ECJ: New developments regarding flight cancellation compensation

Imagine your long-awaited adventure to Lima is just around the corner. Your suitcases are packed, you're incredibly excited about Peruvian cuisine – and then comes the shock: your flight is canceled . What follows is the usual bureaucratic marathon. You request a refund, the airline is cooperative and transfers the ticket price. But when you look at your bank statement, you're taken aback. Almost one hundred euros are missing. The amount the booking portal retained as a commission seems to have vanished into thin air . The airline shrugs and refers you to the third-party provider, while the portal, in turn, points to its service. Until now, this was a legal gray area where travelers often came out on the losing end. But a brand-new ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on January 15, 2026, has now put an end to this and significantly strengthened the position of consumers.

The fight for the last 95 euros

The underlying case, which made its way from the Austrian Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, is a classic example of the modern travel world. Passengers had booked flight tickets from Vienna to Lima with the Dutch airline KLM through the well-known portal Opodo . After the cancellation, KLM refunded the ticket price but steadfastly refused to reimburse the booking commission of approximately €95 . The airline's argument sounded logical at first glance: they had no knowledge of the exact amount of the fee, which the portal had individually agreed upon with the customer. Since the airline had never received this amount, they argued, they could not refund it. This argument was based on an older ruling from 2018, which made the obligation to reimburse contingent on whether the airline was aware of the commission.

The end of ignorance as a shield

With its recent ruling (Case C-45/24), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has put a stop to this defensive strategy employed by airlines. The judges clarified that the obligation to refund passengers does not depend on whether the airline knows the exact euro amount of the commission in each individual case. Rather, the decisive factor is the overall business structure . If an airline allows an intermediary like Opodo to issue tickets on its behalf, it implicitly accepts that intermediary's business model. As lawyers, we expressly welcome this clarification, as it prevents airlines from hiding behind a claim of technical ignorance while simultaneously profiting massively from the reach of these booking portals.

The commission as an unavoidable part of the price

A key element of the judgment's reasoning is the classification of the booking fee as an "unavoidable" component of the ticket price . The European Court of Justice (ECJ) argues here very closely to the consumer protection principles of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 . If the commission were excluded from the obligation to refund, passengers would regularly be left with costs that are inextricably linked to purchasing the ticket. This would not only weaken passenger protection but also undermine trust in digital booking services. The judges in Luxembourg recognized that the practice of charging commissions is a common business practice that every airline must be aware of as soon as it opens its ticket allocations to third-party platforms. Those who utilize the advantages of online sales must also bear the associated cost risks in the event of a cancellation .

What does this mean for your future demands?

For you as a traveler, this ruling significantly simplifies the process of enforcing your claims . Previously, in our legal practice, we often had to painstakingly prove that the airline was aware of the fee structure. This proof is now obsolete. If your flight is canceled, you are entitled to a full refund of the amount you paid to the point of sale – including all service and intermediary fees. Airlines can no longer claim that these fees are "third-party costs." This ruling sends a clear signal to the industry that the entrepreneurial risk of a flight cancellation lies entirely with the operating airline and cannot be passed on to the customer piecemeal.

Conclusion: A victory for transparency

In summary, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has closed a loophole with this ruling. The Air Passenger Rights Regulation aims to ensure that passengers are placed in the same position as if they had never made the booking in the event of a cancellation. This is only possible if the full amount actually paid is refunded. In practice, this means: For past and future flight cancellations, carefully check whether you have received a full refund. Often, booking fees are hidden in a separate line item on the invoice, which airlines tend to "overlook" when issuing refunds. With this recent ruling, you now have a legally sound basis for claiming these amounts as well.