Brussels, 17/09/2015 (Agence Europe) - Unforeseen technical problems, such as having to replace a faulty part ahead of schedule, cannot be deemed “extraordinary circumstances” releasing the airline from its duty to compensate passengers in the event of flight cancellation.
This is how the Court of Justice of the EU on Thursday 17 September clarified the notion of “extraordinary circumstances” to determine whether passengers are entitled to compensation in the event of the cancellation or significant delay of a flight (between €250 and €600 per flight, depending on the distance) (case C-257/14).
The faulty elements in the case in question were a fuel pump and a hydromechanical unit, which caused a KLM flight between Ecuador and the Netherlands to be delayed by 29 hours. This technical problem was completely unexpected, could not be put down to faulty maintenance and could not be detected during regular maintenance work. The parts in question had not exceeded their average working life and their manufacturer had not indicated any defects.
In this context, can it be a question of “extraordinary” circumstances, as the airline claims, within the meaning of EU law (regulation 261/2004 on the common rules for compensation and assistance for airline passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation and long delay of flights)? If so, the passengers would not be able to claim any compensation.
The Court ultimately took the view that the passengers on this flight should be compensated by KLM. It found that the circumstances in this situation could not be described as “extraordinary”, as they are in fact more or less a matter of course in the functioning of any aircraft. This is not changed by the unexpected nature of the breakdown. This is one of the inherent risks in the normal operation of so complicated a piece of machinery as an aircraft, particularly in conditions which are often difficult or even extreme, the judges found.
The Court ruled that a technical problem can sometimes be deemed an extraordinary circumstance, but only if the event in question is not inherent to the normal exercise of the air carrier's activities and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. To illustrate the point, the Court referred by way of example to a hidden production defect or damage caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism.
This judgment received the most enthusiastic welcome from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) of the European Parliament. Dutch MEP Matthijs van Miltenburg, his group's spokesperson on passengers' rights, said that the Court's judgment “is good news for airline passengers' rights”, because “airlines have for too long used the definition of 'extraordinary circumstances' to avoid compensating passengers whose flights have been cancelled”. “This excellent pretext” can no longer be used, added German MEP Gesine Meissner, who represents the group within the committee on transport of the EP. (Jan Kordys)