Civil Law and Volcanic Ash Flight Diversion Compensation Claims in Europe

1. Introduction

Volcanic ash events create a distinctive category of European civil and passenger-rights disputes because they sit at the intersection of contract law, EU air-passenger protection, tort/delict principles, aviation safety regulation, and international carriage law.

A volcanic eruption can produce an ash cloud that makes aircraft operation unsafe. Aviation authorities may consequently close airspace, impose routing restrictions, divert aircraft to alternative airports, or require airlines to cancel flights altogether.

The central legal question is:

When a passenger's flight is diverted, cancelled, or substantially delayed because of volcanic ash, what compensation or reimbursement can the passenger claim from the airline?

The leading European authority is Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd, Case C-12/11, arising directly from the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption in Iceland. The Court of Justice held that the volcanic eruption and resulting airspace closure constituted an extraordinary circumstance, relieving the airline from the fixed compensation obligation under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004. However, the airline's separate obligation to provide care and assistance to stranded passengers continued. (EUR-Lex)

Thus, an important distinction must be maintained:

Extraordinary circumstances may eliminate fixed compensation, but they do not automatically eliminate the passenger's rights to assistance, rerouting, reimbursement, or other legally recoverable losses.

2. Meaning of a Volcanic Ash Flight Diversion Claim

A volcanic ash flight diversion claim may arise where:

an aircraft cannot safely land at its scheduled airport;

the aircraft is diverted to another airport;

the flight arrives substantially late;

the flight is cancelled before departure;

airspace is closed because of volcanic ash;

the passenger is stranded for several days;

the airline fails to provide accommodation or meals;

the passenger incurs reasonable transportation expenses;

the passenger misses a connecting flight;

the passenger suffers additional legally recognizable loss.

The dispute can therefore concern three different forms of relief:

A. Fixed EU compensation

Normally arising under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004.

B. Assistance and care

Including:

meals;

refreshments;

hotel accommodation;

transport between airport and accommodation;

communication facilities;

rerouting or reimbursement.

C. Additional damages

These may arise under the Montreal Convention, contractual law, or applicable national law, depending upon the nature of the loss and the applicable legal regime.

These categories should not be confused.

3. Principal European Legal Framework

A. Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

Regulation 261/2004 is the most important instrument.

It establishes rights concerning:

cancellation;

long delays;

denied boarding;

rerouting;

reimbursement;

assistance;

fixed compensation.

Its most important provisions include:

Article 5 — Cancellation

Where a flight is cancelled, passengers may receive:

reimbursement;

rerouting;

care;

and, in appropriate circumstances, compensation.

However, Article 5(3) creates the extraordinary circumstances defence.

4. Extraordinary Circumstances

Article 5(3) essentially prevents an airline from being required to pay Article 7 compensation where it proves that the cancellation resulted from extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Volcanic ash is the classic example.

The EU Court's reasoning is particularly important because an airline cannot simply say:

"There was volcanic ash, therefore we owe nothing."

The correct legal analysis is:

Was there an extraordinary circumstance?

Did it actually cause the cancellation/delay?

Could the consequences have been avoided through reasonable measures?

Which passenger rights survive despite the extraordinary circumstance?

5. Volcanic Ash and "Extraordinary Circumstances"

A volcanic eruption itself is normally outside the airline's control.

More importantly, an official closure of airspace because volcanic ash makes flight unsafe is even further removed from the airline's control.

The 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption resulted in widespread closure of European airspace. The CJEU expressly treated the eruption and resulting airspace closure as an extraordinary circumstance. (EUR-Lex)

Therefore:

Volcanic ash + mandatory airspace closure

Normally = extraordinary circumstance.

But:

Extraordinary circumstance

does not automatically mean absence of every passenger remedy.

This distinction is fundamental.

6. Case Law

Case 1 — McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd

Case

Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd, Case C-12/11, CJEU, 31 January 2013

This is the most important case for volcanic ash disputes.

Facts

Ms McDonagh had booked a Ryanair flight from Faro, Portugal, to Dublin, Ireland, scheduled for 17 April 2010.

The Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted in Iceland.

Volcanic ash spread across European airspace, and authorities closed Irish and other European airspace because of the danger to aircraft.

Her flight was cancelled.

She eventually returned to Dublin several days later and incurred approximately €1,129.41 in expenses for:

accommodation;

meals;

refreshments;

transportation.

