How this tool works

Which language model?

The tool sends only the data needed for its AI features to OpenRouter and a model provider. Vluchtclaimhulp does not keep that content in a central claims database; your own progress does stay locally on this device.

Legal assessment and official sources

Explanation reviewed on 31 July 2026 against the European Commission's final guidelines.

Vluchtclaimhulp uses AI as an input and comparison aid. The tool does not assist a judicial authority and does not make a decision with legal effect. In our assessment, its current design therefore does not fall within the categories in Annex III of the AI Act. The transparency rules in Article 50 remain relevant.

• Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)
• Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — limited-risk AI transparency
• European Commission — final guidelines on Article 50 of the AI Act

Amount, distance, and arrival delay

• Sturgeon and Others v Condor / Böck and Lepuschitz v Air France (C-402/07 and C-432/07 (joined))

  Passengers on a flight with an arrival delay of three hours or more are entitled to the same flat-rate compensation as passengers on a cancelled flight (Article 7).

• Nelson and Others v Lufthansa / TUI Travel and Others v CAA (C-581/10 and C-629/10 (joined))

  Confirms and reinforces Sturgeon: passengers on a flight with an arrival delay of three hours or more are entitled to flat-rate compensation. The Court explicitly holds that Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 is compatible with the Montreal Convention and with the principle of legal certainty.

• Air France v Folkerts (C-11/11)

  On connecting flights the relevant delay is measured at the FINAL DESTINATION, not at a connection. An arrival delay of three hours or more at the final destination gives rise to compensation even if the first flight departed on time or the connection was reached on time.

• Bossen and Others v Brussels Airlines (C-559/16)

  The 'distance' under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 is the great-circle distance between the original point of departure and the final destination. Connections do not count toward the distance band. This prevents a carrier from influencing the band by choosing a routing detour.

Causes and extraordinary circumstances

• Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07)

  A technical problem on an aircraft arising during maintenance or due to defective maintenance does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances': it is part of an air carrier's normal operations. Only problems beyond that (e.g. a hidden manufacturing defect announced by the manufacturer) may fall outside this scope.

• Van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14)

  An unexpected technical fault that does not result from defective maintenance and was not detected during scheduled maintenance is not an extraordinary circumstance if the fault arises from the regular functioning of the aircraft. Confirms and reinforces Wallentin-Hermann.

• Pešková and Peška v Travel Service (C-315/15)

  A collision between an aircraft and a bird constitutes an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The carrier remains required to show it took all reasonable measures to limit the consequences. Delay attributable to an avoidable additional inspection does not count as a consequence of the extraordinary circumstance.

• Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly (C-195/17 and Others (joined))

  A 'wildcat strike' by a carrier's own staff in response to a surprise restructuring announcement does NOT fall within 'extraordinary circumstances': such labour unrest is inherent to the carrier's normal operations and within its actual control. The concept of 'extraordinary circumstances' must be interpreted strictly.

• SATA International — Azores Airlines (C-308/21)

  Failure of the airport's fuel-supply system can be an extraordinary circumstance when that system is operated by the airport and therefore lies outside the carrier's actual control. Operational system failures that do fall within the carrier's control are not.

• Matkustaja A v Finnair (C-385/23)

  An unexpected, previously-unseen technical fault on a new aircraft type — where the manufacturer subsequently acknowledges a hidden design defect affecting all aircraft of that type and impacting flight safety — falls within 'extraordinary circumstances'. This is an exception to Wallentin-Hermann/Van der Lans and applies only to manufacturer-acknowledged hidden design defects.

• Eglītis and Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija / Air Baltic (C-294/10)

  The 'reasonable measures' test requires the carrier to build buffer time into its planning and operations so that, given foreseeable disruptions, it can still depart on time. A carrier with no schedule margin cannot simply rely on extraordinary circumstances — the minimum necessary preparation is part of normal operations.

• Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17)

  A screw or other foreign object debris (FOD) on the runway that damages an aircraft tyre is an extraordinary circumstance. This differs explicitly from technical faults arising from the normal functioning of the aircraft: the cause of damage lies outside the carrier's control and responsibility.

• TAP Portugal — death of co-pilot (flightright/Myflyright) (C-156/22, C-157/22 and C-158/22 (joined))

  The sudden and unexpected death of a co-pilot shortly before scheduled departure, requiring the flight to be cancelled, is NOT an extraordinary circumstance. Though tragic and unforeseeable, the general event 'unexpected loss of a crew member' is part of the carrier's normal operations and within its actual control — comparable to the Krüsemann reasoning on staff unrest.

• AirHelp Germany v Austrian Airlines (lightning judgment) (C-399/24)

  A lightning strike on an aircraft during the previous flight, requiring a mandatory safety inspection and resulting delay, falls within 'extraordinary circumstances'. A lightning strike is not inherent in the normal operation of aviation activity and lies outside the carrier's actual control. The carrier must still demonstrate it took all reasonable replacement / re-routing measures.