Regulation (EU) 2026/261 — the reform of the EU air passenger rights framework — does not touch the compensation amounts. EUR 250, 400 and 600 stay exactly as they are. What the reform reaches into is how a claim is processed: clearer response deadlines for airlines, stronger duties to handle the file correctly, and tighter information obligations toward the passenger. In Poland the free official route remains unchanged. You write to the carrier first; if it refuses or stalls, you file with the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC); if that fails, you go to Sąd Rejonowy — the local district court — under the 10-year prescription period of Article 118 of the Polish Civil Code.
This page walks through what shifts in the claim process under Regulation 2026/261, what is still open in the final text, and how a Polish passenger pursues a claim today and in the months after the reform's transition window closes. The reading was last reviewed against the published draft consolidated in EUR-Lex Regulation (EU) 2026/261 on 2 June 2026.
The Problem the Reform Is Going After
The most common complaint under EU 261/2004 was never about the rules themselves. It was about how airlines applied them. The pattern is familiar to anyone who has pursued a compensation claim against a major European carrier: a flat "no" in the first reply, then weeks of silence, then a partial offer below what the regulation sets out, and a process that drags on for months. Polish passengers describe the same loop year after year — boilerplate emails citing "an event outside our control" with no concrete explanation, vouchers offered in place of cash, and standard letters announcing the airline can "reduce the compensation by 50%" without any legal basis.
That is the target of Regulation 2026/261. Not the amounts — but the carrier's incentive to stall, deflect and dismiss.
The CJEU has spent fifteen years closing the substantive loopholes airlines tried to exploit. Sturgeon (joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) put long arrival delays of three hours or more on the same footing as a cancellation for compensation purposes. Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) held that technical defects discovered during normal operations are not extraordinary circumstances. Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018) ruled that a wildcat strike by the carrier's own crew does not qualify either. Despite this settled case law, the response patterns at the front desk barely changed. The 2026 reform addresses the gap between the law on paper and the experience at the email level.
What the Reform Tightens
Regulation 2026/261 sharpens the procedural rules carriers must follow when a passenger files a claim. Two areas sit at the centre.
Response deadlines. Under 261/2004 there were almost no explicit time limits for how quickly an airline had to respond to a written claim or pay out an accepted one. The reform sets clearer deadlines. The exact figures — how many days for the first substantive reply, how many for payment after acceptance, what consequences attach to silence — depend on the final consolidated text in EUR-Lex and the implementing acts that follow. We will not state any specific number as settled until the official journal confirms it.
Active and correct handling. The reform places stronger duties on airlines to inform passengers about their rights under Article 14 of the regulation, to offer the rerouting and care options proactively rather than on request, and to handle compensation claims with more procedural seriousness. How far each of these duties reaches in practice is still being interpreted — but the direction is clear: less room for boilerplate refusals, more recorded obligations for the carrier.
The table summarises the difference.
| Element | EU 261/2004 (in force now) | Regulation 2026/261 (after transition) |
|---|---|---|
| Airline response deadline | Few explicit time limits | Clearer deadlines — exact figures depend on final text |
| Information to the passenger | Article 14 duty, unevenly applied | Stricter requirements on information and handling |
| Free review route in Poland | RPP at the ULC, free of charge | Remains in place |
| Duty of care during disruption | Meals, drinks, hotel under Article 9 | Remains, with clarifications |
| Compensation amounts | EUR 250 / 400 / 600 by distance | Unchanged |
| Prescription period in Poland | 10 years under Article 118 Civil Code | Unchanged (Cuadrench Moré C-139/11 governs) |
No row is a weakening. The reform shifts the procedural burden a step toward the carrier — exactly how far depends on the final text and on how the Sąd Rejonowy and the RPP read the new wording in the first year of practice.
What Does Not Change: The Polish Free Route
This is worth stating plainly, because talk of "reform" makes some people assume everything becomes new. The free official route in Poland stays in place. If the airline says no, you can still turn to the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) — Poland's Civil Aviation Authority. The RPP reviews consumer disputes on the documents, at no cost to the passenger. Since 1 April 2019 the procedure is binding mediation: once you open it, the carrier must take part. A favourable RPP outcome carries serious weight if the matter later reaches Sąd Rejonowy.
The duty of care also remains. The carrier's obligation under Article 9 of the regulation — to provide meals and refreshments proportionate to the waiting time, two telephone calls or emails, and hotel accommodation with transport during overnight delays — applies under the reform exactly as it does today. The CJEU was emphatic about this in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013): the duty of care survives even when the disruption is an extraordinary circumstance and the cash compensation falls away. One point to remember: if you accept a refund of the ticket, the duty of care ends at that same moment, because the contract of carriage is wound up.