Ryanair argued that the volcanic eruption constituted an extraordinary circumstance. (EUR-Lex)

Legal issue

Did the extraordinary circumstance relieve Ryanair of its obligation to provide care?

Judgment

No.

The Court held that the volcanic eruption and airspace closure constituted extraordinary circumstances, so the airline could be relieved of the fixed compensation obligation under Article 7.

However, the airline remained subject to the obligation to provide care under Article 9.

That included appropriate:

meals;

refreshments;

accommodation;

airport/accommodation transport;

communication facilities.

The extraordinary nature of the event did not create a general exemption from the duty of care. (EUR-Lex)

Importance

This case establishes the fundamental principle:

Extraordinary circumstances remove the airline's liability for fixed compensation, but not its obligation of care.

For volcanic ash disputes, this is the starting point.

7. Case 2 — Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia

Case

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA, Case C-549/07, CJEU, 22 December 2008

Facts

The case involved cancellation because of an aircraft technical problem.

Principle

The Court explained the meaning of "extraordinary circumstances" and emphasized that the airline must demonstrate that:

the event was extraordinary; and

the consequences could not have been avoided even if reasonable measures had been taken.

The Court stated that an airline must deploy resources appropriate to the circumstances and cannot merely rely on a generalized claim of difficulty. (InfoCuria)

Relevance to volcanic ash

Although Wallentin-Hermann was not a volcanic eruption case, its reasonable-measures test is directly relevant.

For example, assume:

Airport A is closed because of volcanic ash;

Airport B remains open;

an airline has access to alternative routing from Airport B;

the airline simply cancels the flight without considering that option.

The passenger could argue that the airline failed to take reasonable measures.

The airline would have to demonstrate why alternative operation was not realistically possible.

8. Case 3 — Eglītis and Ratnieks v Latvian Ministry of Economics

Case

Andrejs Eglītis and Edvards Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija, Case C-294/10, CJEU, 12 May 2011

Background

This case concerned disruption caused by extraordinary circumstances and the airline's organization of resources to resume operations once the extraordinary event ended.

Legal principle

The CJEU emphasized that the reasonable-measures assessment can involve preparation and organization of resources.

An airline cannot necessarily wait until the extraordinary event has ended and only then begin organizing its response.

The carrier must take appropriate measures so that operations can resume as soon as reasonably possible. (InfoCuria)

Application to volcanic ash

Suppose an ash cloud closes an airport for 24 hours but the airline knows:

alternative airports remain open;

aircraft are available;

crews can be repositioned;

airspace is expected to reopen at a particular time.

The airline's response may be examined under the reasonable-measures principle.

The airline is not expected to perform miracles, but it must use reasonably available resources.

9. Case 4 — Sturgeon and Others v Condor / Böck v Air France

Case

Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Böck and Lepuschitz v Air France SA, CJEU, 19 November 2009

Principle

The CJEU established that passengers suffering a sufficiently long delay may receive the fixed compensation provided under Article 7, even though the regulation expressly discussed compensation principally in connection with cancellation.

The relevant threshold is generally three hours or more at the final destination, subject to the extraordinary-circumstances defence. (curia)

Importance for volcanic ash diversions

Suppose:

scheduled arrival: 14:00;

volcanic ash causes diversion;

actual arrival at the relevant final destination: 18:30.

The passenger may ordinarily satisfy the three-hour delay threshold.

But the airline can still rely on Article 5(3) if the delay was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have been avoided through reasonable measures.

Thus:

Three-hour delay ≠ automatic compensation where volcanic ash genuinely caused the delay.

10. Case 5 — Nelson and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa / TUI Travel

Case

Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10, Nelson and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and TUI Travel plc and Others v Civil Aviation Authority, CJEU, 23 October 2012

Principle

The Grand Chamber confirmed the compatibility of the Regulation 261/2004 fixed-compensation regime for long delays with the Montreal Convention.

Passengers suffering a sufficiently long delay can receive Article 7 compensation because the loss of time represents a significant passenger inconvenience.

The Court also maintained the importance of the extraordinary-circumstances exception. (curia)

Application

If volcanic ash results in a long delay, the passenger must distinguish:

Article 7 fixed compensation

from

actual damages resulting from delay.

The first is governed by Regulation 261/2004.

