rights conferred on those passengers be interpreted broadly (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 February 2024, Eventmedia Soluciones, C-11/23, EU:C:2024:194, paragraph 33).
27 Contrary to what Corendon Airlines maintains, the announcement in advance to the passengers concerned of the postponement of the departure and arrival times of their flight by an email from the air carrier, sent the day before the flight, cannot call into question the classification of that postponement as a delay, while it is not excluded that such an announcement may, as the case may be, limit the extent of the inconvenience suffered by those passengers.
28 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of postponement of the departure and arrival times of a flight, announced in advance by an air carrier and accompanied by the issue of a new booking confirmation to the passengers concerned, the duration of the delay in arrival suffered by those passengers must be determined on the basis of the originally scheduled arrival time.
Useful for
Treaty provisions considered
No treaty provisions considered.Legislation considered
EU Regulation 261/2004/Key subjects or concepts
Local Law on Consumers/Appeals history
No relevant appeals or appeal history identified for this case.Other case information
Lawyers or counsel before the Court of Justice of the European Union, Eighth Chamber:No counsel or legal team identified for this case.
Additional case references or citations:
ECLI:EU:C:2025:847. The full case name is given as Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik AS v Myflyright GmbH.
Do you have a suggestion, correction or update for this case?
