In short: A technical problem with the aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance unless it comes from events outside the airline’s normal activity and control.
| Case | Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA |
|---|---|
| Citation | C-549/07 |
| Court | Court of Justice of the EU (Fourth Chamber) |
| Date | |
| Full text | EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union) |
The facts
Mrs Wallentin-Hermann booked three seats with Alitalia from Vienna to Brindisi via Rome, for herself, her husband and her daughter, on 28 June 2005. Five minutes before departure, after check-in, they were told the flight was cancelled. They were moved to an Austrian Airlines flight to Rome, arrived 20 minutes after their connection to Brindisi had left, and reached Brindisi at 2.15 p.m. instead of 10.35 a.m.
The cancellation was caused by a complex engine defect in the turbine, discovered during a check the day before. Alitalia refused her claim for €250 compensation and €10 in telephone costs. The Vienna district commercial court found in her favour. On Alitalia’s appeal, the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) referred questions to the Court of Justice.
The question
When can a technical problem with the aircraft count as an “extraordinary circumstance” under Article 5(3)? Does it matter how often an airline has such problems, or that it met the minimum maintenance rules?
What the Court ruled
- A technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not an extraordinary circumstance, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the airline concerned and are beyond its actual control. The Montreal Convention is not decisive for interpreting this exemption.
- How often an airline experiences technical problems is not, in itself, a factor from which the presence or absence of extraordinary circumstances can be concluded.
- The fact that an airline complied with the minimum rules on aircraft maintenance cannot in itself prove that it took “all reasonable measures”, so it does not on its own release the airline from paying compensation.
Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
This is the test courts across Europe and in the UK still apply. An event is extraordinary only if it is not part of the normal running of an airline and is beyond the airline’s actual control. Routine technical faults fail the test, so compensation is due.
The burden is on the airline. A rejection letter that says “technical issue, for your safety” proves neither limb of the test, and passing the minimum maintenance checks is not enough.
Later rulings applied the test to unexpected component failure (van der Lans v KLM), damage from airport equipment (Siewert v Condor) and bird strikes (Pešková v Travel Service). In England and Wales, the Court of Appeal built on it in Jet2 v Huzar.
Read more: Cancelled flight compensation · Extraordinary circumstances · Technical faults.
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.
Related cases
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- Lipton v BA Cityflyer – Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court)
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
- Germanwings v Pauels – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
Sources
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 22 December 2008, Case C-549/07, Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – 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.