The second may involve the Montreal Convention and/or national law.

11. Case 6 — Folkerts v Air France

Case

Air France SA v Folkerts, Case C-11/11, CJEU, 26 February 2013

Facts

The passenger travelled through connecting flights and ultimately arrived at the final destination more than three hours late.

Principle

The CJEU held that compensation under Article 7 is assessed by reference to the delay at the final destination.

The passenger can therefore have a compensation claim even where the initial departure delay did not independently satisfy the Article 6 threshold. (InfoCuria)

Relevance to volcanic ash

This is particularly important when volcanic ash causes:

missed connections;

rerouting;

indirect flights;

airport changes;

multiple delays.

For example:

London → Frankfurt → Rome

could become:

London → Paris → Rome

because of ash-related disruption.

The legally relevant delay for Article 7 purposes may ultimately be measured at the final destination, rather than merely looking at the first flight segment.

12. Case 7 — WZ v Austrian Airlines AG

Case

WZ v Austrian Airlines AG, Case C-826/19, CJEU, 22 April 2021

This is particularly important for the word "diversion."

Facts

A passenger had booked a flight to Berlin Tegel.

The aircraft instead landed at Berlin Schönefeld, an airport serving the same city, with a delay of approximately one hour.

The airline did not arrange onward transportation or pay the cost of transferring the passenger between the airports. (EUR-Lex)

Judgment

The CJEU held that the mere diversion to another airport serving the same city, town or region does not automatically constitute a cancellation giving rise to flat-rate compensation.

However, Article 8(3) requires the carrier to bear the cost of transporting the passenger from the actual arrival airport to the airport originally contracted for, or another nearby destination agreed with the passenger. (curia)

Importance for volcanic ash

This is extremely relevant to volcanic ash cases.

Imagine:

Paris Charles de Gaulle is closed because of ash, and the aircraft lands at Paris Orly.

The passenger cannot simply be told:

"You have arrived in Paris; therefore our obligation is over."

The airline may have to arrange or pay for appropriate onward transportation.

13. Case 8 — Eglītis as a Resource-Planning Authority

It is worth emphasizing Eglītis and Ratnieks separately because volcanic ash cases often turn on the airline's response after the initial closure.

The legal question is not simply:

"Was the volcano extraordinary?"

Instead:

"What did the airline reasonably do after the extraordinary event occurred?"

The Court's jurisprudence requires consideration of whether the carrier took measures capable of preventing or minimizing the disruption without imposing an intolerable sacrifice on the undertaking. (InfoCuria)

14. Case 9 — Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly

Case

Joined Cases C-195/17 and others, Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH, CJEU, 17 April 2018

This was not a volcanic ash case, but it helps explain the limits of the extraordinary-circumstances defence.

The Court held that a "wildcat strike" resulting from an airline's internal restructuring was not an extraordinary circumstance because the consequences were inherent in the normal exercise of the airline's activity. (curia)

Relevance

The distinction is:

External event beyond airline control

versus

problem inherent in airline's own operations.

Volcanic eruptions and official airspace closures generally fall into the first category.

Poor scheduling, inadequate staffing, failure to reposition aircraft, or inadequate contingency planning may not.

15. Case Law Summary Table

16. The Central Legal Distinction: Compensation vs Assistance

This is probably the most important aspect of the subject.

Fixed compensation

Under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004, compensation can generally be in the range of:

€250;

€400;

€600,

depending principally upon flight distance and applicable circumstances.

But volcanic ash can constitute an extraordinary circumstance preventing the airline from having to pay this fixed compensation.

Assistance

The passenger may nevertheless have rights to:

Meals and refreshments

Reasonable in relation to the waiting time.

Accommodation

Where an overnight stay becomes necessary.

Transportation

Between airport and accommodation.

Communication

Reasonable communication facilities.

Re-routing

The airline should seek to transport the passenger to the final destination under the Regulation.

Reimbursement

Where appropriate, the passenger can choose reimbursement instead of continuing the journey.

The McDonagh judgment is decisive on this distinction. (EUR-Lex)

17. Can a Passenger Claim Hotel Expenses?

Yes, potentially.

This is one of the most important consequences of McDonagh.

Suppose:

Flight cancelled because of volcanic ash;

airport closed for three days;

airline provides no accommodation;

passenger pays €500 for a reasonable hotel.