Internal cross-reference for the procedural detail: our English claim guide on running the process yourself and the court-stage walkthrough for Sąd Rejonowy cover the steps in depth. The Polish-language counterpart is the article on pursuing the claim yourself versus using a service .
How to Pursue a Claim in Poland — Whatever the Final Text Says
Until the reform's deadlines are pinned down and enter the official journal, the practical playbook for a Polish passenger is the same as it has been under 261/2004. Each step also remains the correct play once Regulation 2026/261 applies in full.
- File the claim yourself. Do not wait for the airline to come to you. Write to the carrier with the flight number, date, IATA codes of origin and destination, the length of the arrival delay at the final destination, and a short description of the disruption. Cite Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and, where the delay involves a connecting flight, Folkerts (C-11/11, 2013) and Wegener (C-537/17, 2018) — both confirm that what matters is the arrival delay at the final destination, measured across the whole journey.
- Preserve every piece of evidence. Boarding pass, booking confirmation, SMS and email from the carrier, screenshot of the departures or arrivals board, receipts for meals, drinks and any hotel you paid out of pocket. Evidence is what decides the case before the RPP and before Sąd Rejonowy. The carrier carries the burden of proving any extraordinary-circumstances defence under Article 5(3) — you do not have to disprove a technical fault.
- Do not accept a low offer on reflex. An offer below the Article 7 amount, a voucher in place of cash, or a settlement framed as "full and final" for less than what the regulation provides is a bid, not a verdict. You can decline and hold out for the statutory sum. Do not sign anything that closes the file at a discount.
- If the carrier refuses or stalls — escalate to the RPP at ULC. The complaint form is on the ULC website, the procedure is free, and you do not need a lawyer. The mediation is binding on the airline once opened. Average resolution runs a few months. Most disputes end here.
- If the RPP step does not produce payment — go to Sąd Rejonowy. The simplified procedure (postępowanie uproszczone) for monetary claims up to 20 000 PLN costs 30 PLN in court fee for claims up to 4 000 PLN under the Act on Court Fees in Civil Cases of 28 July 2005. Jurisdiction follows Rehder (C-204/08, 2009): you may sue at the Sąd Rejonowy for the airport of departure or arrival. You have ten years from the day after the disruption to file.
The reform shifts the emphasis — it adds responsibilities to the carrier's side of the process — but the basic move for a Polish passenger is unchanged.
Check your eligibility for free with AirHelp — no win, no fee
Three Stalling Tactics to Recognise
The reform's response deadlines exist precisely because of the patterns passengers have run into for years. Recognising them helps today, under EU 261/2004, and remains useful once Regulation 2026/261 applies.
The silent rejection. The airline does not reply at all, or replies with an acknowledgement and then nothing. Silence is not a legal rejection — it is a reason to escalate. Set your own time limit in the first email — four weeks is reasonable — and move to the RPP if it passes without a substantive answer.
The disguised "extraordinary circumstance". "An event outside our control" with no description of what actually happened is not a valid basis. Ask for a concrete explanation. Was it a technical fault, a weather situation, a strike — and whose? Carriers consistently fail this test when pushed. The CJEU has narrowed the defence repeatedly: Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) and van der Lans (C-257/14, 2015) confirm that technical faults arising in normal operations do not qualify; Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018) rules out wildcat strikes by the carrier's own crew. The carrier must prove the defence applies and that all reasonable measures were taken to avoid the disruption.
The low offer. A partial offer below the Article 7 amount, or a voucher in place of cash, is a bid — not a verdict. Decline it and hold out for the full sum. Do not sign anything labelled "full and final settlement" if the offer is lower than what you are entitled to. The carrier's reluctance to pay does not change the legal entitlement.
The 2026 reform's stricter handling rules are meant to shrink the room for all three. But even before those rules apply in full, the counter-move is the same: document, set your own time limits, escalate to the RPP and then to Sąd Rejonowy.
Prescription Period in Poland — Ten Years, but Plan, Do Not Sit on It
The CJEU held in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that EU 261 contains no specific limitation period; national rules govern. Poland applies the general civil prescription under Article 118 of the Civil Code: ten years from the day the claim became due. Polish Supreme Court resolution III CZP 111/16 of 17 March 2017 confirmed that EU 261 compensation falls under this general 10-year window rather than the 1-year Montreal Convention limit. The clock starts the day after the disrupted flight.
This is one of the most generous windows in the EU and survives the reform unchanged — Regulation 2026/261 does not displace the national rule, and Cuadrench Moré remains good law. In practice it means a Polish passenger can take the procedural steps without panic. There is room for a written claim, an RPP mediation, and a Sąd Rejonowy filing without ever running close to the deadline. Even so, two operational notes: evidence degrades with time (carrier crews rotate, internal logs are pruned after a few years), and the airline may move to a different corporate vehicle in cases of restructuring. The 10-year window is comfort, not an invitation to procrastinate.
