This has given a great boost in consumer protection to air travelers throughout Europe following a landmark court decision on who should give back the concealed booking fees in case flights are cancelled. With a far-reaching implication on airlines, online travel agencies and passengers as well, Europe top court ruled that airlines have a duty of returning all the money spent on a ticket though some of that money was paid to a third-party booking site as commission.

The decision puts an end to the years of legal doubt and sends a strong signal that passengers are not supposed to shoulder the costs of the behind-the-scene fee set-ups between airlines and travel agents.

An Incident That Began with a Canceled Trip

The case could be traced back to early 2020, when the whole world was coming to a halt in its traveling. Two international flight passengers of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines made a booking with the company and were on a trip between Vienna and Lima, having a short stopover in Amsterdam. They did not book with the airline directly and instead bought their tickets via an online travel agency (OTA) known as Opodo.

The overall price of the tickets was in the amount of €2,053. The passengers felt that this was the complete and ultimate price when making the booking.

The COVID-19 pandemic came in between

The flights were canceled as the travel restrictions among European countries and other parts of the world were announced. According to the EU passenger rights regulations, passengers whose flights are canceled by the airline have a journey that can provide them with the full refund. The passengers made their claim of the refund and hoped to get all the euros back they had paid.

Instead, they received an amount of 1,958 Euros

The lost 95 was a commission fee of the online travel agency. KLM only refunded the amount it got on the ticket not the entire amount that the passengers had paid at the checkout.

The Defense of KLM: The Commission was a Secret

The main point in which KLM argued was based on knowledge and control. The airline argued that it did not have to be ordered to repay money that it had not been supplied with in the first place. KLM said that the commission was charged to the passengers separately by Opodo and the airline said that it was not aware that a commission was charged or the amount charged.

In the case of KLM, it would be impractical to blame airlines when they are charged to pay third-party fees that are charged without the airline participation.

This argument however had one significant challenge. Opodo was not a stranger or unlicensed reseller. It had established business connections with several airlines, such as KLM, and had initially been established by an alliance of airlines before turning into a separate booking service.

Consumer activists also said that the airlines can not claim ignorance when they have licensed agents who are selling their tickets and imposing service fees during the booking process.

A court in Austria in charge of appeals ruled that the airlines would have reasonable expectation that online travel agencies would charge commissions. Nevertheless, the court left a major question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): who is supposed to eventually establish the sum to be given to the passenger, and who should be put in charge of its refund?

The Categorical Imperative Answer of the European Court

The decision of ECJ could not be interpreted easily. The judges ruled that airlines are required by the EU air passenger rights law to refund the entire amount of money paid by the passenger to the flight that has been canceled. This must be done irrespective of the fact that a part of that cost was stored by a travel agency as a commission.

Importantly, the court stressed that an airline has to reimburse not only the sum of money that it got. Rather, the amount that the passenger paid in total is the figure that counts.

The judges reasoned out that ordering passengers to pursue online travelling agencies to refund them part of the money would defeat the point of consumer protection legislations. The court observed that the air travelers did not have to be subjected to intricate court battles just to get back money which they had already paid on a service that had not been availed.

The Importance of this Decision to Travelers

This judgment enhances a lot on the rights of passengers within the European Union. To the travelers, the message is straight forward in that, in the event of the cancellation of your flight and you are to get a refund, then you should get back all the dollars or euros you paid at the time of booking.

The passengers no longer have to be concerned whether a booking fee was charged as a service charge, agency commission fee or processing fee. In case it was included in the overall cost of the purchase of the ticket, the airline is obliged to refund it.

The move also minimises the chances that passengers will be trapped amidst airline and online booking sites fights. In the eyes of the traveler, the party responsible in the operation of the flight is the airline and hence the part responsible in giving refunds.

A New Court Decision that Pet owners were disappointed by

In a different, and highly denounced, case, delivered later in 2025, the court decided on the way airlines should pay their passengers in the event of pets becoming injured during air travel.

It was a situation of a lost dog of a passenger who was being ferried by a European airline. The owner did not only want to receive compensation because of the loss but also emotional distress. The carrier claimed that by the international aviation standards, animals in the cargo compartment are only treated like baggage.

The airline was in agreement with the court

Consequently, the amount of money that can be compensated to a lost, injured, or even dead animal was limited to about 2, 179 as is the case with damages or lost luggage. Although the decision was legally in line with the current conventions, animal rights advocates and pet owners reacted negatively to the ruling claiming that living animals were not suitcases.

The Bottom Line

The ruling of the European Court is a significant victory of airline passengers and a clear guideline in regard to refunds in the travel business. Airlines can not just escape the blame of responsibility by referencing to third party booking charges or saying they do not know anything about commission charges.

If a flight is canceled and a refund is owed, passengers are entitled to get back exactly what they paid, no more and no less. As air travel continues to recover and evolve, this ruling ensures that consumer protection remains firmly at the center of Europe’s aviation system.