The airline may remain responsible for reimbursing qualifying reasonable accommodation expenses even though it is not liable for the Article 7 fixed compensation.

The passenger should retain:

hotel invoices;

receipts;

proof of cancellation;

boarding pass;

communications from the airline;

evidence showing why accommodation was necessary.

18. Can the Passenger Claim Food Expenses?

Potentially yes.

Reasonable food and refreshments form part of the duty of care.

But the passenger should avoid treating the situation as an unlimited reimbursement opportunity.

A court or enforcement body can examine whether expenses were:

necessary;

reasonable;

proportionate;

actually incurred.

A luxury hotel, excessive restaurant expenses, or unrelated purchases may create difficulties.

19. Can a Passenger Claim Taxi Expenses?

Potentially.

For example:

Airport closed → airline reroutes passenger to another airport → passenger must travel 100 km to the airport or hotel.

The question becomes whether the expense was reasonably connected to the carrier's obligations.

The principle in WZ v Austrian Airlines reinforces that alternative-airport arrival does not automatically terminate the airline's transportation obligations. (EUR-Lex)

20. What If the Passenger Misses a Connecting Flight?

This is particularly complicated.

Consider:

Delhi → Frankfurt → Barcelona

Suppose the European segment is affected by volcanic ash.

The passenger may be:

diverted;

rerouted;

delayed;

forced to spend a night elsewhere;

delivered to the final destination much later.

Under Folkerts, the final-destination arrival time is highly significant when determining delay compensation. (InfoCuria)

However, volcanic ash may still provide the airline with the extraordinary-circumstances defence.

21. Montreal Convention

Regulation 261/2004 does not operate in isolation.

The Montreal Convention 1999 is also important.

Article 19 deals with carrier liability for damage caused by delay.

Unlike the fixed compensation system under Regulation 261/2004, the Montreal Convention focuses on actual damage resulting from delay, subject to its own conditions and limits.

The carrier can avoid liability under Article 19 where it proves that it and its servants or agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures.

The CJEU has repeatedly considered the relationship between Regulation 261/2004 and the Montreal Convention, including in Folkerts and Nelson. (InfoCuria)

22. Difference Between Regulation 261/2004 and Montreal Convention

23. Civil-Law Dimension

Although Regulation 261/2004 is an EU regulatory instrument, volcanic ash disputes are also civil disputes because they normally arise from the passenger's contractual relationship with the carrier.

The passenger purchases a contract of carriage.

The airline undertakes to transport the passenger:

from the agreed departure point to the agreed destination under the applicable conditions of carriage.

A volcanic eruption may excuse certain consequences under EU law, but it does not necessarily erase the underlying contractual relationship.

24. Breach of Contract

A passenger might allege that the airline breached its contractual obligations by:

refusing reasonable rerouting;

failing to provide promised accommodation;

abandoning the passenger at an alternative airport;

refusing reimbursement;

failing to transport baggage;

failing to provide reasonable information.

The airline may defend itself by showing:

official airspace closure;

aviation safety prohibition;

impossibility of operating;

lack of available alternative routes;

compliance with Regulation 261/2004;

reasonable measures taken.

25. Negligence and Tort/Delict

A tort/delict claim is less straightforward.

A volcanic eruption itself is obviously not normally attributable to the airline.

But secondary negligence could potentially arise.

For example:

volcanic ash creates a disruption, but the airline negligently leaves passengers without necessary transportation for several days despite readily available alternatives.

The volcanic event may explain the initial disruption but not necessarily every subsequent failure.

Therefore causation should be separated into:

Volcano → airspace closure

and

airline's subsequent conduct → additional loss.

26. Reasonable Measures Test

The airline's strongest defence is usually:

"Even if we had used all reasonable measures, the volcanic ash disruption could not have been avoided."

This requires evidence.

Relevant evidence may include:

NOTAMs;

airspace closure orders;

meteorological data;

aviation safety assessments;

airport closure notices;

aircraft availability;

alternative airport capacity;

crew availability;

rerouting possibilities;

communications with air-traffic authorities.

The principles from Wallentin-Hermann and Eglītis and Ratnieks are particularly useful here. (InfoCuria)

27. The Airline Cannot Control the Volcano

A court will generally distinguish between:

Event itself

The volcanic eruption.

and

Consequences after the event

Such as:

failure to arrange alternative transportation;

failure to communicate;

failure to provide accommodation;

unnecessary delay in rerouting.

