In its judgment of 17 October 2024 in joined cases C-650/23 and C-705/23, the ECJ dealt with passengers’ entitlement to compensation in a specific set of circumstances. The facts underlying Case C-650/23 are discussed below. The preliminary ruling procedure was initiated by the Korneuburg Regional Court (Austria).

In the initial case, the passenger had booked a flight from Heraklion to Linz with a tour operator. One day before the scheduled departure, the tour operator informed the passenger of a change in the travel dates. According to this information, the final destination of the flight, which was now scheduled to depart around five and a half hours later, was not Linz but Vienna. The passenger therefore did not show up for the departure of the originally booked flight, which, however, was operated as scheduled by the defendant airline. Furthermore, the information provided by the tour operator about the change in the flight schedule was not due to any action or decision on the part of the operating airline, which had no knowledge of this change.

The passenger asserted a claim for compensation against the operating airline on the basis of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (Air Passenger Rights Regulation). In order to assess the legality of the claim, two aspects in particular had to be examined in more detail:

1. Can a claim for compensation for denied boarding be asserted even if the flight was operated but the passenger did not show up for departure due to misinformation provided by the tour operator?

2. Does the operating air carrier have a legal responsibility and thus an obligation to pay compensation if the denied boarding is due to misinformation provided to the passenger by the tour operator?

With reference to the case law in C-238/22 – which, however, related to misinformation provided by the operating air carrier – the ECJ states in the present decision that, in the case of information about denied boarding, the passenger is under no obligation to appear at the gate. Furthermore, the obligation to pay compensation in order to achieve a high level of protection for passengers also applies if the incorrect information regarding denied boarding was provided by the tour operator. For the sake of completeness, the Court referred to the possibility of recourse by the airline against third parties as referred to in Article 13 of the Regulation.