Flight cancelled? Had to stay the night in an airport? Your dog stuck in a kennel for an extra day?

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is on your side. Thanks to a new ECJ ruling on Thursday, airline compensation costs for flight cancellations may get heftier as a result of a ruling involving Air France.

The ruling referred to a case in a Spanish court in which seven Spaniards sued Air France after their flight from Paris to the northeastern Spanish city of Vigo in September 2008 had to turn back because of a technical malfunction.

The passengers were delayed by a day as a result of the enforced return to Charles de Gaulle airport. The seven plaintiffs have since demanded compensation for taxi fares and meal costs, as well as non-material damages, including an extra night that a pet dog had to spend in a kennel.

The ECJ's new ruling means, firstly, that a flight counts as cancelled if it takes off but fails to reach its destination and, secondly, passengers can theoretically claim compensation for extra losses incurred by the cancellation.

Measureable loss

The European Court of Justice upheld the Spanish complaints

The decision takes the possibility of compensation substantially further than current EU law, whereby passengers are entitled to receive between 125 and 600 euros ($172 - $825 dollars) when their flight is cancelled.

“It's very welcome that that the court has clarified these particular issues in a consumer-friendly way by allowing ‘non-material' damage to be compensated after cancellations," Monique Goyens, director general of the European Consumers' Organization (BEUC), said in statement. "The review of the relevant regulation 261 in the coming months should codify this."

BEUC spokesman John Phelan pointed out that the eruption of last year's Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, which resulted in the cancellation of thousands of flights, has highlighted the need for more clarity in air passenger rights.

"We've seen through things like the ash-cloud crisis that passengers need to have a kind of safety net for whenever they're really at a loss, like being stranded at an airport without basic facilities," he told Deutsche Welle. "The recommendation guarantees the provision of food and accommodation. So it's really just a case of making sure that those are respected."

Kerstin Heidt, legal adviser to the European Consumer Center (EVZ), told Deutsche Welle: "If the passenger can prove that he has suffered a measurable loss - for example, the loss of earnings - then he or she can demand compensation."

Airlines complain

But even before Thursday's ruling, airlines have been complaining that EU passenger protection rules are too onerous.

Their complaints grew louder after last year's ash-cloud caused a spike in compensation claims. Low-cost airline Ryanair even started charging passengers two extra euros extra per ticket as a result, claiming fee was necessary to cover the costs of EU regulation.

Eyjafjallajokull caused a headaches for Ryanair

The Association of European Airlines (AEA) declined to comment on Thursday's ruling, but said that the current EU legislation is flawed, so any clarification was welcome. "We welcome the fact that it is being reviewed at the moment," AEA spokesman David Henderson told Deutsche Welle.

"We're certainly seeing an argument from the airline industry that the ash-cloud crisis should be a reason for revising and drawing down passenger rights, and that's something that we would very much resist," Phelan said. "We think that shouldn't be an excuse."

The BEUC hopes the court ruling will bolster passenger rights against recent pressure from airlines. "It's key that the European Commission takes account of the court's rulings when revising the legislation and sets them in stone,” Goyens said.

Extra damages

It will take some time for airlines, lawyers and consumer groups to digest the implications of Thursday's judgement. While they agree that it provides more clarity, it's still uncertain exactly what damages can and can't be claimed for.

"The judgment is just out and we would have to analyze it in depth," Phelan said. "We can only really say in this particular casewhat actually qualifies as non-material damage. It certainly will be an interesting phase."

Spanish judges will now be tasked with delivering a final judgment on the case of the original Paris to Vigo flight, but is interesting to note that the verdict will also apply to flights to countries that came to and from outside the EU.

Author: Ben Knight

Editor: John Blau