Flight delay lawyer in Paris: acting after the airline's refusal.

A refusal does not extinguish your right. The first step is to identify the exact ground put forward by the airline, because each ground calls for a different response: extraordinary circumstances, a delay allegedly of under three hours, no proof of boarding, a flight outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of 11 February 2004, or a claim held to be out of time. The firm compares that ground with the travel documents and with the decisions given in comparable situations.

Since 7 February 2026, what follows is governed by Decree No. 2025-772 of 5 August 2025. If the airline maintains its refusal, the claim goes through an attempt at mediation before a consumer mediator and then, if that fails, a writ of summons before the court. Skip mediation and the judge may declare the claim inadmissible without examining the merits, as the economic activities court of Nanterre did on 24 September 2026. Keep the written claim, its date and the reply received: they determine when the mediator can be approached, which must be within the year following that claim under Article L. 612-2 of the Consumer Code.

Yes, for claims based on the European regulation and brought since 7 February 2026. Article 1 of Decree No. 2025-772 of 5 August 2025 makes the writ of summons subject to an attempt at mediation before a consumer mediator, under the conditions of Articles L. 612-1 to L. 612-3 of the Consumer Code. Inadmissibility is raised by the court of its own motion: the judge does not wait for the airline to raise it.

The text provides for two legitimate reasons for the absence of mediation: circumstances that made it impossible to approach the mediator within the one-year period following the written claim, or the mediator's unavailability where mediation had not succeeded within six months of the referral. Article 2 also removes inadmissibility where the claim was sent to the airline before the decree was published, on 7 August 2025, or where the triggering event dates back at least four years before 7 February 2026. For claims of 5,000 euros or less, Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure already required a prior attempt at amicable resolution. The judicial court of Toulouse accordingly held admissible, on 31 July 2026, the claim of a passenger who "shows that he or she approached the Tourism and Travel Mediator, which moreover issued a favourable opinion on his or her claim" (TJ Toulouse, 31 July 2026, No. 25/02405) (our translation).

Article L. 612-1 of the Consumer Code requires the trader to guarantee the consumer effective access to a consumer mediation scheme, and to allow the consumer to use the sector mediator where there is one. For air transport, the public information services direct passengers to the Tourism and Travel Mediator, after checking the list of its members.

Decree No. 2025-772 of 5 August 2025 contains no exemption specific to an airline that is not a member. It accepts only two legitimate reasons: the impossibility of approaching the mediator within the one-year period following the written claim, and the mediator's unavailability where mediation has not succeeded within six months. Prudence therefore calls for identifying the mediator named in the airline's general terms, approaching it and keeping proof of every step, including a refusal to examine the case. The firm checks these points and, if mediation proves impossible, prepares the demonstration of the legitimate reason to be put to the judge. Among the decisions consulted for this page, none resolves the case of an airline that offers no mediator.

No, for claims based on the European regulation brought since 7 February 2026. Decree No. 2025-772 of 5 August 2025 requires a writ of summons, an act served on the airline by a commissaire de justice (bailiff). An application filed with the court registry exposes the passenger to inadmissibility, even where the airline does not appear at the hearing.

The judicial court of Lorient so held on 17 September 2026 for a passenger seeking compensation for a cancellation, noting that "the present proceedings were not preceded by an attempt at conciliation and the court was not seised by writ of summons" (TJ Lorient, 17 September 2026, No. 26/00136) (our translation). The claims were declared inadmissible and the passenger was ordered to pay the costs. The decree also governs grouping: a single writ of summons may bring together only passengers on the same flight linked by direct ancestry, collateral kinship up to the fourth degree, marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation. A group of friends or colleagues must therefore bring separate writs, which is prepared before the act is served.

Not without documents. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 relieves the airline of compensation if it proves an extraordinary circumstance that could not have been avoided even had all reasonable measures been taken. The burden of this twofold proof lies on the airline, and the ground must be examined against the documents it produces.

The Court of Cassation overturned a court that had relieved an airline of liability on the ground that Orly airport was closed at night, holding "whereas such a regulation cannot constitute an extraordinary circumstance" (Cass. 1re civ., 17 February 2021, No. 19-21.362) (our translation). The Paris judicial court likewise ordered an airline to pay 600 euros for a delay of 3 hours 17 minutes on arrival, after examining the aircraft's rotation log (TJ Paris, 8 January 2026, No. 24/01802). The outcome is not always favourable: the commercial court of Nice accepted the extraordinary circumstance based on the presence of insects on board the aircraft and rejected the claim of a claims company (TC Nice, 22 April 2026, No. 2025RG01992), a first-instance decision. The firm therefore asks for the supporting documents before incurring costs.

The passenger establishes the contract of carriage and the flight concerned. An airline that disputes owing compensation must then prove that it has discharged its obligation, in accordance with Article 1353 of the Civil Code. The Court of Cassation drew a clear consequence from this for the length of the delay.

In a case where the aircraft, expected at Orly at 22:30, had landed at Roissy at 0:18, the court had rejected the claim for lack of proof of a delay of more than three hours. The Court quashed that judgment, holding that "the court reversed the burden of proof and infringed the aforementioned texts" (Cass. 1re civ., 17 February 2021, No. 19-21.362) (our translation). The delay is measured on arrival at the final destination shown on the ticket, not at departure. Where the aircraft lands at another airport, it is therefore for the airline to show the time at which the passenger reached the final destination. In practice, the passenger is well advised to produce a record of actual times, a delay certificate or dated screenshots, even though the burden of proving the contrary lies on the airline.

