ANSWER · UK 261 AND EC 261
What is the difference between EC 261 and the Montreal Convention?
EC 261 pays standardised sums for standardised inconvenience: €250, €400 or €600 once you arrive 3 hours or more late, no receipts required. The Montreal Convention compensates proven individual damage. The Grand Chamber held in Nelson in 2012 that the two do not conflict, because lost time sits outside the Convention's damage regime, and Cuadrench Moré held the Convention's two year limit does not govern EC 261 claims.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
The two regimes side by side
| EC 261 / UK 261 | MONTREAL CONVENTION | |
|---|---|---|
| What it pays | Fixed sums by distance band | Proven individual damage |
| What you must prove | The disruption and its size | Your actual loss and causation |
| Time limit | National law of the forum, 1 to 10 years across the map | Two years |
| Who applies it | Airlines, enforcement bodies, national courts | National courts |
Using both at once
Art. 12 links them: the regulation applies without prejudice to further compensation, and the fixed sum may be deducted from it. In practice the fixed sum answers the delay itself and a Convention or national law claim answers documented losses beyond it.
THE JUDGMENTS BEHIND THIS ANSWER
SOURCES
- Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10 Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa and TUI Travel v CAA, judgment of 23 October 2012 (Grand Chamber, ECLI:EU:C:2012:657) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Case C-139/11 Cuadrench Moré v KLM, judgment of 22 November 2012 (ECLI:EU:C:2012:741) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 12(1) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
RELATED QUESTIONS
Checking is free, takes about 2 minutes, and starts nothing. You see the amount at stake before any personal details.
Check my flight →