Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.

Ok this question is coming up more and more so i'm going to do a lengthy reply and explain it as I see it.
Coffee first lol

The question of whether a fault with the previous flight (knock on effect) is a good enough reason for an airline to claim that an Extraordinary Circumstance exists, has arisen more than once, so I'll attempt to explain it as I see it.
Firstly, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my take on it.

You won't find in any of the EU rulings a line that says 'knock on effects are ok / not ok'. You have to read different parts of different regs and rules to arrive at the conclusion.

In the EU 261/2004 ruling, at points 14 & 15, you will read that;
"(EC's exist)...in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."
and:
"Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation..."
So, there are two mentions of situations where circumstances exist which could be claimed as EC's, but ONLY in relation to the flight concerned, on a particular day.

So, leaving aside the separate argument of whether a 'tech issue' is indeed an EC or not, the 'tech issue' offered by the airline, as an EC, to absolve them from compensation payouts, has to pertain to the flight concerned, ie YOUR FLIGHT, and not a previous flight, for it to be covered within the wording of the EU261 Regulation.
The separate argument is of course whether this said 'tech issue' stems from an event, - an EC - that is beyond the control of the airline. Like whether the weather caused the problem, or whether a terrorist attack started it off.
An unexpected issue like a flat tyre is not something that is not inherent in the normal exercise of the running of an airline on a day to day basis.

A further judgement, referred to as Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy Case C-22/11, at point 37, states that;
" In addition, it is apparent from recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may relate only to ‘a particular aircraft on a particular day’, which cannot apply to a passenger denied boarding because of the rescheduling of flights as a result of extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight. The concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is intended to limit the obligations of an air carrier – or even exempt it from those obligations – when the event in question could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. "
So further evidence of knock on effects not counting as EC's, (from a previous day/flight) exists.