C-832/18 · 2020 · UK 261 AND EC 261
A and Others v Finnair Oyj
One journey can pay twice. The Court held on 12 March 2020 that a passenger compensated for a cancellation who accepts re-routing on the same carrier is entitled to a second Art. 7 payment where the replacement flight itself arrives late enough to qualify. It also held that failure of an on condition part, one replaced only when it becomes defective, is generally not an extraordinary circumstance.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-832/18
- JUDGMENT
- 12 March 2020
- CITATION
- Case C-832/18, judgment of 12 March 2020
What the case was about
A Helsinki to Singapore flight on 11 October 2013 was cancelled over a technical defect, and the passengers accepted re-routing via Chongqing the next day.
A rudder steering servo failed on the replacement flight, and arrival in Singapore slipped past midnight into 14 October.
Finnair had paid each passenger 600 euro for the cancellation and refused to pay again for the delayed re-routing.
What it changed
- Nothing in the regulation limits the rights of a re-routed passenger, so each successive disruption carries its own claim.
- Keeping a spare part permanently in stock does not turn that part's failure into something outside the carrier's control.
- Airlines answering a re-routing delay claim with the earlier payout are answering the wrong claim.
SOURCES
- Case C-832/18 A and Others v Finnair, judgment of 12 March 2020 · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 7(1) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026