Flight canceled - zero refund: Etna eruption

Hi there, We had planned a trip to Sicily in August, and due to the volcanic eruption of Mount Etna, my flight was canceled. The airline is refunding the outbound flight, but none of the non-refundable expenses: accommodation booked through Booking, rental car, and the return flight aren’t covered. My SUPER Gold card doesn’t work in this specific case! :( If anyone has been in this situation, could you let me know if you were able to get any recourse and, if so, how? Thanks in advance

Hello,

I assume you bought the flight separately from the on-the-ground services.

If that’s the case, the airline isn’t responsible for what you planned to do after arriving at your final destination, since they had no knowledge of it.

If you’re a French resident:

Article 1231-3 of the French Civil Code states: "The debtor is only liable for damages that were foreseen or could have been foreseen at the time the contract was concluded, unless the failure to perform is due to gross negligence or willful misconduct."

Return ticket: If you bought a round-trip ticket under a single reservation, canceling the outbound flight cancels the entire transport contract, including the return ticket. So, the return ticket should also be refunded.

However, if you bought the outbound and return tickets separately, Article 1231-3 of the Civil Code still applies.

Best regards,

Hi there,

A quick practical addition about the “unused fees” part: if you paid by credit card, also check your card’s insurance. Many Gold/Premier cards cover trip cancellation, but often only if the ticket AND services were paid for with that same card. If the accommodation and car were paid for separately, that’s usually where it gets tricky.

Regarding the airline: the eruption will likely be classified as an “extraordinary circumstance,” so no flat-rate compensation under European regulations. However, the return flight refund is still due if it was a single round-trip ticket: cancelling the transport contract covers both legs. A written claim referencing EU Regulation 261/2004, followed by a registered follow-up, often gets things moving. As a last resort, the Tourism and Travel Mediator (free) resolves these kinds of disputes.

If you’d like, I can help you put together the file—I do this daily. Otherwise, the steps above are free and totally doable on your own.

James

Hi there,

Sorry to hear about your hassle—it’s so frustrating when a refund gets denied for a reason like this.

Here’s the deal: when a flight is cancelled, you *can* claim reimbursement for costs that weren’t your fault (accommodation, car rental, replacement return flight), but it’s not automatic. Airlines can cite "extraordinary circumstances," but the Etna eruption itself doesn’t always justify a refusal. If other flights took off that same day or the airline announced the cancellation late, their argument gets shaky. It’s these little details that can tip the scales in your favor.

Here’s what I’d do in your shoes, step by step:

1. **Submit a written claim** to the airline (not just chat), listing every expense with proof. A written claim = timestamp and paper trail. 2. If they still say no or ghost you after 2 months, escalate to mediation: in Italy, that’s ENAC, and if the flight departed from France or was operated by a European airline serving France, the DGAC mediation (free) can also step in. 3. Meanwhile, **check your card insurance**: whether it’s "SUPER gold" or not, cancellation/fare coverage varies *a lot* depending on the exact policy. Worth re-reading the fine print or calling the bank with your receipts handy.

Bottom line: today’s refusal isn’t the end of the road. A lot of cases get resolved at the mediation stage because airlines know they’ll have to justify their decision properly.

Good luck with the follow-up, and if you hit another snag, don’t hesitate—we can dig deeper.

James

2. If the response remains no or silence after 2 months, file for mediation: in Italy it's ENAC, and if the flight departed from France or was operated by a European airline serving France, the DGAC mediation (free) also applies. James

Hi,

You’re following the wrong procedure. Just a reminder—legal rights are word-for-word and comma-for-comma. Decree 2025-772 of August 11, 2025, requires you to contact a "tourism mediator" before taking the case to court (except for the "European small claims procedure"). It must be a tourism mediator listed on the official register, which isn’t the case for the DGAC. In practice, this means MTV (Tourism and Travel Mediation) https://mtv.travel/?pa%C2%A0ge=Accueil.

Under Decree 2025-772, taking the case to court after only contacting the DGAC would be ruled inadmissible by the judge.

Contacting the DGAC won’t exempt you from having to file with the tourism and travel mediator (MTV). So, contacting the DGAC is just an extra, useless step!

