Weather is the cause that sounds most obvious — and exactly for that reason it is the one airlines apply most loosely. The standard answer is that severe weather counts as an extraordinary circumstance under EU Regulation 261/2004, which means no fixed cash compensation. That much is correct as a starting point. But the answer is far more nuanced than the rumour you read on Polish travel forums — that "a flight delayed by wind and snow never pays out". If the real reason for your delay was the airline's own handling, and weather only became the label on the rejection email, you may still be entitled to EUR 250, EUR 400 or EUR 600 (roughly PLN 1,100, PLN 1,750 or PLN 2,700 at current NBP rates). And one rule holds regardless of cause: the duty of care — meals, drinks, a hotel where needed — does not disappear because of bad weather. For a broader walk-through of when EU 261 applies, see our guide on whether you are eligible for flight compensation .
This page also exists in Polish as the polska wersja przewodnika o opóźnieniach pogodowych — the legal substance is identical, only the language differs.
The main rule: weather is usually extraordinary
An airline does not control the weather. A storm front over Okęcie, heavy snowfall in Modlin, dense fog in Kraków-Balice, thunderstorms over the Tatras, in-flight icing — these things lie outside the carrier's control and outside its normal commercial activity. If that is the genuine cause of a delay of three hours or more, or of a cancellation, the starting point under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is that the airline does not have to pay the fixed sum. The exception for extraordinary circumstances was written precisely with this sort of event in mind.
So far the common belief holds. The problem is that "weather reasons" is often applied too broadly — as if the single word weather in a rejection email closes the file. It does not, and Polish passengers are usually under-informed about how much room there still is to push back.
When "weather" is not the whole truth
What decides the case is not whether the weather was bad in general that day. What decides it is whether your particular delay really was caused by the weather, or whether the weather is being used as a label for a failure that was the carrier's own. Three quick questions reveal the difference.
- Did other flights take off? If other airlines' aircraft departed your airport at roughly the same time as your scheduled slot, the weather plainly was not an absolute obstacle. The carrier then has to explain why your flight specifically was the one to fail.
- Was it the de-icing that took the time? That snow is falling is weather. De-icing the aircraft is the operator's own responsibility and part of normal winter operations in Warsaw, Katowice or Gdańsk. A long delay caused by a de-icing queue, too few de-icing trucks or poor advance planning is not a pure weather case.
- Had the crew already run out of duty time? Sometimes the causes stack: weather created an initial slip, but what tipped the flight over the three-hour threshold was the cockpit or cabin crew hitting their FTL (flight-time-limit) ceiling — and crew rostering is the carrier's responsibility, not the weather's.
If any of this matches your case, the extraordinary-circumstance defence is not as solid as the carrier wants to claim. And remember the most important rule of all: the burden of proof is on the airline. The CJEU made this explicit in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) — a carrier wishing to rely on Article 5(3) must prove both that an extraordinary circumstance existed and that it could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. A two-line email saying "weather reasons" does not discharge that burden in front of either the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) or a Polish Sąd Rejonowy.
What CJEU case law tells us about the weather defence
Polish judges read EU 261 in light of CJEU rulings, and three cases shape almost every weather dispute.
- Sturgeon (joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) — the case that fixed the three-hour rule. A delay of three hours or more at the final destination puts you on the same footing as a cancelled passenger when it comes to fixed compensation, unless the carrier proves an extraordinary circumstance. Without that proof, the EUR 250-600 stays on the table.
- Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) — the decision that nailed down the burden-of-proof point. The carrier must show extraordinariness and unavoidability. It is not enough to point to a fact in the world (snow, fog, wind); the airline has to show it could not have done more.
- Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17, 2018) — concerned a wildcat strike, but the reasoning is general: anything that belongs to the carrier's normal operating risk is not extraordinary, even if it is inconvenient. By analogy, winter de-icing in Poland is inherent to operating from Polish airports between November and March, and Polish courts apply the same logic to crew-shortage and rostering issues that hide behind a "weather" label.
A fourth case worth holding in mind for the longest disruptions is McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) — the volcanic-ash judgment. Even when the disruption was genuinely extraordinary (the Icelandic eruption), the Court ruled that the carrier still owed the full duty of care: meals, drinks, accommodation, no time cap. The reasoning carries directly across to severe weather.
