According to Court of Justice of the European Union, judgments in joined cases Judgments in Joined Cases C-146/20, C-188/20, C-196/20 and C-270/20, Azurair and Others, in Case C-263/20, Airhelp, and in Case C-395/20, Corendon Airlines (
document) (my use of bold):
A flight must be regarded as having been ‘cancelled’ in the case where the operating air carrier brings it forward by more than one hour.
In such a case, the flight must be regarded as having been brought forward by a significant amount of time since it may result in serious inconvenience for passengers, in the same way as a delay. Where a flight has been brought forward in this way, passengers are unable to use their time as they wish and to organise their trip or holiday in line with their expectations. Accordingly, passengers may, inter alia, be forced to adapt significantly to the new departure time in order to be able to take their flight, or may even be unable, despite having taken the necessary precautions, to board the aircraft.
In addition, where a flight has been brought forward by a significant amount of time, giving rise to a right to compensation (which implies, inter alia, late communication that the flight has been brought forward), the operating air carrier is still required to pay the total amount (which is, depending on the distance, € 250, 400 or 600). It does not have the possibility to reduce any compensation to be paid by 50% on the ground that it has offered the passenger re-routing, allowing him or her to arrive without delay at his or her final destination.
Klager anfører, og fortsetter på engelsk. As per 20. oct - to re-iterate this, Core ruling: Case C-146/20, WZ v Austrian Airlines (CJEU, 21 December 2021). This is the leading authority.
The CJEU held:
“A flight which is brought forward by more than one hour must be regarded as a cancellation within the meaning of Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004.”
(para. 40)
and
“Such an advance may result in passengers suffering serious inconvenience, in particular because they have to adapt their plans and arrive at the airport much earlier.”
(para. 39)
In other words, a significant advancement (more than 1 hour) equals cancellation for EU261 purposes.
The fact that I did arrive on time, does not exclude compensation. This was explicitly discussed in the CJEU reasoning (C-146/20, para. 39–41):
“The concept of ‘cancellation’ covers the case where the operating air carrier brings the flight forward by more than one hour, as this may cause the passenger serious inconvenience, since they must adapt their plans.”
(para. 39)
The Court stressed that inconvenience before travel (loss of rest, disruption to plans) is compensable, even if the arrival time is the same.
Vis alt...