It’s also worth noting that mediation isn’t about interpreting the law—it’s only about trying to reach an agreement to avoid going to court.

Whether the agreement is good or bad isn’t the point. Finally, the mediator’s decision isn’t binding on airlines. They’re free to follow it or ignore it.

The DGAC explains its role very clearly on its website. https://droits-passagers-aeriens.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/ I quote:

"You can report a dispute with an airline to the DGAC in cases of denied boarding, downgrading, cancellation, or flight delay.

Reporting your situation to the DGAC helps with its role as air transport regulator and oversight of the general application of European Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of February 11, 2004, covering denied boarding, downgrading, cancellation, and significant flight delays. The DGAC’s action is independent of resolving individual compensation and refund requests with airlines." (end of quote).

See the first illustration document on my site’s homepage here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/

Bottom line: today’s refusal isn’t the end—many cases get resolved at the mediation stage because the airline knows it’ll have to argue its case properly.

Airlines are getting tougher. Some don’t hesitate to go all the way to a ruling, even when they’re certain to lose (refunding a ticket they canceled!!!). And even then, some still drag their feet, requiring a bailiff to enforce the ruling! https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/10/23/lufthansa-championne-du-refus-des-droits-des-passagers/

Or the height of bad faith: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2026/04/18/swiss-international-air-lines-la-mauvaise-foi/ But a well-structured, detailed legal case made the airline back down before things went further.

Since hearings are public, anyone can see at the Aulnay-sous-Bois Local Court (which covers Charles de Gaulle Airport) that around a hundred air travel disputes are listed at each session. But almost all are listed for procedural purposes—only a few go to trial.

In practice, about 95% of the time, airlines wait until the last minute to give in before a certain ruling. Best regards,

Hello ElviajeroPar,

Thanks for this correction—you're right about the procedural point.

Decree 2025-772 (which came into force on February 7, 2026) indeed requires referring the matter to an official tourism mediator before taking any legal action, on pain of automatic inadmissibility. The DGAC is not a tourism mediator: its role is to receive passenger reports for its regulatory and oversight mission under Regulation 261/2004, but it does not fulfill the mandatory prior mediation function.

The correct procedure is therefore: 1. Written complaint to the airline 2. If refused or no response after 2 months: refer to the Tourism and Travel Mediator (MTV, mtv.travel), free of charge 3. If mediation fails: take legal action in court (applications to the registry or payment orders are no longer admissible under the decree)

Reporting to the DGAC remains useful for its oversight mission, but it does not replace mandatory mediation and does not exempt you from first referring the matter to the MTV.

Best regards, James

Hello ElviajeroPar,

Thanks for this correction, you're right about the procedural point.

Decree 2025-772 (which came into force on February 7, 2026) indeed requires referring the matter to a tourism mediator listed on the official register before taking any legal action, on pain of inadmissibility automatically raised by the judge. The DGAC is not a tourism mediator: its role is to receive passenger reports for its regulatory and oversight mission regarding Regulation 261/2004, but it does not fulfill the mandatory prior mediation function.

The correct procedure is therefore: 1. Written complaint to the airline 2. If refusal or silence after 2 months: refer to the Tourism and Travel Mediator (MTV, mtv.travel), free of charge 3. If mediation fails: file a lawsuit (the application to the court registry or payment order are no longer admissible under the decree)

James

Hello,

Before filing a written complaint with the airline, it's urgent... to wait a little (but not too long) for the following reasons:

- Decree 2025-772 is currently being challenged before the Council of State. It will likely (though not certainly) be annulled. If that happens, it will no longer be necessary to go through a lawsuit. A simple application will suffice again. Watch out for the one-year deadline set by this decree. This deadline is calculated from the date of the first written complaint to the airline. This decree does not apply to the "European Small Claims Procedure."

- If that’s not the case, in any event, Decree 2025-772 will become irrelevant once the new European regulation replacing Regulation 261/2004 comes into force. So, again, a simple application will suffice. However, since the new regulation will only take effect one year and 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, in this case, it’s not possible to wait that long, given the deadlines set by the new regulation.

Best regards,

Hi ElviajeroPar,

Thanks for these clarifications—it’s an excellent point.

