I recently came across a quite fascinating case, the (very) short summary of the case being the following:
His flight back to Dusseldorf on the 12 of March 2006 was cancelled for technical reasons and he manage to fly back home after two days.
Upon his return home Mr. Schenkel sought compensation for the aforementioned delay as foreseen by EU Regulation 261/2004.
A German Court ruled in favor of Mr. Schenkel and awarded him €600 in compensation.
Emirates Airlines appealed the ruling. The German Court of Appeal referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for clarifications.
On the 6 of March 2008 The European Court of Justice ruled in favor of Emirates Airlines against Mr. Schenkel.
The Court ruling in favor of the defendant is based on overriding the Montreal Convention, duly ratified by a large number of countries including the Government of the United Arab Emirates (sole shareholder of Emirates Airlines) and on a linguistic disquisition on the term "flight".
The case and its ruling can be found on the EU website (eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do…)
I find this case particularly intriguing, especially in consideration that the EU Court of Justice ruled in favor of a carrier and against a European Citizen. What makes the ruling stand out is the extent to which the Court has gone to shred the Montreal Convention and its non ambiguous definiton of carriage.
I have a pretty strong opinion on this matter but I would like to hear from the largest number of forum contributors first since this case does set a negative precendent for all those European travellers using non Community carriers hubbing in non-member states.