In the case
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07) of 22 December 2008, the
European Court of Justice in
Luxembourg ruled on the interpretation of Article 5 of the regulation relating to cancellations, specifically paragraph 3 which states: The Court agreed with Wallentin-Hermann that any technical issues during aircraft maintenance don't constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would allow airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation for canceled flights. This case therefore closed the loophole which had allowed the airlines to abuse passengers by frivolous interpretation of "technical or extraordinary circumstances"; it further defined the phrase and limited its exploitation. The definition of "technical and/or extraordinary circumstances" by the Court now stands firm and solid: any carrier must prove that the alleged mechanical problem leading to the cancellation was "beyond its actual control", the court affirmed in a statement. In its judgment, the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice held: However, what actually lies within the concept of defining what is inside or outside of the "actual control of the air carrier" is not clear and is subject to litigation in many EU-states. Furthermore, in the joined cases of
Sturgeon v Condor, and Bock v Air France (C-402/07 and C-432/07), the Fourth Chamber of the European Court of Justice held on 19 November 2009 that despite no express provision in the Regulation to compensate passengers for delay, passengers are now entitled to the compensation as set out in Article 7 for any delay in excess of three hours providing the air carrier cannot raise a defence of "extraordinary circumstances". "Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation EC 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier." The Sturgeon ruling was reconfirmed in a ruling of the European Court of Justice on 23 October 2012 in
Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and
R (TUI Travel, British Airways, easyjet and IATA) v Civil Aviation Authority. In the case of
Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd (C-12/11), the Third Chamber of the European Court of Justice ruled that natural disasters such as the eruption of the Icelandic volcano
Eyjafjallajökull and the subsequent
cloud of volcanic ash in 2010, which shut down most European air traffic, do constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that release air carriers from the obligation to pay compensation, but that there is no such category as "super-extraordinary circumstances" that would release them from the obligation to provide care. According to the court's ruling, air carriers continued to have an obligation of care towards passengers under Art. 5 and 8 of the regulation during the week-long shutdown of European airspace, and this obligation does not have a temporal or monetary limit. In the case of
Jet2 vs. Huzar, the English Court of Appeal ruled on 11 June 2014 that "ordinary technical problems that cause flight disruption, such as component failure and general wear and tear, should not be considered “extraordinary circumstances”". Therefore, general technical faults found during routine maintenance checks before departure will generally not be considered "extraordinary circumstances". On 4 September 2014, in the case of
Germanwings GmbH v. Ronny Henning (C-452/13), the Ninth Chamber of the European Court of Justice ruled that
Germanwings initially refused to pay the passenger compensation, arguing the delay was 2 hours and 58 minutes when the plane touched the ground. In September 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union judged, regarding
Case C-257/14: :Even in the event of a flight cancellation on account of unforeseen technical problems, air carriers are required to compensate passengers. :However, certain technical problems resulting, in particular, from hidden manufacturing defects affecting the safety of flights or acts of sabotage or terrorism may exempt air carriers from their obligation to pay compensation. SAS pilots went on strike in April 2019 after wage talks broke down. Reuters have reported more than 1,200 flights have been canceled. SAS consistently denied compensation to passengers who have been affected claiming the strike was beyond their control. Technically, SAS claimed extraordinary circumstances (art. 5 (3) Reg. (EC) No 261/2004)). “The EuCJ turned down that argument and swiftly so. Strikes "fall within the normal management of carrier's activities"; also, "the employer retains control over events to a certain extent". However, this does not apply to strikes from third-party staff (e.g. strike of air traffic control).” In conclusion, passengers are entitled to compensation if their flight has been disrupted due to a strike by the airline's staff. In Joined Cases C-156/22 to C-158/22 against
TAP Portugal, the ECJ ruled that the death of a pilot due to operate a flight was not deemed to be extraordinary circumstances, as the absence of a member of staff "constitutes an event inherent in the normal exercise of that carrier’s activity". ==Intermediaries==