According to the conclusions from the Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston, an airline should provide adequate care (e.g. accommodation, meals, and telephone calls) while awaiting a later flight in case of a cancelled flight. Therefore, passengers may claim reimbursement of reasonable expenditure incurred where an airline fails to provide such care and assistance.

The opinion of the Advocate General comes in relation with the claims presented by several families that were all booked on an Air France flight from Paris to Vigo on 25 September 2008. The flight took off as planned, but returned to Charles de Gaulle airport a short time later due to a technical problem with the aircraft. All were rebooked onto alternative flights the following day, however they were not reimburse for the assistance they needed in the meantime. As an example, the Pato Rodríguez family who were rerouted to Oporto and had to take a taxi from  there to their home city of Vigo. All the passengers have taken legal action to claim the €250 compensation each for the cancellation of the flight. In addition the Pato Rodriguez family are seeking €170 to cover the cost of the taxi fare and €650 per person by way of non-material damages.

Although the Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice, it is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. Judgment will be given at a later date. In the opinion of Advocate General Sharpston a flight is "cancelled" within the meaning of the Air Passenger Compensation Regulation -Regulation (EC) nº 261/2004 - if, even after departing as planned, it does not arrive at its scheduled destination but returns to the airport of departure. With regard to the question of compensation, the Advocate General finds that the reference to “further compensation” cannot be limited to the compensation of the type provided by the Regulation: the Regulation does not set any limitation on the type of damage for which a passenger may make a claim. That question must be determined in light of national law, and may, therefore, include non-material damage.

In addition, the Advocate General Sharpston further considers that a passenger may seek compensation for expenditure incurred where the airline has failed to provide care and assistance. The duty to pay compensation for a cancelled flight and the duty to provide care and assistance are concurrent and cumulative. Thus, the airline may not escape liability by offsetting one against the other.