In the most recent ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), a groundbreaking decision was made in the matter of air passenger rights, further strengthening the rights of passengers in the event of flight cancellations.

The case, which revolved around compensation for a passenger who wanted to fly with Easyjet from Berlin-Tegel to Düsseldorf in the summer of 2019, led to clarification of airlines’ obligations when providing replacement flights. The BGH thereby overturned a previous ruling by the Berlin regional court, which had released the airline from its responsibility. This decision not only has legal significance, but could also have a lasting impact on how flight cancellations and delays are handled in the aviation industry.

The case: cancellation and the replacement flights

The passenger, who originally wanted to fly with Easyjet from Berlin-Tegel to Düsseldorf, experienced an unexpected turn of events in July 2019: both the outward and return flights were canceled. The airline offered him replacement flights, but only its own flights – either on the same day or on later days. However, the passenger decided to take the train instead of using the alternative flight offered.

After the passenger referred the case to the passenger rights portal Flightright, the company took the airline to court. The Berlin-Wedding district court upheld the lawsuit, but the regional court dismissed the lawsuit on appeal. It was based on the airline’s argument that in exceptional circumstances – such as a thunderstorm that had delayed the previous flight and a night flight ban that prevented the return flight – the cancellation and the delayed replacement flights were justified. In addition, it was unreasonable for the airline to start the original flight to Düsseldorf, as staff shortages and other operational problems also played a role.

But this view was corrected by the BGH in its most recent ruling. The Federal Court of Justice made it clear that the airlines were not able to simply offer their own replacement flights. Rather, if possible, an airline would also have to offer earlier flights from other airlines as a replacement. This is especially true if these flights would arrive at their destination earlier. These only do not apply if no corresponding flights from other airlines are available or if it is not possible for the airline to offer them for practical reasons. However, in this case the airline must prove that this is the case.

The legal basis: aviation law and compensation

The BGH ruling is based on EU Regulation 261/2004, which regulates the rights of passengers in the event of flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding. According to this regulation, passengers are generally entitled to compensation in the event of cancellations, unless exceptional circumstances – such as extreme weather conditions or safety risks – make it impossible to carry out the flight. However, if a flight is canceled and alternative flights are offered, these must take place at the earliest opportunity to minimize inconvenience to passengers.

Airlines are also obliged to pay passengers compensation in the event of cancellation or delay, if this is not otherwise recognized as exceptional. In this case, the Federal Court of Justice directly approached the airline and offered the same number of replacement flights. The passenger was therefore entitled to compensation of 250 euros – even if the airline had offered some flights that could at least take place within a certain time frame.

This decision is another step towards clearer and stronger enforcement of air passenger rights. In particular, the ruling makes it clear that airlines are not only responsible for replacing the flights they themselves offer, but also have a duty to find the best possible solution for their passengers, which requires coordination with other airlines.

Impact on the airline industry and passenger rights

The BGH ruling could have far-reaching effects on the aviation industry. On the one hand, it becomes more expensive for airlines to offer replacement flights if they also have to take flights from other airlines into account. On the other hand, the ruling could lead to improved service for passengers, who are more likely to be able to reach their destination on earlier flights in the event of cancellation. This decision strengthens the rights of passengers and ensures greater transparency and fairness in dealing with flight cancellations and delays.

Another important aspect is that the ruling helps define airlines’ responsibilities when it comes to the way in which replacement flights are offered. The previous practice of only offering our own replacement flights is being put to the test by the ruling. In the future, it could become easier for passengers to find earlier connections if airlines are required to work with other airlines. The ruling thus provides an impetus for further improvement of passenger law in Europe.

In its ruling in the Easyjet case, the Federal Court of Justice sent a clear signal in favor of protecting the rights of airline passengers. It becomes clear that airlines are obliged to provide compensation not only when exceptional circumstances exist, but also when they are unable to offer passengers the best possible alternative solution. This could lead to a reform of flight cancellation practices and increase competition between airlines in terms of service to passengers. In the future, it will be difficult for airlines to be satisfied with simply providing their own replacement flights.