The Airline Rejected Your EU261 Claim — What Can You Reply?

A rejection is often not the end but the start of round two. This page shows what airlines actually have to prove under CJEU case law, when the standard excuses don't hold up — and, honestly, when they do.

The short answer

First rejections are frequently automated template text — many passengers have still been paid after sending a substantiated reply. The legal core: if the airline invokes extraordinary circumstances, THE AIRLINE carries the burden of proof. Under the CJEU's Wallentin-Hermann judgment (C-549/07) it must show the disruption could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Ordinary technical faults, knock-on delays from earlier rotations and most strikes by the airline's own staff regularly do NOT qualify under the case law. A sensible reply: demand specific evidence, cite the relevant case law, and announce that you will hand the case to the national enforcement body — free of charge — if no substantiated answer follows. This page provides wording building blocks for that reply — as general information, not legal advice on your individual case.

What must the airline actually prove?

“Extraordinary circumstances” is not a free pass. Under Art. 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the CJEU's case law (Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07), the carrier must demonstrate and evidence three things:

1. The event was not inherent in normal operations
The circumstance must not be part of the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity. Technical faults arising in or from maintenance — including unexpected ones — are, under the CJEU, regularly part of that normal activity.
2. The event was genuinely beyond the airline's control
The circumstance must come from outside and escape the carrier's actual control — think severe weather or official orders, not the airline's own operational or staffing decisions.
3. All reasonable measures would not have helped
Even where a circumstance is extraordinary, the carrier must additionally prove that its consequences could not have been avoided by all reasonable measures (spare aircraft, rebooking, schedule buffers). Without that proof, the excuse fails under the case law.

The 6 standard excuses — and when they don't hold up

For each excuse: the legal position under CJEU case law and a wording building block for your reply. Honesty included — two of the six excuses are often legitimate, and we tell you which.

“Technical fault”

Legal position

Under CJEU Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07), technical problems arising in or from maintenance are part of an air carrier's normal activity — not extraordinary circumstances. In van der Lans (C-257/14) the CJEU extended this to unexpected, prematurely occurring faults. Only narrow exceptions remain, such as hidden manufacturing defects affecting a whole fleet, or sabotage.

Reply building block (template)

You rely on a technical fault. Under the case law of the CJEU (Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07; van der Lans, C-257/14), technical faults — including unexpected ones — are regularly inherent in the normal operations of an air carrier and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. I therefore ask you to specify and evidence what made this fault extraordinary, or to pay the compensation under Art. 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.

“Extraordinary circumstances” — unspecified

Legal position

The burden of proof rests with the airline (Art. 5(3) of the Regulation). It must name the specific circumstance AND prove that it could not have been avoided by all reasonable measures. A generic two-liner with no details on the event, its timing and the measures taken does not meet that standard of proof.

Reply building block (template)

You invoke extraordinary circumstances in general terms without specifying them. I ask you to identify the specific circumstance, its timing, and the reasonable measures you took, and to provide evidence for each (Art. 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004; CJEU, Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07). Absent that proof, I maintain my claim in full.

“Strike”

Legal position

It depends on the kind of strike. A “wildcat strike” by the airline's own staff following a surprise restructuring announcement is not extraordinary under CJEU Krüsemann (C-195/17). A union-organised, announced strike by the airline's OWN staff is likewise regularly part of normal operational risk under Airhelp v SAS (C-28/20). Strikes by THIRD parties (air traffic control, airport staff) can be different — there the airline's position is often stronger, and you should factor that in realistically.

Reply building block (template)

You rely on a strike. Insofar as the strike involved your own staff, it is, under the case law of the CJEU (Krüsemann, C-195/17; Airhelp v SAS, C-28/20), regularly part of an air carrier's normal operational risk and not an extraordinary circumstance. I ask you to state whose staff was on strike and what reasonable measures you took, or to pay the compensation under Art. 7 of the Regulation.

“Bad weather”

Legal position

Honestly: severe weather can be a legitimate extraordinary circumstance. But the burden of proof still sits with the airline — and weather that did not stop other flights at the same airport at the same time rarely carries a rejection. So don't argue the principle; ask for the evidence.

Reply building block (template)

You rely on weather conditions. I ask you to evidence the specific conditions at the relevant time, that they affected my flight in particular, and what reasonable measures you took — especially given that other flights in the same period apparently operated as scheduled.

