EU261 €Taking an EU261 claim to court

Checked 18 Sep 2026·13 min read · 6 steps

A court is the only step in an EU261 claim that ends with an order the airline has to obey. Everything before it, a letter to the airline or a complaint to the country’s enforcement body, asks the airline to pay rather than makes it. This page covers the court that will hear you, the European procedure built for sums this size, the deadline that closes the door, and the cost of walking through it.

#1Where can you sue the airline?

3 courts are usually open on an EU flight. Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation puts the airline in the courts of the country it is based in. Article 7(1)(b) adds the place where the service was provided, and the Court of Justice read that as two airports.

Source: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, arts. 4(1), 6(1), 7(1)(b), 17(3) and 18(1) — eur-lex.europa.eu; Rehder, C-204/08 (2009), operative part — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.

Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) decided the airport question. The Court held that air transport is provided indivisibly from one end of the route to the other, so neither airport outranks the other, and the passenger sues “at the applicant’s choice” in the court covering the place of departure or the place of arrival as agreed in the contract. It interpreted the predecessor provision, article 5(1)(b) of Regulation 44/2001, which article 7(1)(b) of Brussels Ia replaced.

A connecting itinerary bought as one contract stretches that choice. In flightright v Air Nostrum (C-274/16, 2018) the Court held that the passenger may sue at the final-destination airport, even against the carrier that operated only the first leg.

Now the part most guides get backwards. Passengers are consumers, and Brussels Ia does normally let a consumer sue at home under article 18(1). Article 17(3) switches that off: the consumer section “shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation”. A bare flight is a contract of transport. Book the flight with a hotel for one price and the home court comes back.

If the airline is based outside the EU, article 6(1) hands the question to the national rules of whichever Member State you are trying. A flight from a British airport is a separate system again, set out at small claims court for flight compensation.

Pick the court before anything else, because the deadline and the fee both follow from it.

#2What is the European Small Claims Procedure, and when does it fit?

5 000 euro is the ceiling for a European Small Claims Procedure claim, counted without interest, expenses or disbursements. Regulation 861/2007 set it at 2 000 and a 2015 amendment raised it, applying from 14 July 2017. Every EU261 band fits several times over.

Source: Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 (consolidated), arts. 2(1), 3(1)-(3), 4(1) and 5 — eur-lex.europa.eu; Regulation (EU) 2015/2421, recital 26, arts. 1(1) and 3 — eur-lex.europa.eu; ZSE Energia, C-627/17 (2018), operative part — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.

It sits alongside each country’s own small claims route rather than replacing it. You lodge claim Form A at the court with jurisdiction; it serves answer Form C within 14 days, and the airline has 30 days to reply. Denmark sits outside the scheme: under Protocol No 22 it took no part in adopting the Regulation and is “not bound by it or subject to its application”.

One condition decides everything else. Article 3(1) limits the procedure to a “cross-border case”, meaning one “in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court or tribunal seised”, judged on the date the court receives the form.

That wording bites in an awkward place for a passenger living in the United Kingdom. A UK resident, domiciled in no Member State, supplies no cross-border element. Sue a Spanish airline in a Spanish court and neither side is domiciled elsewhere in the EU, which leaves the ordinary Spanish procedure. Sue the same airline in a French court over a Paris departure and the airline’s Spanish domicile supplies it. The only ruling on article 3(1), ZSE Energia (C-627/17, 2018), reads it strictly: a case sits outside the Regulation when claimant and defendant are both domiciled in the court’s own country. None tests a claimant living outside the EU, so this is a strict reading, not a settled rule.

The procedure is also gone from British courts: regulation 10 of a 2018 exit instrument revoked Regulation 861/2007 in UK law on 31 December 2020, and legislation.gov.uk now carries it marked “(revoked)”.

#3How long do you have, and why does it differ by country?

1 year in Poland, 2 in the Netherlands, 3 in Germany, 5 in France and Spain. EU261 fixes no limitation period of its own, so the country whose court hears the claim decides how long you had, and the Court of Justice settled that principle back in 2013.

Source: Cuadrench Moré, C-139/11 (2012), operative part — eur-lex.europa.eu; Regulation (EC) No 861/2007, arts. 18(3) and 19 — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.

Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2012) held that the Regulation contains no time limit, so each Member State’s own rules on the limitation of actions supply one. The spread across the EU is wider than any passenger expects, and choosing a court therefore chooses a deadline as well.

