Air Travel RightsPassenger-rights reference
Search

Does the Montreal Convention’s two-year limit apply to your compensation claim?

Checked 9 min read

2 years is the deadline the Montreal Convention sets for its own damages claims, under article 35. It is not automatically your EU261 deadline. German and Italian courts say it never reaches EU261 compensation; a Portuguese appeal court says it does; five more countries set their own, unrelated two-year rule that only looks like Montreal’s. This page sorts out which is which, country by country, and gives the safe deadline where your own country’s courts have not spoken.

#What does the Montreal Convention’s two-year limit cover?

2 years is the Montreal Convention’s own deadline to sue for damages, under article 35(1). The right to damages is extinguished unless an action starts within two years from arrival, from the date the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date carriage stopped. It caps a Convention claim, not automatically an EU261 or UK261 one.

That period runs against a Montreal Convention claim specifically: proven-loss baggage damage under article 22(2), delay damages under article 22(1) subject to the article 19 defence, or injury under article 21. The Convention text never mentions EU261 or UK261, both of which pay a flat sum for the disruption itself, not proven loss. Whether that counts as a Montreal “damages” claim for article 35 is exactly what this page works through, starting with the UK.

Source: Montreal Convention 1999 arts. 19, 21, 22(1)-(2), 35(1) - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-15.

Treat two years from arrival as the Convention deadline on its own terms, and read on before assuming it also closes a compensation claim.

#Does the two-year limit apply to UK261 compensation?

6 years, not 2, is UK261’s own limitation period in England and Wales. Article 3(9), inserted by SI 2023/1370, applies section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 to a UK261 claim. Articles 3(7) and 3(8) already say its compensation duties are not Montreal delay liability, and enforcing them is not a Montreal damages action.

The Court of Appeal settled the practical point directly. In Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 845, the court held that a claim for Regulation 261 delay compensation, the rule UK261 now carries in UK law, falls outside the Convention, so the Convention’s two-year bar in article 35 does not apply and the six years in section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 govern in England and Wales. That decision binds courts there. Scotland is a genuinely open point: the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 gives five years, and no Scottish judgment deciding whether that period or article 3(9) governs a UK261 claim was found.

Source: UK261 art. 3(7)-(9) - legislation.gov.uk; Limitation Act 1980 s.9 - legislation.gov.uk; Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 845 - caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-15.

For a UK261 claim in an English or Welsh court, work to six years; if a Scottish court may hear it, no figure is settled.

#Which European courts say the two years does not reach EU261, and which say it does?

3 countries have a court ruling on whether Montreal’s two years bars an EU261 claim, and they split 2 to 1. Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof and Italy’s Corte di Cassazione hold it does not apply; a Portuguese appeal court holds it does; Cyprus, the fourth country here, has no ruling either way.

Country

Court

Holding

Germany

Bundesgerichtshof, Xa ZR 61/09 (10 Dec 2009)

Montreal's article 35(1) period applies neither directly nor by analogy to EU261 compensation; the regular BGB Section 195 period governs

Germany

Bundesgerichtshof, X ZR 62/23 (4 June 2024)

The same regular limitation period applies even when the flight was part of a package holiday

Italy

Corte di Cassazione, Ordinanza n. 4427/2024

Montreal's 2-year period does not apply to EU261 article 7 compensation, a flat-rate remedy, not an individualised damages claim

Portugal

Tribunal da Relação do Porto, case 749/23.0T8ILH.P1

Montreal's 2-year period prevails over both EU261 and Portugal's own Civil Code; no Supreme Court ruling found

Cyprus

No ruling found

No Cypriot ruling either way on whether Montreal's 2-year period reaches EU261 compensation

Three courts reading the same Convention article reach two opposite answers, and a fourth country has no answer at all, so outside Germany and Italy nobody can assume a court will set Montreal’s two years aside. EU261 sets no deadline of its own. The CJEU held in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2012) that each Member State’s limitation rules fill the gap, which leaves each country’s courts to decide whether article 35 displaces them.

Italy’s Cassazione reached the Bundesgerichtshof’s answer in 2024 (Neos S.p.A. v AirHelp Ltd), reasoning EU261 compensation is flat-rate (“indennitaria”), not the individualised damages claim article 35 addresses, and left Italy’s own domestic period undecided on a procedural ground.

Portugal’s Relação do Porto broke that pattern in case 749/23.0T8ILH.P1, holding Montreal’s provisions prevail over EU261 and the Civil Code alike, whose ordinary period is 20 years (article 309); no Supreme Court ruling resolving the conflict was found. Cyprus also applies the Montreal Convention, two-year period included, but no Cypriot ruling confirms whether it reaches EU261 compensation; see the Cyprus claim page.

Source: BGH Xa ZR 61/09 (10 Dec 2009) and X ZR 62/23 (4 June 2024) - bundesgerichtshof.de; Corte di Cassazione, Ordinanza n. 4427/2024 - italgiure.giustizia.it; Tribunal da Relação do Porto, case 749/23.0T8ILH.P1 - dgsl.pt; Código Civil art. 309 - diariodarepublica.pt; CJEU C-139/11 Cuadrench Moré - eur-lex.europa.eu, checked 2026-09-18.

