Air Passenger Rights Case Law Developments from 1 January to 31 July 2025
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".