FI and RE v TUIfly GmbH (2021) C-253/21 CJEU (9th Chamber); ECLI:EU:C:2021:840
Court of Justice of the European Union, Ninth Chamber
Facts
7 FI and RE made a reservation with the airline TUIfly on a flight from Gran Canaria, Spain, to Hamburg, Germany.
8 This flight was scheduled to depart on June 8, 2018, from Gran Canaria at 5:10 p.m. and to land that same day in Hamburg at 10:55 p.m.
9 However, due to a slight delay in the flight, the aircraft could not land in Hamburg due to the night flight ban and was diverted to Hannover Airport (Germany).
10 From Hannover, the passengers were transported by bus to Hamburg, where they arrived with a delay of less than three hours.
11 According to the orthodromic method, the distance between Gran Canaria and Hamburg is more than 3,500 kilometers.
12 In view of TUIfly’s refusal to pay them the compensation provided for in Article 7(1)(b) […], FI and RE brought an action before the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Hamburg District Court, Germany). By a judgment of June 24, 2020, this court upheld the claims for compensation made by FI and RE, considering that the diversion of the flight to Hanover constituted a change in the flight plan which amounted to a cancellation of the flight.
Issue(s)
Was the passenger entitled to compensation under EU Regulation 261, on the basis that the flight in question had been effectively cancelled as a result of landing in a city different to that ticketed?
Discussion
The following was given as an order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) on 6 October 2021:
Articles 5(1)(c), 7(1) and 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a diverted flight which lands at a different airport from the one initially planned and which does not serve the same town, city or region is likely to confer on the passenger a right to compensation in respect of a cancelled flight.
Useful for
A diversion can be a cancellation for EU261 purposes