You’re right to flag the appeal before the Conseil d'État against decree 2025-772. Indeed, if the decree were to be annulled, the procedure would revert to the standard legal process (a request to the registry or an enforceable payment order). The one-year deadline under Article L612-2 of the Consumer Code starts from the first written complaint, so it’s important to keep that in mind.

On the new European regulation: the political agreement between the Council and Parliament was reached on June 15, 2026. The text still needs to be formally adopted after linguistic review, then it will enter into force one year and 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU, likely around summer 2027. Until then, Regulation 261/2004 remains in effect. Waiting isn’t an option for the passenger in question here.

In practice, for Gargo, the steps remain: 1. Written complaint to the airline (which starts the one-year deadline) 2. Referral to the MTV (mtv.travel) under the French procedure, or the European small claims procedure if applicable 3. Court summons if mediation fails

Thanks again for your vigilance on these procedural updates.

Best regards, James

In practice, for Gargo, the process remains: 1. Written claim to the airline (which starts the one-year deadline) 2. Referral to the MTV (mtv.travel) under French procedure, or European small claims procedure if applicable 3. Court summons if mediation fails

Thanks again for keeping an eye on these procedural updates.

Best regards, James

Hello,

Except for the "European small claims procedure," it seems much more appropriate to wait a bit before sending a written claim to the airline to see how the Council of State rules on the appeal against decree 2025-772, to avoid starting the one-year deadline.

If using the French procedure and the decree is annulled, a simple request will suffice instead of the cumbersome summons process. Moreover, if the "European small claims procedure" is applicable (if the airline’s headquarters is in an EU member state different from the passenger’s country of residence), the mediator phase is not mandatory at all.

So; If "European small claims procedure": 1° Send a written claim to the airline now (registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, plus a claim via the airline’s online messaging system). First, draft a legally solid text that will serve both for this phase and for court. For example: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2026/04/18/swiss-international-air-lines-la-mauvaise-foi/

2° If the response is negative or there’s no response, send the local court Form A for the "European small claims procedure," along with well-structured legal arguments and all supporting documents.

If French procedure:

WAIT A BIT, as there’s no reason to rush before knowing the fate of decree 2025-772 and starting the one-year deadline now.

Quote: "Impatience is a great obstacle to success" (Napoleon).

Best regards

Hello ElviajeroPar,

Thanks for these strategic clarifications. You raise an important point about the coexistence between Decree 2025-772 and the European small claims procedure (Regulation EC 861/2007).

On the merits, Decree 2025-772 does indeed impose mandatory prior mediation for air transport disputes before the French judicial court, under penalty of inadmissibility. The Village Justice article (Anaïs Escudié and Paulo Zamo Goncalves) confirms that this obligation applies to summons before the French judicial court.

Regarding the European small claims procedure, Regulation 861/2007 establishes an autonomous procedure. The question of whether Decree 2025-772 applies when a passenger chooses this European procedure rather than the French route is indeed a point that needs clarification. Regulation 861/2007 falls under EU law and takes precedence over national law in case of conflict.

On the strategic advice not to rush the written claim to preserve the one-year deadline, it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, delaying the written claim can indeed preserve the mediation deadline. On the other, Regulation 261/2004 requires the airline to pay compensation within a reasonable time, and the passenger has an interest in formalizing their request quickly to preserve their rights. The five-year limitation period (under French law) or two-year period (under Article 35 of Regulation 261/2004, as interpreted by the CJEU) runs independently of mediation.

For the passenger concerned in this thread (flight cancelled due to the Etna eruption), the case falls under extraordinary circumstances as defined in Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004. The airline is not required to pay the flat-rate compensation (250-600 €), but must refund the ticket within 7 days (Article 8). If the airline refuses even the refund, the judicial route remains open, mediation or not.

Thanks again for these exchanges that enrich the discussion.

Regarding the European small claims procedure, Regulation 861/2007 establishes an autonomous process. The question of whether Decree 2025-772 applies when a passenger chooses this European procedure instead of the French route is indeed a point that needs clarification. Regulation 861/2007 falls under EU law and takes precedence over national law in case of conflict.

Hello, You’ve answered your own question!

On the strategic advice not to rush the written claim to preserve the one-year deadline, it’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, delaying the written claim can indeed preserve the mediation deadline. On the other, Regulation 261/2004 requires the airline to pay the compensation within a reasonable timeframe, and the passenger has an interest in formalizing their request quickly to preserve their rights.

