Check compensationCheck

van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14)

A plain-English summary of the Court of Justice of the EU judgment of 17 September 2015: the facts, the question, what was decided and what it means for your claim.

By the EU261 Flight Delay editorial team Last reviewed: Reading time: 4 min How we write our guides

Check compensation or start a claim with AirHelp straight away

In short: An unexpected technical fault, not caused by poor maintenance and not found in routine checks, is still not an extraordinary circumstance.

Casevan der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)
CitationC-257/14
CourtCourt of Justice of the EU (Ninth Chamber)
Date
Full textEUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

The facts

Ms van der Lans had a reservation on a KLM flight from Quito (Ecuador) to Amsterdam, due to leave at 9.15 local time on 13 August 2009. It left the following day at 19.30 and arrived in Amsterdam 29 hours late.

According to KLM, during push-back at Guayaquil one of the engines would not start because of a lack of fuel feed. Two components were defective – the engine fuel pump and the hydro-mechanical unit – and the parts had to be flown in from Amsterdam. The components were not examined further, as only the manufacturer could do that. Ms van der Lans claimed €600 before the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam), which referred questions.

The question

Is a technical problem that occurs unexpectedly, is not caused by poor maintenance and was not detected during routine maintenance checks an extraordinary circumstance?

What the Court ruled

A technical problem such as this one – which occurred unexpectedly, was not attributable to poor maintenance and was not detected during routine maintenance checks – does not fall within the definition of extraordinary circumstances.

Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.

What it means for you

Airlines can no longer argue that a fault was “unforeseeable” or that the aircraft had passed all its checks. The premature failure of parts is a normal risk of running an airline, so compensation is due.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority cites this case, together with Jet2 v Huzar, on technical faults. It was decided before the end of 2020, so UK county courts must follow it when applying UK261.

Read more: Technical faults · Extraordinary circumstances · Flight delay compensation.

Status in the UK

Decided before the end of the Brexit transition period (11 pm on 31 December 2020), so it is assimilated EU case law in the UK. County courts and sheriff courts must follow it when they apply UK261; the UK Supreme Court and the appeal courts listed in the 2020 regulations (including the Court of Appeal in England and Wales) may depart from it.

How EU rulings apply after Brexit is explained on our case-law overview.

This is a plain-English summary written by our editorial team, not legal advice. Judgments turn on their facts, and later rulings can refine them. Before relying on a case in a dispute, read the full judgment or get advice.

  • Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17, 2019) – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
  • Siewert v Condor (C-394/14, 2014) – Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary
  • Jet2 v Huzar ([2014] EWCA Civ 791, 2014) – Unforeseen technical faults are not extraordinary (UK)
  • Sturgeon (C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
  • LE v TAP (C-74/19, 2020) – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
  • Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18, 2019) – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary

All cases in the library

Sources

  1. Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 17 September 2015, Case C-257/14, van der Lans v KLM – EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

We check every rule against the sources above. Spotted an error? Tell us – see our editorial policy.