Navigating EU 261

Picture this: you’re standing at the departure gate watching your flight status change from “on time” to “delayed” to “cancelled,” feeling that familiar sense of frustration in your stomach. Whether it’s missing a connecting flight or losing precious holiday time, flight disruptions can turn dreams into nightmares.

To combat this, European passengers have a powerful legal shield: EU Regulation 261/2004. 

EU 261 represents a landmark achievement in consumer protection law, establishing comprehensive passenger rights of compensation for flight delays, cancellations, as well as denied boarding. This regulation recognises that when airlines fail to deliver their promised service, passengers deserve financial compensation, rather than just apologies. 

The regulation’s compensation structure is very straightforward. Passengers can claim between €250 and €600 depending on flight distance and delay duration. Short-haul flights within the EU qualify for €250, medium-distance flights earn €400 and long-haul international flights can secure €600 in compensation. These amounts are designed to reflect the genuine inconvenience caused by airlines. 

However, airlines have long exploited the “extraordinary circumstances” argument, claiming that events beyond their control release them for compensation obligations. They’re often surprisingly stubborn in processing claims, hoping passengers will simply give up. This is where modern technology comes in, as AI systems like ChatGPT or Gemini can draft compelling legal documents for compensation claims. Through thorough prompt engineering, these tools can help construct detailed, legally sound applications that improve your chances of receiving your rightful compensation. 

The legal landscape has also been evolving decisively in passengers’ favour. The European Court of Justice has consistently narrowed the definition of “extraordinary circumstances,” making it harder for airlines to escape their obligations. A pivotal moment came with the van der Lans v KLM ruling, which established that technical aircraft faults are an “inherent part of an airline’s normal activity”, instead of extraordinary circumstances warranting exemption from compensation. 

Overall, while airlines continue to deploy defensive strategies, case law increasingly favours the rights and wills of the consumer. The judiciary’s role in strengthening consumer protection highlights how EU law effectively holds powerful corporations accountable, ensuring that passenger rights remain more than just paper promises.