Common Polish weather situations — and where the line tends to fall
| Situation | Starting point | What can change the answer |
|---|---|---|
| Heavy storm, Okęcie or Balice closed by the authorities | Extraordinary — no fixed compensation | Almost never; a field closed by ATC/airport authority sits outside the carrier's control |
| Snowfall over Modlin, long de-icing queue | Depends | If de-icing dragged because of too few trucks or poor planning, compensation can be due |
| Fog over Gdańsk at departure | Usually extraordinary | If the fog lifted but the flight kept slipping for other reasons |
| Snow on an earlier leg with the same aircraft inbound to Warsaw | Depends | The carrier has to show it could not have swapped aircraft to protect your departure |
| "Weather reasons" with no further explanation | Test the answer | Demand specifics — a vague claim is not proof in front of RPP or the Sąd Rejonowy |
| In-flight icing, diversion to an alternate field | Usually extraordinary | If the diversion was driven by fuel planning, not weather, the picture changes |
The pattern recurs every time: the more your delay is about the carrier's handling of the weather — resources, planning, rebooking, crew time — the weaker the extraordinary-circumstance defence becomes.
A concrete Warsaw example
Picture a winter departure from Warsaw Chopin (WAW) on a snowy morning. It is snowing, but moderately, and other carriers' aircraft are pushing back on or near schedule. Your flight slips four hours. The rejection email three weeks later says simply "weather conditions".
The question is not whether it snowed — clearly it did. The question is what those four hours were actually made of. Was the aircraft in the de-icing queue for twenty minutes and then ready to go? If so, the rest of the delay was probably something else: a crew that arrived late from a previous duty, an aircraft that came in late from an earlier rotation through Modlin, or an administrative hold-up. Ask the carrier, in writing, to account for the timeline minute by minute. If it cannot explain why snow caused exactly four hours when other departures left on time, "weather reasons" simply does not hold as a complete answer — and your claim for EUR 400 is still very much alive.
This is also where a paid claim service can earn its fee. Comparing your departure against METARs, NOTAMs and FlightRadar history for that day is exactly the kind of evidence-building work the airline counts on you not doing.
Check your weather-delay claim free with AirHelp — pay only if they win
The duty of care applies regardless of weather
This is the part that gets forgotten in nine cases out of ten, and it deserves stating clearly. Even when the weather genuinely relieves the airline of cash compensation under Article 5(3), the duty of care under Article 9 remains in full.
The duty of care means the airline must look after you during the wait: meals and drinks in reasonable quantity given the length of the delay, two free phone calls or emails, and — if the wait runs overnight — a hotel and the transport to and from it. That right is tied to the disruption itself, not to its cause. A January snowstorm over Okęcie can wipe out your EUR 400, but it does not wipe out the airline's obligation to feed you and put you in a bed. If you meet an LOT, Ryanair, Wizz Air or other staff member at a Polish airport waving away every responsibility on grounds of "force majeure", that position is not correct in EU law. McDonagh, mentioned above, settled the point for even the most extreme weather events. For the practical details of what to claim and how, see our companion guide on the right to care, meals and hotel during a flight delay .
How to claim a weather delay in Poland step by step
A short working list. Treat it as the order of operations.
- Decide whether it really was the weather. Or was it de-icing, planning, crew duty time or aircraft rotation — things the carrier itself controls? Note every detail at the airport: announcements, the time the aircraft entered the de-icing pad, whether neighbouring aircraft departed.
- Demand a concrete written explanation if you receive a rejection. "Weather reasons" with no detail is not enough; the airline carries the burden of proof under Wallentin-Hermann and has to produce timestamps, METARs and operational logs if pushed.
- Claim the duty of care anyway, regardless of how the cause question lands — meals, drinks, two free communications and a hotel where the delay runs overnight. Keep all receipts; if the carrier did not arrange care itself, your reasonable expenses are reclaimable.
- Escalate to the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) if the carrier digs in. The RPP, hosted at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC), is the Polish ADR body for EU 261 disputes. It is free to use and is the standard step before court.
