C-22/11 · 2012 · UK 261 AND EC 261
Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy
Denied boarding under Art. 2(j) and Art. 4 is not limited to overbooking. The Court held on 4 October 2012 that refusing a passenger because flights were rescheduled after a strike is denied boarding on operational grounds, and that extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight cannot justify bumping a passenger from a later one or excuse the Art. 4(3) compensation.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-22/11
- JUDGMENT
- 4 October 2012
- CITATION
- Case C-22/11, judgment of 4 October 2012
What the case was about
A strike by Barcelona airport staff on 28 July 2006 forced Finnair to cancel the 11.40 flight to Helsinki and reschedule the following days.
Mr Lassooy held a ticket for the 11.40 flight on 30 July, presented himself properly, and was moved to a specially arranged 21.40 flight instead.
The Finnish appeal court ordered Finnair to pay 400 euro, and the Supreme Court referred the definition questions to Luxembourg.
What it changed
- Denied boarding covers all refusals not attributable to the passenger, not just selling too many seats.
- An extraordinary circumstance attaches to a particular aircraft on a particular day. Two days of rescheduling later, the strike no longer constrained the airline's choices.
- The Court pointed to Art. 13: a carrier that pays can pursue whoever actually caused the disruption, including third parties.
SOURCES
- Case C-22/11 Finnair v Lassooy, judgment of 4 October 2012 · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 4(3) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026