“Air traffic control restriction”

Legal position

Honesty again: air traffic management decisions (capacity restrictions, closed airspace) are frequently genuine extraordinary circumstances — the Regulation even names them as an example. Chances of success are lower here. What the airline must still deliver: the specific link between the ATC measure and YOUR flight.

Reply building block (template)

You rely on an air traffic control measure. I ask you to evidence the specific instruction (type, period, affected airport or airspace) and its direct link to my flight, and to set out what reasonable measures you took to avoid its consequences.

“Knock-on delay / late arrival of the aircraft”

Legal position

A delay carried over from an earlier rotation of the same aircraft is regularly inherent in normal flight operations — rotation planning, schedule buffers and spare capacity are the airline's responsibility. If the carrier relies on it, it must additionally prove that the ORIGINAL disruption was extraordinary and that its effects could not be absorbed before your flight.

Reply building block (template)

You base the rejection on the late arrival of the aircraft from a previous rotation. Rotation planning, including adequate schedule buffers, is part of an air carrier's normal operations. I ask you to demonstrate and evidence that the original disruption itself constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that its consequences could not have been avoided by reasonable measures before my flight.

The building blocks are non-binding wording templates and general information — not legal advice on your individual case. Before sending, check that the details match your case and add your flight data.

How to escalate for free if they stonewall

If the airline sticks to an unsubstantiated rejection or goes silent, you can hand the case to the national enforcement body (NEB) — in Germany, the söp conciliation body — free of charge; jurisdiction usually lies with the country of departure. Set one final deadline first (14 days is common) and announce this step; experience suggests the announcement alone often triggers a real review.

Keep the limitation periods in view

EU261 claims are subject to national limitation periods — and the range across Europe is wide. Three examples (as of July 2026, verified against primary sources):

Germany3 years, counted from the end of the flight year (BGB §§ 195, 199)
England & Wales6 years from the flight
Belgium1 year — the shortest in the EU

Depending on your case, the law of different countries may apply. The earlier you reply and escalate, the less the deadlines matter.

Got a rejection? We're building the next step

We are developing an escalation service that systematically follows up rejected claims: reply letters, deadline tracking, and filing with the conciliation or enforcement body. Join the waitlist — you'll get access first when it launches.

When is it smarter to hand the case over?

An honest assessment: if the airline has rejected twice, the case would need to go to court, or you simply don't want to invest more energy, a success-fee provider can be the better choice — they run the full legal process and carry the cost risk, but keep a substantial share of the compensation. For clear-cut cases with a substantiated reply, trying yourself first usually pays off.

Airline rejected? These services fight further on your behalf

No risk — you only pay if your compensation is successfully claimed.

Note: ClaimEU261 earns a commission if you book via these links. Your claim is not affected by this.

Frequent questions after a rejection

Is it even worth replying to a rejection?

Often, yes. First rejections are frequently automated template letters that don't survive a substantiated reply citing the burden of proof. Many passengers report that only the second, specifically reasoned message triggered a genuine individual review.

What does escalating to the conciliation or enforcement body cost?

For passengers, usually nothing. The söp (Germany) and the national enforcement bodies (NEBs) of the EU member states work free of charge for consumers. Jurisdiction usually lies with the country of departure.

How much time do I have after a rejection?

The rejection itself sets no deadline — national limitation periods apply. In Germany that is typically three years counted from the end of the flight year. Careful: some countries are much shorter, Belgium allows only one year.

The airline offers a voucher — should I accept?

The Regulation provides for compensation to be paid in money; a voucher is only permissible with your express agreement. Keep in mind: vouchers are often time-limited, conditional, and rarely cover the full amount.

The airline simply doesn't reply at all — now what?

Set one final deadline (14 days is common) and state that you will file with the conciliation or enforcement body afterwards. If the deadline passes, file — it is free of charge and documents your efforts for any further steps.

Haven't filed a complaint yet?

Check for free what Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 typically provides for your route — and create a letter that cites the right legal grounds from the start.

Check your flight for free

Last updated: July 22, 2026

The information on this page is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. No liability is accepted for accuracy or completeness. For complex cases, we recommend consulting a lawyer.