The Court has indicated that, according to its case-law, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may be considered to be events which, by reason of their nature or source, do not fall within the normal performance of the air carrier’s activities and do not allow it to control them effectively, such as two The premises are cumulative. Technical deficiencies related to aircraft inspection as such cannot in principle constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
Travelers booked Finnair on a direct flight from Helsinki (Finland) to Singapore. This flight is scheduled for a day 11 October 2013 at 23:55, was cancelled due to a technical malfunction that occurred on the aircraft.
After accepting an offer made by Finnair, travellers were transferred to a connecting flight from Helsinki to Singapore by Chongqing (China), scheduled for the following day, i.e. on 12 October 2013, at 17:40, on scheduled arrival in Singapore on 13 October at 17:25.
The air carrier serving the Helsinki–Chongqing–Singapur alternate flight was Finnair. However, due to the failure of the aircraft control support system, the revised travel plan was delayed. Consequently, they arrived in Singapore on 14 October 2013 at 0:15.
Travelers have brought an action against Finnair to judge from an air carrier under the Air Passengers Regulation (1), payment of the amount to each of them 600 EUR with interest on cancellation of Helsinki-Singapur's original flight. In addition, they requested Finnair to judge each amount 600 EUR with interest in excess three hours of delay on arrival of Helsinki–Chongqing–Singapur alternate flight.
Regulation (EU) 261/2004 The European Parliament and the Council dated 11 February 2004 establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding or cancellation or long delay of flights
Finnair recognised the claim for compensation of 600 EUR for the cancellation of the Helsinki–Singapur primary flight.
The carrier refused to recognise them second demands on this basis that, in his opinion, first, They must not come second compensation under this regulation second, the alternative flight has been delayed due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that Regulation.
Finnair points out that one of three Control support systems enabling the pilot-in-command of the aeroplane operating this flight have failed and specify in this respect that the manufacturer of that aircraft has notified that many of such aeroplanes have been affected by a hidden production or design defect affecting the control support systems.
In addition, the control support system is the so-called ‘on condition’ part, which is replaced only in case of a fault.
In these circumstances, the Helsinki hovioikeus (the Helsinki Court of Appeal) asked the Court of Justice whether an airline passenger who has received compensation for the cancellation of a flight and accepted the alternative flight offered to him may claim compensation for the delay of an alternative flight, if the delay reaches an extent which entitles him to receive compensation and the carrier operating the alternative flight is the same carrier who operated the cancelled flight.
In that regard, the Court found that that Regulation contained no provision aimed at limiting the rights of passengers subject to a change of the travel plan, such as the one under consideration, including a possible limitation of their right to compensation. It follows that, according to the case law of the Court, an airline passenger who, after accepting an alternative flight offered by an air carrier following the cancellation of the flight, reached the destination three hours after the originally planned arrival of the alternative flight by that air carrier or later, the right to compensation shall be granted.
Passengers who have been subject to a cancellation or a large delay in flight experienced these inconveniences both due to the cancellation of their originally booked flight and later, following a long delay in their alternative flight. The right to compensation for each of these successive inconveniences is therefore compatible with the objective of remedying these serious inconveniences.
In addition, the Finnish court seeks to determine whether, in order to be released from the obligation to compensate, an air carrier may rely on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ relating to the occurrence of a defect in a part which is only mentioned in the event of a failure if it still has a replacement spare part.
The Court has indicated that, according to its case-law, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may be considered to be events which, by reason of their nature or source, do not fall within the normal performance of the air carrier’s activities and do not allow it to control them effectively, such as two The premises are cumulative. Technical deficiencies related to aircraft inspection as such cannot in principle constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
However, the failure of the ‘on condition’ part in respect of which the air carrier has been prepared to replace it, constantly having a replacement part, is an event which, by its nature or source, falls within the normal performance of the air carrier’s activities and allows it to be effectively controlled, unless such failure is not intrinsically linked to the aircraft’s operating system, which is to be determined by the national court. Therefore, the air carrier cannot rely on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ related to the occurrence of the ‘on condition’ part failure in order to be released from the compensation obligation.
Footnotes
- Regulation (EU) 261/2004 The European Parliament and the Council dated 11 February 2004 laying down common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding or cancellation or long delay of flights, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Official Journal of the European Union L (2004), No. 46, p. 1).