- Go to the Sąd Rejonowy if even that fails. Polish small-claims procedure (postępowanie uproszczone) is built for exactly this kind of dispute. You have ten years to act under the standard Polish civil-law prescription period for monetary claims (Article 118 of the Kodeks cywilny), confirmed for EU 261 in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) which left limitation periods to national law.
If you are not sure your case qualifies at all, work through our router on whether you are entitled to flight compensation before drafting any letters — it weeds out the no-hope cases in two minutes.
When the answer is "yes" but the airline still refuses
Polish carriers and the low-cost airlines operating into Polish airports do not pay on the first try as a rule. A first written claim referencing EU 261/2004, the relevant CJEU cases and a 14-day deadline is the standard opening. If it is rejected with "weather", reply with the timeline questions above and request the operational logs. If still rejected, RPP at the ULC; if RPP also fails or the carrier ignores the procedure, the Sąd Rejonowy of the carrier's seat or of the departure airport.
A claim management service such as AirHelp shoulders the whole process in return for a success fee of around 35 % of the recovered amount. For weather cases — where the evidence work matters more than usual and the airline will fight harder — that fee often pays for itself in time saved and in higher success rates. For an honest comparison of doing it yourself versus paying a service, see our companion piece on claiming yourself or using a service .
This is not legal advice
This page is based on EU regulation, CJEU case law, ULC guidance and published Polish court decisions. It is general guidance and not individual legal advice. For your specific case, contact the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (the Polish supervisory authority for air passenger rights) or a Polish advocate (adwokat / radca prawny).
Frequently asked questions
Can you get weather delay compensation in Poland under EU 261?
Usually no, but not never. Severe weather is normally classed as an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of EU 261/2004, which frees the carrier from paying the EUR 250-600 fixed sum. But if the real cause of your delay was the airline's own handling — too little de-icing capacity, poor crew planning, an aircraft rotation problem — and "weather" is only the label on the rejection email, compensation can still be due. The carrier carries the burden of proving both extraordinariness and unavoidability under Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008).
Do snow and de-icing always count as weather?
No. That it is snowing over Modlin or Balice is weather; de-icing the aircraft is the airline's own operational responsibility and part of normal Polish winter operations. If other flights left as scheduled and yours alone was heavily delayed because of a de-icing queue, missing trucks or too few staff, it is no longer a pure weather case — and the EUR 250-400 may still be claimable through the RPP or a Sąd Rejonowy.
Am I entitled to meals and a hotel if my Polish flight is delayed by weather?
Yes. The duty of care under Article 9 applies regardless of the cause of the delay. Even when severe weather frees the carrier from the fixed cash compensation, it must offer meals and drinks proportional to the wait, two free communications, and — for a delay overnight — accommodation and transport to and from the hotel. The CJEU confirmed in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) that this duty has no time cap even for the most extreme weather events.
How long do I have to claim weather compensation in Poland?
You have ten years from the date of the disrupted flight, under the standard Polish civil-law prescription period (Article 118 of the Kodeks cywilny). The CJEU confirmed in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that EU 261 leaves the limitation period to national law, and Poland is one of the most generous jurisdictions in Europe on this point. There is no rush of a Swedish or German two-to-three-year clock — but it is still wiser to claim while flight logs and weather records are easy to retrieve.
Who decides whether the weather really was the cause?
The carrier has to prove it. If you only receive "weather reasons" without an explanation, you can demand specifics in writing, and if you do not get them, escalate to the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego. RPP is free, decisions are binding when both parties accept the procedure, and it is the standard step before a Sąd Rejonowy claim. The court itself will weigh the carrier's evidence on the Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018) standard — only events outside the normal operating risk qualify.
Sources and further reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , in particular Article 5(3) (extraordinary circumstances) and Article 9 (duty of care)
- Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) and the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów — the Polish supervisory authority for EU 261 and the Polish ADR body for air passenger disputes
- Kodeks cywilny, Article 118 — Polish 10-year general prescription period for monetary claims
- CJEU case law cited: Sturgeon (C-402/07, 2009), Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008), Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018), McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013), Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013)
Last reviewed: 2 June 2026.