The first may be outside the airline's control.

The second may be partially within its control.

That is why McDonagh is so important.

28. Diversion to Another Airport

A diversion creates a separate question.

Suppose the passenger booked:

London Heathrow → Madrid Barajas.

Because of ash, the plane lands at:

Madrid alternate airport.

The airline should not necessarily consider the passenger's contractual journey complete simply because the aircraft has landed somewhere in the same geographical area.

Under WZ v Austrian Airlines, Article 8(3) can require the airline to bear the cost of transferring the passenger to the airport for which the booking was made, or another agreed nearby destination. (curia)

29. When Could Fixed Compensation Still Be Possible?

The existence of volcanic ash does not mean the airline automatically wins.

A passenger could challenge the extraordinary-circumstances defence where, for example:

the volcanic ash was not actually responsible for the cancellation;

the airport was open;

the airline cancelled for an independent operational reason;

the airline could reasonably have operated through another route;

the airline failed to take reasonable measures;

the delay continued after the extraordinary circumstance had ceased because of avoidable airline decisions.

The airline bears the burden of establishing the relevant defence.

30. Hypothetical Example

Facts

Passenger A books:

Lisbon → Frankfurt → Stockholm

The passenger's first flight is affected by a volcanic ash cloud.

The airline cancels the flight.

Airspace restrictions last 48 hours.

The airline:

provides no hotel;

provides no food;

gives no meaningful rerouting information;

eventually offers a flight four days later;

refuses reimbursement of the passenger's hotel and food expenses.

Legal analysis

Step 1 — Was there an extraordinary circumstance?

Probably yes.

Volcanic ash and official airspace closure are the classic example.

Step 2 — Is Article 7 fixed compensation automatically payable?

Probably not, because the airline may invoke Article 5(3).

Step 3 — Does the airline's duty of care disappear?

No.

McDonagh indicates that the duty of care continues. (EUR-Lex)

Step 4 — Was reasonable rerouting required?

Yes.

The airline should consider reasonable alternative routes.

Step 5 — Hotel expenses?

Potentially recoverable as part of the continuing duty of care, if reasonable and properly documented.

Step 6 — Food?

Potentially recoverable.

Step 7 — Additional damages?

Potentially, depending upon the applicable Montreal Convention provisions and proof of actual damage.

31. Defences Available to Airlines

Airlines commonly rely on the following arguments.

1. Extraordinary circumstances

The eruption and airspace closure were outside the carrier's control.

2. Safety obligations

The carrier cannot reasonably be required to operate where aviation authorities prohibit or where flight would be unsafe.

3. No reasonable alternative

Alternative airports or routes were unavailable or impracticable.

4. Regulatory closure

The airline was legally prohibited from operating.

5. Passenger expenses were excessive

The airline may challenge unreasonable hotel, food or transportation costs.

6. Lack of causation

The claimed loss may have resulted from something other than the volcanic disruption.

32. Passenger's Arguments

Passengers can respond:

Argument 1

The extraordinary circumstance excuses only fixed compensation, not care.

Argument 2

The airline failed to provide reasonable rerouting.

Argument 3

Alternative airports were available.

Argument 4

The airline failed to deploy its available resources.

Argument 5

The airline's failure to act caused additional loss after the initial volcanic disruption.

Argument 6

The passenger's expenses were reasonable and necessary.

33. Evidence in a Volcanic Ash Claim

A successful claim should be supported by documentary evidence.

Important evidence includes:

booking confirmation;

boarding pass;

cancellation notification;

diversion notice;

airline emails;

airport notices;

receipts;

hotel invoices;

taxi receipts;

meal receipts;

evidence of alternative flights;

evidence of the final arrival time;

communications with airline staff;

evidence of airspace restrictions.

For airline litigation, the precise chronology can be decisive.

34. Causation

Causation should be analyzed carefully.

Example

Volcanic ash causes a 24-hour cancellation.

But the airline then takes another three days to arrange a replacement flight.

A court may need to distinguish:

Loss caused by volcanic ash

from

loss caused by the airline's subsequent conduct.

This is where the reasonable-measures jurisprudence becomes particularly important.