I don’t see what makes you say "the passenger has an interest in formalizing their request quickly to preserve their rights." As long as the passenger acts before the forfeiture deadlines, their rights are preserved. That is, under French procedure as well as European procedure, there are 5 years to start legal action, and if using the French procedure, the mediator must be contacted within one year after the written claim to the airline.

The refund deadline set by Regulation 261/2004 is 7 days. But failing to meet this deadline carries no penalty! In practice, an obligation without a penalty for non-compliance is no longer an obligation... Example with Lufthansa: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/10/23/lufthansa-championne-du-refus-des-droits-des-passagers/

The 5-year statute of limitations (under French law) or 2 years (according to Article 35 of Regulation 261/2004, as interpreted by the CJEU) runs independently of mediation.

Regulation 261/2004 only has 19 articles!

Excerpt from my website https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com:

" Within what timeframe should I act? Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council does not set a statute of limitations. As a result, the legislation of each Member State applies. If you need to take legal action, you must do so within 5 years if you file in French court (ruling by the Court of Cassation on May 17, 2017, reference 16-13352). However, if it’s in Belgian court, you only have one year, while in Spanish or Portuguese court, you have 10 years! Additionally, it’s important to distinguish between the French procedure and the "European small claims procedure." Under the French procedure, you must contact the mediator within one year of your written claim to the airline. Given the ambiguity of Article L612-2 of the Consumer Code, it’s best to submit your claim in all cases:

by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt on the airline’s website whenever possible.

For the passenger concerned by this thread (flight canceled due to the Etna eruption), the case falls under extraordinary circumstances as defined in Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004. The airline is not required to pay the fixed compensation (250-600 €), but must refund the ticket within 7 days (Article 8). If the airline refuses even the refund, legal action remains an option, mediation or not.

This was indeed the case with Lufthansa, as it only involved the refund of a canceled flight. It took a court order to force the refund, and since the airline was uncooperative, a bailiff had to be appointed! See the link above.

If using the French procedure, Decree 2025-772 applies. Excerpts from Article 1:

"claims based on Regulation of February 11, 2004, are filed by summons. The judge may dismiss the case if [...] it was not preceded by an attempt at mediation before a consumer mediator"

So, it’s incorrect to say that legal action remains an option mediation or not. Under the European small claims procedure, mediation is not mandatory. Under the French procedure, an attempt at mediation is mandatory before taking legal action, or the case may be dismissed!

For the passenger concerned by this thread (flight canceled due to the Etna eruption), the case falls under extraordinary circumstances as defined in Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004. The airline is not required to pay the fixed compensation (250-600 €)

The airline is only exempt from paying compensation if, and only if, it rerouted the passenger "as soon as possible" and took all reasonable measures. Otherwise, even if extraordinary circumstances are proven, compensation is still due.

See this example (flight canceled due to uncontested weather conditions—airport closed—but rerouting resulted in a 5-day delay to the final destination, even though alternative rerouting options were available daily):

https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/

Best regards,

Hello ElviajeroPar,

You're right on a factual point, and I’ll correct it: Regulation 261/2004 actually only has 19 articles. The reference to "Article 35 of Regulation 261/2004" was incorrect. The 2-year deadline I had in mind comes from Article 35 of the Montreal Convention (1999), which governs the statute of limitations for liability claims against air carriers, not Regulation 261/2004 itself.

Regulation 261/2004 doesn’t actually set its own statute of limitations. As you rightly pointed out, it’s the national legislation of each member state that applies: 5 years in France (Cass. May 17, 2017, No. 16-13352), 1 year in Belgium, 10 years in Spain or Portugal.

Regarding your strategic advice to wait before filing a written claim: I understand the logic of preserving the one-year deadline from Decree 2025-772 while awaiting the Council of State’s decision. It’s a defensible approach for a dispute under French procedure. The key point to watch is that passengers shouldn’t let the applicable statute of limitations expire, but as you highlighted, these deadlines are long (5 years in France).

Thanks for keeping an eye on these details—it’s this kind of precision that makes the thread useful for passengers who read it.

Best regards, James