Not necessarily. For a delayed flight, Article 3(2) of the Regulation makes its application subject to a confirmed booking and to presentation at check-in, a condition that the text sets aside in the event of cancellation and that does not concern a passenger transferred to another flight. In 2018, the Court of Cassation had approved the rejection of a claim because the documents produced did not show that the passengers had presented themselves at check-in (Cass. 1re civ., 14 February 2018, No. 16-23.205). That solution, unfavourable to the passenger, is no longer followed.

Following an order of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 24 October 2019, the Court of Cassation held that passengers on a flight delayed by three hours or more "cannot be refused compensation under that regulation on the sole ground that, when claiming compensation, they did not prove that they had presented themselves at check-in" (Cass. 1re civ., 21 October 2020, No. 19-13.016) (our translation). It is then for the airline to show that the passenger was not carried on the delayed flight. The confirmed booking, the emails received during the disruption and the re-routing details become the central documents in the file.

Where the airline is not domiciled in a Member State, the Court of Cassation applies Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a claim to be brought, besides the defendant's court, before the court of the place where the service is performed. In the case of a flight from France to Tunis, the court of appeal had refused jurisdiction of the place of departure by applying articles of the Civil Aviation Code that refer to the Montreal Convention; its judgment was quashed (Cass. 1re civ., 9 November 2022, No. 21-11.304).

The Regulation must still apply. For a flight from a third country to the Union, it applies only if the operating carrier is a Union carrier. The Court of Cassation quashed, to the passenger's detriment, a judgment that had awarded compensation "without finding that the company was a Community carrier" (Cass. 1re civ., 26 September 2019, No. 18-21.188) (our translation). The firm therefore checks the direction of the flight, the airline that actually operated it and its registered office before choosing the court. For an airline established in another Member State, jurisdiction is determined by the European rules, which the firm examines case by case.

You are not obliged to. Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 provides for payment in cash, by bank transfer or by cheque, and allows payment in travel vouchers or other services only with the passenger's signed agreement. A voucher whose value or terms of use do not suit you may therefore be refused, and payment in money claimed.

Article 15 of the same Regulation prohibits limiting or waiving obligations towards passengers by a derogation or a clause in the contract of carriage. It allows a passenger who was not properly informed of their rights and accepted lower compensation to bring an action for additional compensation. Before signing anything, compare the offer with the amount applicable to the distance of the flight and keep the written offer, its date and its terms. A quantified offer may also work in your favour: the judicial court of Lyon saw in one an acknowledgement of the right that had interrupted the limitation period (TJ Lyon, 2 June 2026, No. 25/02044).

Yes, on two separate conditions. Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 first reserves the passenger's right to additional compensation, from which the flat-rate compensation may be deducted. That separate loss, different from the meal or hotel costs that Article 9 places directly on the airline, must be proved by documents (a missed business appointment, a lost service) and rest on a ground of liability whose conditions are met. The Court of Cassation overturned a court that had rejected such a claim "without it appearing from its decision that it examined the documents produced by the company Les jardins de Coppélia in support of its claim for additional compensation" (Cass. 1re civ., 14 May 2025, No. 24-10.520) (our translation).

A prolonged refusal to pay may then justify damages for abusive resistance. The Toulouse judicial court awarded 100 euros to a passenger whose steps and formal notice had gone unanswered, holding that "This attitude amounts to abusive resistance on the part of the company AIR ALGERIE" (TJ Toulouse, 31 July 2026, No. 25/02405) (our translation). The Lyon judicial court refused the same claim, for lack of established malice or bad faith (TJ Lyon, 2 June 2026, No. 25/02044). Interest at the statutory rate runs under Article 1231-6 of the Civil Code.

An action for payment of the flat-rate compensation falls under the five-year ordinary limitation period of Article 2224 of the Civil Code, which runs from the day the passenger knew or should have known the facts enabling them to act. The Lyon judicial court applies this ordinary period to an action based on the European regulation, running it from the date of the flight in dispute.

The airline's refusal does not start a new period. An acknowledgement of the right, on the other hand, interrupts it, under Article 2240 of the Civil Code. The Lyon judicial court held admissible, in June 2026, the claim of a passenger whose flight dated from 24 June 2017: an email from the airline of 22 January 2022, agreeing to pay 250 euros, amounted to an acknowledgement despite the statement that liability was not admitted, and the airline was ordered to pay that sum (TJ Lyon, 2 June 2026, No. 25/02044). Two periods now overlap: the one-year period to approach the mediator after the written claim, and the five-year period to issue the writ. Article 2238 of the Civil Code also suspends the limitation period from the parties' agreement to use mediation or, failing written agreement, from the first meeting, the mere referral to the mediator not always being enough. The firm calculates these periods together from the first exchange.

The law does not require one for a claim of small value. Article 761 of the Code of Civil Procedure removes the requirement to appoint a lawyer, before the judicial court, where the claim is for 10,000 euros or less. A passenger may therefore claim alone, provided that they comply with prior mediation, service of the writ by a commissaire de justice and the grouping rules set by Decree No. 2025-772 of 5 August 2025.

A lawyer's involvement is justified where the airline raises a serious ground, where several passengers of the same family wish to act together, where a first judgment of inadmissibility has been given or where a separate loss is added to the flat-rate compensation. The firm first examines the documents and the chronology, then indicates whether the file justifies proceedings and on what terms. The preliminary case review is offered at 80 euros incl. VAT; no other sum is committed without written agreement on how the engagement is to continue. The costs of serving the writ of summons remain to be advanced by the claimant.