NI and HZ v European Air Charter AG (2026) T-656/24 EUGC (General Court)
European Court of Justice, General Court
Facts
8 NI and HZ each had a reservation for a flight operated by European Air Charter on 23 July 2022, with scheduled departure from Düsseldorf (Germany) at 15:00 and scheduled arrival in Varna (Bulgaria) on the same day at 17:50 (‘the flight at issue in the main proceedings’).
9 The flight at issue in the main proceedings was to be made by a European Air Charter aircraft used in a rotation. According to the initial schedule, the first flight in that rotation was to take off from Cologne-Bonn Airport (Germany) on 23 July 2022 at 07:40 and arrive in Varna at 10:30. The second flight in the rotation was supposed to depart from Varna at 11:20 and arrive in Düsseldorf at 14:10. The third flight in the rotation was the flight at issue in the main proceedings.
10 However, following an unusually long waiting time at the security check at Cologne-Bonn Airport, which was caused by a heavy workload for the staff carrying out the security checks on 23 July 2022, all of the passengers of the first flight in the rotation were delayed in presenting themselves for boarding. European Air Charter took the decision to wait for the passengers of that flight who were at the security check and the first flight in the rotation thus took off with a delay of more than five hours.
Issue(s)
19 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the autonomous decision of an air carrier to wait for the passengers of a flight who have not yet cleared security, due to a heavy workload for the staff carrying out security checks, is capable of breaking the causal link between the extraordinary circumstance of those shortcomings in the security checks and the delay in the arrival of a subsequent flight, scheduled for the same day on the same aircraft.
Discussion
30 In the present case, it should be noted that, in the case in the main proceedings, as a result of shortcomings in the security checks, the air carrier took the decision to wait for the passengers of the first flight who had not yet cleared security, even though that flight was ready for take-off on time.
31 It follows that that decision taken by the air carrier to wait for the passengers of the first flight arose between the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance and the delay of the flight at issue in the main proceedings. That decision is capable of breaking the direct causal link between those two events if it constitutes the determining cause for the delay of the flight at issue in the main proceedings and provided that the air carrier was not obliged to take that decision, in particular under a legal obligation, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
32 It should be noted that such an assessment does not require the objective of Regulation No 261/2004, which aims to ensure a high level of protection for certain passengers, to be taken into account. As the Advocate General observed in point 70 of his Opinion, that objective does not imply that the air carrier must weigh up the interests of the various groups of passengers affected by the same rotation.
33 Moreover, the Court of Justice has already held that it cannot be accepted that an air carrier may, by relying on the interest of other passengers in being transported within a reasonable time, increase considerably the situations in which it would have reasonable grounds for denying a passenger boarding. That would necessarily have the consequence of depriving such a passenger of all protection, which would be contrary to the objective of Regulation No 261/2004 (judgment of 4 October 2012, Finnair, C-22/11, EU:C:2012:604, paragraph 34).
34 An air carrier may not, by relying on the interest of the passengers directly affected by an extraordinary circumstance in being transported within a reasonable time, increase the situations in which it could be released from its obligation to pay compensation. As the Advocate General observed in point 73 of his Opinion, permitting an air carrier to rely on weighing up the interests of various groups of passengers affected by a rotation in order to circumvent its obligation to compensate one of those groups would be tantamount to adding an exemption clause to the obligation to compensate laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
35 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the autonomous decision of the operating air carrier 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.
Useful for
A carrier's own decision to wait breaks the causal chain for extraordinary circumstances under EU261
Treaty provisions considered
No treaty provisions considered.Legislation considered
EU Regulation 261/2004/Key subjects or concepts
Extraordinary circumstances/ Local Law on Consumers/Appeals history
No relevant appeals or appeal history identified for this case.Other case information
Lawyers or counsel before the European Court of Justice, General Court:Additional case references or citations:
ECLI:EU:C:2025:794
Do you have a suggestion, correction or update for this case?
