Bergamo Catania flight delayed by Ryanair? The paradox of having to sue in Ireland to enforce your rights
In recent days, the Supreme Court, in a controversial decision, has made valid the clause, which has been present for several [...]
Wizz Air
Volotea
Ryanair
easyJet
In recent days, the Supreme Court, in a controversial decision, has made valid the clause, present already for several years in the terms and conditions of some airlines LOW COST, according to which the processes on the causes of flight delays, Exclusively domestic or domestic (in Italy), will no longer be held in Italy (usually before the Justice of the Peace), but in the home countries of the respective companies. For example, in Ireland for Ryanair or in Hungary for Wizz Air.
In this article:
This is news-not news in the sense that, as mentioned, this rule has existed for some time-at least since 2015 for Ryanair-and today it has simply been approved and made valid by the Supreme Court.
So travelers when purchasing an online ticket, for example a Milan-Bari operated by Ryanair, automatically accept, by flagging the various boxes, all of the carrier's legal terms and conditions, including, of course, this one of legal scope (Art. 2.4).
This ruling of the Supreme Court, 8802/2025, in unified sections, is Potentially applicable to all domestic flights. To date, the general air transportation conditions of the various foreign companies operating on domestic routes are very different. Ryanair, as mentioned, provides in its general conditions for the jurisdiction of the Irish courts, Wizzair That of the court in Budapest, Volotea That of the Court of Barcelona. The only low-cost airline with a passenger-friendly clause to date appears to be easyJet.
In fact, the latter is more permissive than the others: in Article 21 it clarifies that for European passengers, trials in case of appeals or lawsuits can still be held in the country where the flight was operated.
Did you get your flight cancelled, miss your connection, land late?
You could get up to 600€ compensation per person
The trial will be held at the legal headquarters of the different airlines only in cases related to domestic or domestic flights, such as the Milan-Bari or Genoa-Rome, and not in the case of international flights, for example Pisa-Barcelona. For international flights, reference can still be made to the Italian Justice of the Peace.
To better understand and go into more detail, we asked the'lawyer Angelo Junior Soragni, specializing in the topic of passenger law and Ph.D. in International Economic Law from the Luigi Bocconi Commercial University of Milan.
What do you think of this Supreme Court ruling?
The recent ruling No. 8802/2025 of the Supreme Court in United Sections. Has generated considerable confusion about the rights of Italian passengers towards the airlines and more particularly towards Ryanair, since the case at hand was really about the Irish carrier and the acceptance of the terms of its terms and conditions contract in which Article 2 provides for Irish jurisdiction, derogating from the other forums.
Confusion from what point of view?
Many commentators, in my opinion, have mistakenly stated that it is no longer possible to take legal action in Italy against the Irish carrier to obtain the refunds and compensations provided for in EC Regulation 261/2004.
I disagree with those who say that it will no longer be possible to obtain monetary compensation or other rights in Italian courts. Trying to simplify a rather vast field of situations, it is necessary to recall how an earlier decision in unified sections of the Supreme Court (no. 3561/2020), thus hierarchically equal, expressly provided, again for a case involving Ryanair, for Italian jurisdiction. On the issue, which was the subject of the 2025 decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-519/19 (judgment Nov. 18, 2020) also intervened, with a decision favorable to the consumer/passenger, with a hierarchically superior and therefore prevailing over the Italian national decision and also applicable in Italy.
The dichotomy (not to say outright anomaly and contradiction) lies in the fact that while the 2020 case concerned a case of an international (intra-EU) flight to which it was possible to apply the jurisdiction rules of the 1999 Montreal Convention, in the second case (the more recent one of the 2025 decision), since it was a domestic flight (Alghero-Treviso), also operated by Ryanair, in the Supreme Court's view it would not be possible to apply the Montreal Convention explicitly valid only for international flights, according to its Article 1.
What is the difference in this case between domestic and international flights?
According to some, the Supreme Court predicted Two different routes for international and domestic flights by Ryanair or other airline Which provides for an explicit forum in its general terms and conditions. Possibility of suing in Italy for intra-EU flights (e.g., Bergamo - London Stansted) because of the applicability of the Montreal Convention (Art. 33), to such types of flights and validity of the clause in Ryan's terms and conditions of carriage, in conjunction with Art. 2 and 15 with exclusive Irish forum for domestic flights (e.g., Bologna - Brindisi), given that Montreal (which overrides and derogates from such substantially vexatious clauses) is not applicable, because of its international nature.
In truth, nothing could be more wrong. The United Sections simply noted the formal validity of the extension clause of jurisdiction contained in Ryanair's conditions of carriage (Article 2, cited above, which provides for exclusive Irish jurisdiction). The Court, applying EU Regulation No. 1215/2012, found the clause to be formally valid, but for one reason only: in the proceedings in question, none of the parties had raised the objection that the clause was unfair under Directive 93/13/EEC on consumer protection.
Where the passenger, through his or her lawyer, had raised this aspect of abuse, he or she would likely have had the Supreme Court deem it invalid and ineffective, while retaining the ability to sue the company in the alternative forums provided (forum of the
defendant, forum of destination, forum of completion of the online contract, thus Italy).
Bottom line, the Supreme Court merely applied a basic principle: a clause contractually accepted by the passenger (e.g., by checking a box during an online purchase, as in this case) is valid and effective, if not challenged, by the consumer (weaker party) its potentially abusive nature.
Surprised by all this hype?
This is basically news-non-news in the sense that, as mentioned, this rule has existed for some time-at least since 2015 for Ryanair-and the Court of Cassation has only confirmed its potential validity, if the adhering passenger does not contest it. It remains firm, albeit with the need for the help of professionals in the field, the possibility of bringing the case, with firmness, before the competent Italian judicial authority, even for domestic flights operated by foreign airlines, being careful, however, of certain stakes that a good lawyer will know how to deal with calmly and in the right way.