The European procedure changes none of it. Article 19 leaves everything the Regulation does not govern to the procedural law of the country the case runs in, and limitation is not among the things it governs. Article 18(3) points the same way from an odd angle: where a judgment is set aside on review, the claimant “shall not lose the benefit of any interruption of prescription or limitation periods where such an interruption applies under national law”. The Regulation assumes national interruption rules. It does not write one.

Four of this site’s country pages carry the statute behind the figure: Poland’s one year, the Netherlands' two, Germany’s three and France’s five. Italy is the awkward one, with three competing periods and six months the only safe figure to work to. The ITA Airways card applies that six-month reading to one airline. Every regime’s limit sits side by side at flight compensation time limits.

Deadlines on the other country pages

• Belgium — two years, in force since 21 December 2023
• Croatia — a five-year and a two-year law compete; work to two
• Cyprus — six years on the statute, two as the safe figure
• Czechia — three years from when you knew, under a ten-year long-stop
• Finland — three years general, two for air carriage, no ruling between them
• Hungary — five years, counted from when the claim falls due
• Malta — no settled period; work to two years
• Sweden — ten years in court, one year for ARN
• The Montreal two-year limit — which courts apply article 35 to an EU261 claim, and which refuse

Work out your deadline from the court you picked, not from the country you live in.

#4What does it cost, and who pays if you win?

Article 16 puts the costs on the unsuccessful party, with a brake on it: a court must not award the winner costs that were unnecessarily incurred or are disproportionate to the claim. Article 15a caps the court fee at whatever that country charges for its own simplified procedure.

Source: Regulation (EC) No 861/2007, arts. 10, 11(1), 15a and 16 — eur-lex.europa.eu; Jonsson, C-554/17 (2019), operative part — eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.

Three of the Regulation’s own provisions hold the cost down before the loser-pays rule is reached. Article 10 says representation by a lawyer or another legal professional “shall not be mandatory”. Article 11(1) obliges Member States to give you practical help filling in the forms and general information about the procedure, free of charge. Article 15a(2) requires at least one distance payment method, so the fee can be paid from a different country than the court sits in.

The disproportionate-costs brake in article 16 cuts both ways and is worth reading twice. It protects you from an airline’s legal bill on a claim of a few hundred euro. It also means that if you hire a lawyer the Regulation says you do not need, the fee may not come back to you even when you win. Winning only in part is softer ground again: in Jonsson (C-554/17, 2019) the Court held that article 16 does not stop a national court applying its own rules to split the costs or leave each side carrying its own, so long as a claimant who largely wins is not left bearing a substantial share.

No per-country fee is quoted on this page, on purpose. Article 15a fixes a ceiling in relative terms rather than a figure, national fees vary widely, and the EU portal that publishes them refused every automated request made while this page was written. For the British comparison, the fee tables for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland sit on the UK small claims guide.

#5Can you run the case from another country without travelling?

The procedure is written, by article 5(1), and an oral hearing happens only when the court cannot decide on the papers or a party asks for one. Where a hearing is needed, article 8 sends it to videoconference first. Physical attendance is the exception.

Source: Regulation (EC) No 861/2007, arts. 5(1)-(1a), 6(1), 7(1), 8(1) and 20 — eur-lex.europa.eu; HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, art. 16 and status table — hcch.net, checked 2026-09-20.

A court that refuses a requested hearing has to give its reasons in writing, and the refusal cannot be appealed on its own, only alongside the judgment. Once the responses are in, article 7(1) gives the court 30 days to give judgment or to ask for more detail, take evidence, or call that hearing.

Language is the real obstacle rather than distance. Article 6(1) requires the claim form, the response and any description of supporting documents in the language of the court, so a French claim is prepared in French even though it is prepared from a kitchen table in Manchester.

Collecting is the easy half inside the EU. Article 20(1) makes the judgment recognised and enforced in another Member State with no declaration of enforceability and no way to oppose recognition, on a Form D certificate the court issues at no extra cost.

Out of the EU is newer ground. The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention entered into force for the EU on 1 September 2023 and for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025, and its article 16 applies it only where the Convention already had effect between the two countries when the proceedings began. An EU judgment from a case begun after that July 2025 date is therefore in scope for enforcement in the United Kingdom, which had no treaty route for one in the four and a half years before it.

#6When is court the wrong answer?

