Originally Posted by
Tobias-UK
I have not seen any relevant precedent, but the OP has a very arguable case. The Regulation must be read as a whole, including the preamble and interpreted in the context of why the Regulation was established.
For me the OP’s case for reimbursement is a good one, given the extent of the cancellations, if s/he wasn’t rerouted via an alternative carrier or other mode of transport how long should they be left stranded hundreds of miles away from home? One of the reasons this Regulation was brought in to existence was to ensure consumers were not stranded away from home with no means to return home.
If FR had left the OP stranded in Morocco, they would be on the hook for all their accommodation and subsistence expenses until such time that they brought the OP home.
I was asking more in general. It is a point that comes up in many contexts. So it would be interesting to know what the legal precedents are on this topic. Airlines do tend to faf it off as they see fit. Even the more reputable ones.