35. Limitation of Liability

The Montreal Convention contains specific limitations and conditions for certain categories of delay-related liability.

Therefore, a passenger should not simply calculate every financial consequence and assume all losses are recoverable.

The legal analysis should ask:

What kind of damage occurred?

What caused it?

Which legal instrument governs?

Is the damage recoverable?

Is there a monetary limit?

Was the loss foreseeable and adequately proven?

Did the carrier take reasonable measures?

36. Jurisdiction and Applicable Law

Cross-border European aviation disputes may also involve private international law.

Relevant issues include:

place of departure;

place of destination;

passenger's domicile;

airline's domicile;

contractual terms;

EU jurisdiction rules;

Montreal Convention jurisdiction provisions;

applicable national procedural law.

A passenger may therefore have multiple potential procedural avenues.

37. Practical Claim Structure

A well-prepared claim can be divided into:

Claim A — Article 7 compensation

Ask whether the extraordinary-circumstances defence applies.

Claim B — Article 8 rights

Seek:

reimbursement; or

appropriate rerouting.

Claim C — Article 9 care

Seek reimbursement for qualifying:

accommodation;

food;

refreshments;

transport;

communication expenses.

Claim D — Montreal Convention damages

Assess actual proven damage caused by delay.

Claim E — National contractual/tort remedies

Consider only insofar as they are legally compatible with the applicable EU and international regimes.

38. Most Important Legal Proposition

The most important proposition emerging from the European case law is:

A volcanic eruption can be an extraordinary circumstance, but "extraordinary circumstance" is not equivalent to "no liability of any kind."

The airline may escape the fixed Article 7 compensation, while remaining responsible for:

care;

accommodation;

meals;

refreshments;

appropriate rerouting;

reimbursement where applicable;

transfer from an alternative airport;

and potentially proven actual damages under the Montreal Convention or other applicable law.

This distinction is directly illustrated by McDonagh v Ryanair. (EUR-Lex)

39. Overall Legal Test

A European court examining a volcanic ash flight diversion dispute can conceptually proceed through the following sequence:

1. Was there a cancellation, delay or diversion?

↓

2. What happened at the passenger's final destination?

↓

3. Was volcanic ash responsible?

↓

4. Did the ash/airspace closure constitute an extraordinary circumstance?

↓

5. Could the consequences nevertheless have been avoided through reasonable measures?

↓

6. Was appropriate rerouting offered?

↓

7. Was the passenger provided with care?

↓

8. Was the passenger diverted to another airport?

↓

9. Were reasonable transfer costs incurred?

↓

10. Did the passenger suffer additional actual damage?

↓

11. Does Regulation 261/2004, the Montreal Convention, contract law, or national civil law govern that particular loss?

40. Conclusion

Volcanic ash flight diversion disputes represent one of the clearest examples of the European legal system balancing passenger protection against genuine impossibility of air transport.

The 2010 Icelandic volcanic eruption generated the leading precedent, McDonagh v Ryanair, C-12/11. The CJEU recognized that volcanic ash and resulting airspace closure can constitute extraordinary circumstances, meaning airlines may avoid the fixed compensation otherwise payable under Regulation 261/2004. However, the Court simultaneously emphasized that passengers do not lose their fundamental right to care and assistance. (EUR-Lex)

The broader jurisprudence adds several important principles:

Wallentin-Hermann — the airline must prove the extraordinary-circumstances defence and reasonable measures.

Eglītis and Ratnieks — reasonable measures include appropriate organization of resources.

Sturgeon — sufficiently long delays can attract Article 7 compensation.

Nelson — the EU fixed-compensation regime operates alongside the Montreal Convention.

Folkerts — final-destination delay is crucial for connecting journeys.

WZ v Austrian Airlines — diversion to another airport does not necessarily end the airline's obligations.

Krüsemann — the extraordinary-circumstances exception cannot be stretched to cover problems inherent in normal airline operations.

Accordingly, the strongest legal formulation is:

Volcanic ash may excuse an airline from paying fixed delay/cancellation compensation, but it does not provide a blanket immunity from passenger rights.

The decisive issues in an individual civil claim will therefore be causation, the duration of the disruption, the precise nature of the airspace restrictions, the availability of alternative transportation, the airline's reasonable measures, the passenger's final arrival time, and whether the airline fulfilled its continuing duties of care and rerouting.