3 routes sit in front of a court, and all three are free. Writing to the airline costs nothing, a complaint to the enforcement body costs nothing, and an approved ADR body under the EU consumer ADR rules should resolve a dispute inside 90 days at no or only nominal cost.

Source: Commission interpretative guidelines C/2024/5687 (OJ C, 25.9.2024), section 8.2 — eur-lex.europa.eu; apf — apf.gv.at; ARN — arn.se; ART ConciliaWeb — autorita-trasporti.it, checked 2026-09-20.

Start with the letter. What to do when an airline refuses compensation sets out what it has to contain, and a clear one is often answered without any of the rest.

Several countries then offer a free body that does more than investigate. Austria’s apf runs an ADR request at no cost once the airline has had six weeks. Sweden routes compensation disputes to ARN, which applies its own rule that the complaint reach it within a year of your first complaint to the airline. Italy runs ConciliaWeb through its transport regulator, alongside ENAC’s separate sanctioning track.

Court earns its place in three situations. The airline has refused and belongs to no ADR scheme. Your deadline is close enough that a queue elsewhere would swallow it. Or the sum is large enough, across several passengers on one booking, to be worth a fee and a form.

Rather not choose a country, a court and a deadline yourself? AirHelp (third-party claim service) takes on refused or ignored EU261 claims, no win no fee, and keeps a fee from any payout. Writing to the airline, the enforcement body and the courts above all stay open to you either way.

Do it yourself · freeClaim with the airline, then the regulator

• Write to the airline and keep the reference
• Refused: the enforcement body of the country you left, free
• You keep all of the compensation

Use the claim letter template →

Hand it overAirHelp takes the claim, no win no fee

• They deal with the airline for you
• AirHelp's fee is 35% of the compensation, VAT included, and nothing if the claim fails.

Start with AirHelp →Third-party claim service

General information about suing an airline over an EU261 claim, not legal advice, and jurisdiction in particular turns on facts this page cannot see. For your own case: a lawyer in the country you would sue in, a national consumer body, or the free assistance article 11 requires that country to provide.

#Sources

• Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, consolidated text of 14 July 2017, arts. 1-21 - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• Regulation (EC) No 861/2007, original text, recital on Protocol No 22 and art. 2(3) as originally enacted (Denmark) - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 (threshold raised to EUR 5 000, applying from 14 July 2017) - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), arts. 4, 6, 7, 17 and 18 - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation, C-204/08 (2009), CJEU, operative part - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, C-274/16 (2018), CJEU - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• Cuadrench Moré, C-139/11 (2012), CJEU, operative part - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• ZSE Energia a.s. v RG, C-627/17 (2018), CJEU, operative part and paras 29-35, the only ruling interpreting art. 3(1) of Regulation 861/2007 - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• Rebecka Jonsson v Société du Journal L’Est Républicain, C-554/17 (2019), CJEU, operative part, on art. 16 costs - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• The European Enforcement Order, European Order for Payment and European Small Claims Procedure (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, reg. 10 - legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-20.
• Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 as it stood in UK law, marked “(revoked)” - legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-20.
• HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, art. 16 and status table (EU in force 1 September 2023; United Kingdom in force 1 July 2025) - hcch.net, checked 2026-09-20.
• European Commission, interpretative guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, C/2024/5687 (OJ C, 25.9.2024), section 8.2 - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-20.
• Agentur für Passagier- und Fahrgastrechte (apf), deadlines - apf.gv.at, checked 2026-09-18.
• Allmänna reklamationsnämnden (ARN) - arn.se, checked 2026-09-18.
• Autorità di Regolazione dei Trasporti, passenger and user rights - autorita-trasporti.it, checked 2026-09-18.

#FAQ

Can I sue an airline in my own country?

Only if it is also the airline's home country, or the airport you left from, or the one you landed at. The EU rule that normally lets a consumer sue at home is switched off for transport contracts, unless travel and accommodation were sold to you together for one price.

How long do I have to sue over a cancelled flight?

That depends entirely on the country whose court hears it, because the Regulation fixes no period. Poland allows one year from the flight, the Netherlands two, Germany three, France and Spain five each. Check your own country's figure before you decide how leisurely the complaint route can be.

Is the European Small Claims Procedure worth using?

For a refused compensation claim against an airline based in another EU country, usually yes. It runs on standard forms, stays in writing, needs no lawyer, and the judgment is enforced in other Member States without extra approval. It is closed to you if no party lives in another Member State.