MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415098077 · doi:10.54648/aila2025055

Air Passenger Rights Case Law Developments from 1 January to 31 July 2025

2025· article· en· W4415098077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sofia Mateou, Chrystel Erotokritou

Bibliographic record

VenueAir and Space Law · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionCommon lawCompensation (psychology)High CourtEconomic JusticeLiabilityBill of ladingComplaintTRIPS architecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1 January to 31 July 2025, there have been several new court decisions concerning air passenger rights. The first part of this article highlights recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that have shed light on the interpretation of EU Regulation No 261/2004 and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention 1999). The second part presents a non-exhaustive overview of selected significant rulings from non-EU countries. In the case NW, YS v. Qatar Airways, the Court clarified that passengers travelling under promotional fares remain entitled to rerouting under Regulation 261/2004 even long after the original cancellation, and airlines cannot refuse rerouting solely because tickets were obtained through special promotions. In Flightright GmbH v. Etihad Airways, the Court confirmed that passengers are entitled to reimbursement in cash unless they give clear and explicit consent to accept vouchers, and mere registration in a loyalty programme is insufficient. In M1.R., M2.R. v. AAA sp. z o.o., the Court ruled that passengers on package tours or third-party financed trips are entitled to compensation under the Regulation if they hold a boarding pass and a confirmed reservation, regardless of whether they travelled free of charge or on a reduced fare. In AD (a passenger) v. Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España, the Court held that a passenger may validly submit a protest for delayed baggage under the Montreal Convention at any time after discovering the delay and within the twenty-one-day period, including before the baggage is delivered. In Union des consommateurs and Silas v. Air Canada, the Québec Court of Appeal imposed over ten million Canadian Dollars (CAD) in punitive damages for misleading ‘drip pricing’. In Keung v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia dismissed a delay-compensation claim, holding that parent companies are not automatically liable for subsidiaries. In Air Passenger Rights v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., the Supreme Court of British Columbia enjoined WestJet from posting fixed hotel and meal reimbursement limits. In WestJet v. Gauthier, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed that passengers with disabilities may pursue provincial consumer law claims for extra-seat charges on international flights.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0270.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAir and Space LawSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207