The Montreal Convention of 1999 and Regulation No 261/2004 in the EUCJ and National Case Law

Open access


The article first analyses the relationship between the Montreal Convention and Regulation 261/2004. Although the Regulation and the Convention both relate to the protection of air passenger’s rights it remains ambiguous when and in which disputes these acts should be applicable. Thus, this article reveals the problematical issue of how these acts differ and in which situations they are applicable. Second, it reviews the development of the EUCJ case law regarding the application of these acts. Third, it examines the relevant case law of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in this area.

1. Bobek, Michal, and Jeremias Prassl. Air Passenger Rights. Ten Years On. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2016.

2. Dempsey, Paul, and Johansson O. Svante. “Montreal v. Brussels: The Conflict of Laws on the Issue of Delay in International Air Carriage.” Air and Space Law 35 (2010): 207–225.

3. Dempsey, Paul, and Michael Milde. International Air Carrier Liability: The Montreal Convention of 1999. Canada: McGill University, 2005.

4. Kinga, Arnold. “Application of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on Denied Boarding, Cancellation and Long Delay of Flights.” Air and Space Law 32 (2007): 93–107.

5. Larsen, Paul, Joseph B. Sweeney, and John Gillick. Aviation Law: Cases, Laws and Related Sources. 2nd edition. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012.

6. Milde, Michael. Essential Air and Space Law. Eleven: International Publishing, 2008.

7. Wegter, J. Jorn. “The ECJ Decision of 10 January 2006 on the Validity of Regulation 261/2004: Ignoring the Exclusivity of the Montreal Convention.” Air and Space Law 31 2 (2006): 133–148.

1. Air Baltic Corporation AS v. Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba. (C-429/14) EU:C:2016:88 [2016].

2. Air France SA v. Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts. (C-11/11) EU:C:2013:106 [2013].

3. Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks v. Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija. (C-294/10) EU:C:2011:303 [2011].

4. Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Manuel Puga Lueiro Luis Ángel Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez v. Air France SA. (C-83/10) EU:C:2011:652 [2011].

5. Axel Walz v Clickair SA. (C-63/09) EU:C:2010:251 [2010].

6. Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon, Alana Sturgeon v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH. (C-402/07) EU:C:2009:716 [2009].

7. Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA. (C-537/17) EU:C:2018:361 [2018].

8. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention). Official Journal L 194, 18/07/2001 P. 0039 –0049.

9. Corina van der Lans v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV. (C-257/14) EU:C:2015:618 [2015].

10. D. S., V. S. v. Tez Tour. Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2013, No 3K-3-454.

11. Denise McDonagh v. Ryanair Ltd. (C-12/11) EU:C:2013:43 [2013].

12. Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG. (C-581/10) EU:C:2012:657 [2012].

13. Emirates Airlines – Direktion für Deutschland v. Diether Schenkel. (C-173/07) EU:C:2008:400 [2008].

14. Finnair Oyj v.Timy Lassooy. (C-22/11) EU:C:2012:604 [2012].

15. Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA. (C-549/07) EU:C:2008:771 [2008].

16. G. D., A. D., S. B. D. v. Tez Tour. Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2013, No 3K-3-601.

17. Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro, María de los Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varel Villamor v.Iberia, Líneas Aéreas de España SA. (C-321/11) EU:C:2012:609 [2012].

18. Germanwings GmbH v.Ronny Henning. (C-542/13) EU:C:2014:2141.

19. International Air Transport Association, European Low Fares Airline Association v. Department for Transport. (C-344/04) EU:C:2006:10 [2006].

20. Joan Cuadrench Moré v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV. (C-139/11) EU:C:2012:741 [2012].

21. Jones v. USA 3000 Airlines. 2009 U.S. District LEXIS 9049 (E.D.Mo. 2009).

22. M. L. v. Air Baltic Corporation AS. Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2009, No 3K-3-541.

23. Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v. Travel Service a.s. (C-315/15) EU:C:2017:342 [2017].

24. Opinion of Advocate General Bot. Delivered on 28 July 2016.

25. Opinion of Advocate General M. L.A. Geelhoed. Delivered on 8 September 2005.

26. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston. Delivered on 27 September 2007.

27. Peter Rehder v. Air Baltic Corporation. (C-204/08) EU:C:2009:439 [2009].

28. R. G., A. G., A. J., v. “Palangos Avia”, “Aurela”. Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2008, No 3K-7-43.

29. R. O. D. v. Air Baltic Corporation AS. Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2014, No 3K-3-403.

30. Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) - Commission Statement. Official Journal L 046, 17/02/2004 P. 0001 – 0008.

31. Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH. (C-394/14) EU:C:2014:2377 [2014].

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

A Journal of Vytautas Magnus University

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.22

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.119
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.113

Target Group researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 274 274 57
PDF Downloads 191 191 43