Originally Posted by
Centipede100
Cases are decided by the national courts in line with the law itself together with relevant precedent case law (in this case the Sturgeon precedent since the ECJ is the highest court of appeal regarding EU law and from which the national courts will take their authority).
Who or which authority has determined that the Sturgeon phrasing of the law is "weak"? The airlines? Well there's a surprise!
The word "may" when used in this context can also mean the same as "shall" dependent on whether it is used as an imperative in the legal sense. The latter might have been better used but not "must".
Indeed, that's the airlines' position, but also that of most legal experts reading the ruling. In the way it is drafted, it leaves ample leeway for national courts to interpret Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. They may, or may not, treat long delays as cancellations. My German is not good enough, but I believe that both French and English versions are similar.