C-74/19 · 2020 · UK 261 AND EC 261
LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA
Unruly passenger behaviour that makes the commander divert to offload that passenger is an extraordinary circumstance under Art. 5(3). The Court held in 2020 that the defence falls away where the carrier contributed to the behaviour or ignored warning signs, and that re-routing duties extend to seats on other airlines' flights.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-74/19
- JUDGMENT
- 11 June 2020
- CITATION
- ECLI:EU:C:2020:437
What the case was about
A TAP flight diverted to remove a disruptive passenger. The knock on effect delayed a later flight on the same aircraft, and the claimant reached Oslo more than 24 hours late.
TAP argued the diversion excused the downstream delay, and that offering its own next available service discharged its duty.
What it changed
- It confirmed that an extraordinary circumstance on an earlier rotation can excuse a later flight, but only if the carrier shows it did everything reasonable afterwards.
- Offering the next flight in the airline's own schedule is not enough. The carrier must show it looked at alternatives, including competitors' flights.
- The limit on that duty is an intolerable sacrifice given the size of the operation, which is a fact the airline has to evidence.
SOURCES
- Case C-74/19 LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, judgment of 11 June 2020 (ECLI:EU:C:2020:437) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 8 · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026