How This Page Fits with the Rest of the 2026 Reform
The claim process is one part of the Regulation 2026/261 package. The other moving pieces — the calibrated delay thresholds, the redrawn definitions of cancellation and rerouting, the clarified information duties under Article 14 — sit on separate pages on this site. For the Polish-language version of this overview, see the native polska wersja artykułu o procesie roszczeń EU 261 w 2026 for the same content with Polish jurisdictional terms used natively rather than in translation.
The reform's transition window means both regimes overlap in practice for several months: a disruption that happens before the effective date of 2026/261 is governed by 261/2004 and the established CJEU case law; a disruption afterward by the new framework. The substantive entitlements — distance bands, the three-hour threshold from Sturgeon, the extraordinary-circumstances defence — carry across both.
This Is Not Legal Advice
This page is based on the published EUR-Lex draft of Regulation (EU) 2026/261, the consolidated text of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, settled CJEU case law and the procedural practice of the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego. An individual case may turn on facts not addressed here. For specific advice on your situation, contact the RPP at ULC or a Polish aviation lawyer. The 2026 reform's response deadlines may be adjusted in the final consolidated text and in implementing acts; this page will be updated as the official journal version stabilises.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the EU 261 claim process change in Poland in 2026?
The Regulation (EU) 2026/261 reform does not change the EUR 250 / 400 / 600 compensation amounts — it changes how a claim is handled. Airlines face clearer response deadlines and stronger information duties. In Poland the practical route is unchanged: written claim to the carrier first, then a complaint to the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC), and finally a lawsuit before the Sąd Rejonowy if the airline refuses to pay. Exact deadlines depend on the final consolidated text in EUR-Lex.
Does the airline have to pay EU 261 compensation without me applying for it in Poland?
The 2026 reform discusses stronger duties for airlines to inform passengers and handle claims more actively. In practice you should still assume that you are the one applying — do not wait for the carrier to contact you. Send a written claim citing Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the flight number, the route and the length of the arrival delay. The CJEU confirmed in Sturgeon (joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) that arrival delays of three hours or more carry the same compensation as a cancellation.
How long do I have to file a flight compensation claim under Polish law?
Ten years. The CJEU held in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that national prescription rules apply to EU 261 claims, and Poland applies the general 10-year civil prescription under Article 118 of the Civil Code, confirmed for aviation by Polish Supreme Court resolution III CZP 111/16 of 17 March 2017. The clock starts the day after the disrupted flight. This is one of the longest windows in the EU and remains the same under the 2026 reform.
Do RPP and ULC disappear as a route under the new 2026 rules?
No. The free official route remains in Poland. You can still file a complaint with the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) at no cost. Since 1 April 2019 the RPP issues binding mediation outcomes; the carrier must accept the procedure once you open it. The 2026 reform aims to strengthen the process — not remove the free review routes that already exist.
Does the airline still owe meals and a hotel during a delay in 2026?
Yes. The duty of care — meals, drinks, communication and, where needed, hotel accommodation during a longer disruption — remains under Regulation (EU) 2026/261 and is clarified. Crucially, it applies even when the cash compensation falls away because the disruption was an extraordinary circumstance. The CJEU confirmed the duty extends to extraordinary cases in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013). If you accept a ticket refund, however, the duty of care ends at that moment.
Can I sue a foreign airline in a Polish court under the 2026 rules?
Yes. Jurisdiction did not change with the reform. The CJEU held in Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) that an EU 261 passenger may sue at the Sąd Rejonowy for either the airport of departure or the airport of arrival, regardless of where the carrier is registered. If your flight touched WAW, KRK, GDN, KTW, WRO, POZ, RZE, LCJ or SZZ, Poland is a valid forum even against Lufthansa, KLM, Ryanair, Wizz Air or any other EU carrier. The Brussels I bis Regulation (1215/2012) confirms the jurisdiction rule.
Sources and Further Reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2026/261 and Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (consolidated)
- Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego — Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (Polish Civil Aviation Authority — Passenger Rights Ombudsman)
- Polish Civil Code, Article 118 — general 10-year prescription period for civil claims
- Polish Supreme Court — resolution III CZP 111/16 of 17 March 2017 (10-year prescription for EU 261 claims)
- CJEU — Sturgeon (joined C-402/07 and C-432/07), Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07), Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11), Folkerts (C-11/11), Wegener (C-537/17), Krüsemann (C-195/17), van der Lans (C-257/14), Rehder (C-204/08), McDonagh (C-12/11)