If a German court will hear your claim, the regular three years apply; in an Italian court Montreal is out but the domestic period is open, so act on six months. In Portugal, or a country with no ruling, work to two years unless that country’s own claim page gives a shorter figure.

#Why do so many national deadlines also come out at two years?

5 countries have a two-year rule of their own that could reach a flight claim, in law unrelated to the Montreal Convention: the Netherlands, Switzerland, Croatia, Greece and, as one of three untested candidates, Malta. A national two-year period and Montreal’s article 35 can look identical and still be legally unrelated.

The Netherlands sets two years in article 8:1835 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek, its own air-carriage-contract limitation rule, running from the day after arrival. Rechtbank Oost-Brabant applied it directly to an EU261 delay claim in a 2019 ruling, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2019:5010, reaching two years by a wholly Dutch route.

Switzerland’s Lufttransportverordnung article 14 sets its own two-year forfeiture period, a Verwirkungsfrist, not the ten-year Verjährung the Code of Obligations gives generally. A Basel-Stadt cantonal court applied it to an EU261-type claim in 2016, BEZ.2016.3 (see the Switzerland claim page). Croatia’s air-transport obligations act sets two years in article 127(1), untested against EU261. Greece’s Aviation Code sets two years in article 155(a), competing with a 20-year Civil Code default. Malta’s Civil Code offers two years under article 2153, one of three untested candidates alongside five and thirty years.

None of these five rules is the Montreal Convention’s article 35. Each is a national limitation or forfeiture period that happens to land on the same number, applied or not yet tested against an EU261 claim by that country’s own courts.

Source: BW art. 8:1835 - wetten.overheid.nl; Rechtbank Oost-Brabant ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2019:5010 - rechtspraak.nl; LTrV art. 14 and Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt BEZ.2016.3 - fedlex.admin.ch / entscheidsuche.ch; Croatian air-transport obligations act (NN 132/98) art. 127(1) - narodne-novine.nn.hr; Greek Aviation Code art. 155(a); Malta Civil Code (Cap. 16) art. 2153 - legislation.mt, checked 2026-09-18.

Check which two-year rule your own country’s courts actually use before you rely on either the Montreal deadline or a look-alike national one.

#Which deadline should you work to?

2 years is the safe working deadline in Portugal, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Croatia, Greece and Malta, where courts either apply a two-year rule or have not ruled. Germany has a settled three years; Italy has excluded Montreal without settling its own period, so six months is the cautious figure there.

Germany and Italy both have a top-tier ruling excluding Montreal’s two years from EU261 compensation, and that is where they part. Germany applies its regular three years under BGB section 195, counted from the end of the year in which the claim arose and you knew or should have known of it. Italy’s Cassazione left the domestic period open between six months under the Navigation Code (article 418), one year under the Civil Code (article 2951, 18 months if the carriage begins or ends outside Europe) and the ten-year default (article 2946), so the cautious figure there is six months, shorter than Montreal’s. Elsewhere, either a court applied two years directly (Portugal, the Netherlands, Switzerland) or no ruling exists at all (Cyprus, Croatia, Greece, Malta). Outside Italy, treating two years as the deadline costs nothing if the real figure is longer; trusting a longer figure a court later rejects costs the whole claim.

Each country’s own claim page states its own courts and safe action: Portugal, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Cyprus. A small claim may still fit the small claims routes used across Europe; every country’s deadline sits on flight compensation time limits.

Diary your deadline today: for a country this page does not name, treat two years as the working figure unless that country’s own claim page gives a shorter one.

Not your situation? The EU261, UK261 and Air Passenger Protection Regulations hubs cover each regime in full. Flying in the US? US federal rules differ. Unsure which law fits your flight? Work it out here.

General information, not legal advice. For your specific case: Citizens Advice, a European Consumer Centre (ECC), or a lawyer in the country whose court applies.

#Sources

#FAQ

Does the Montreal Convention two-year limit apply to EU261 compensation?
2 years is the Montreal Convention's own deadline under article 35, but whether it reaches EU261 compensation is unsettled across the EU: Germany's Bundesgerichtshof and Italy's Cassazione say no, a Portuguese appeal court says yes, and Cyprus has no ruling at all.
Does the two-year limit apply to UK261 claims?
6 years, not 2, is UK261's limitation period in England and Wales, under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 (article 3(9)). In Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 845 the Court of Appeal held that Regulation 261 delay compensation falls outside the Montreal Convention, so its article 35 two-year bar does not apply.
Why does Portugal's court apply two years to EU261?
Two years is what the Tribunal da Relação do Porto held in case 749/23.0T8ILH.P1: the Montreal Convention's limitation provisions override both EU261 and Portugal's own Civil Code. No Portuguese Supreme Court ruling settling the conflict was found, so a cautious reader acts on 2 years there, not Portugal's general 20.
Is the Dutch two-year limit the Montreal Convention's?
2 years is what article 8:1835 of the Dutch Burgerlijk Wetboek gives, its own domestic air-carriage-contract period, not the Montreal Convention's. Rechtbank Oost-Brabant applied it directly to an EU261 delay claim in 2019 (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2019:5010), reaching the same figure by an unrelated route.

Spotted a wrong figure, a changed rule or a dead link? Tell the editorial team. How fixes are handled: corrections.