C. van der Lans v KLM (2015) C-257/14 CJEU
European Court of Justice, Ninth Chamber
Facts
8 Ms van der Lans had a ticket reservation on a flight operated by KLM. That flight to Amsterdam (Netherlands) was to depart from Quito (Ecuador) on 13 August 2009 at 9.15 local time. However, the flight did not depart until the following day at 19.30 local time. The aircraft used for that flight arrived in Amsterdam with a delay of 29 hours.
9 According to KLM, the delay was due to the fact that at Guayaquil Airport (Ecuador), from which that aircraft should have departed for Amsterdam via Quito and Bonaire (Dutch Antilles), it was discovered during the ‘push back’, a ground procedure which involves the aircraft being pushed backwards using a vehicle, that one of the aircraft engines did not start due to the lack of fuel feed.
10 According to KLM, it appears from the aircraft technical log that a combination of defects occurred. Two components were defective, namely, the engine fuel pump and the hydro mechanical unit. The components concerned were not available in Guayaquil and had to be flown in from Amsterdam in order to be installed in the aircraft concerned, which took off from Quito with the delay mentioned in paragraph 8 of the present judgment.
11 Those components were not examined further with a view to establishing the cause of the failure as such an examination can be carried out only by their manufacturer.
12 Ms van der Lans brought an action before the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) seeking compensation of EUR 600 on account of that delay.
13 KLM opposes that claim and relies on the exception provided for in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 in case of ‘extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken’.
14 According to KLM, the defective components had not exceeded their average lifetime. Furthermore, their manufacturer had not provided any specific indication as to which defects might arise if those components reached a certain age. KLM also claims that those components had not been tested before take-off, during the general ‘pre-flight check’, but that they had been tested during the last ‘A Check’ carried out about one month before the flight at issue in the main proceedings.
Issue(s)
The Ninth Chamber was of the view, at paragraph 33, that “all 10 questions referred by the national court must be understood as asking essentially whether Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to defective maintenance and which was not detected during regular tests, falls within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision and, if so, what the reasonable measures are that the air carrier must take to deal with them.”
Discussion
34 […] [I]t must be observed, first of all, that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, an operating air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
35 Next, it should be recalled that the Court has stated that, since it constitutes a derogation from the principle that passengers have the right to compensation, Article 5(3) must be interpreted strictly (judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraph 20).
36 Finally, as regards, more particularly, technical problems encountered by an aircraft, it follows from the case-law of the Court that such problems may be included among ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’, and although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in that regulation, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraph 23).
37 Since the functioning of aircraft inevitably gives rise to technical problems, air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with such problems. In that connection, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraphs 24 and 25).
38 Nevertheless, certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances. That would be the case in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraph 26).
39 In the present case, KLM states — a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain — that the technical problem at issue in the main proceedings consists in an engine failure of the aircraft concerned, due to certain defects in its parts which have not exceeded their average lifetime, and in respect of which the manufacturer has not given any indications as to defects which might arise if they reach a certain age.
40 In that connection, it appears, first of all, as is clear from the preceding paragraph of this judgment, that such a technical problem affects only one particular aircraft. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any kind in the documents before the Court that the manufacturer of the aircraft in the fleet of the air carrier concerned or a competent authority have disclosed, that not only that specific aircraft but also others in the fleet have been affected by a hidden manufacturing defect affecting the safety of flights, which is, in any event for the national court to ascertain. If that were the case, the legal hypothesis mentioned in paragraph 38 of this judgment would not be applicable in the present case.
41 Next, it must be observed, first, that it is true that a breakdown, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, caused by the premature malfunction of certain components of an aircraft, constitutes an unexpected event. Nevertheless, such a breakdown remains intrinsically linked to the very complex operating system of the aircraft, which is operated by the air carrier in conditions, particularly meteorological conditions, which are often difficult or even extreme, it being understood moreover that no component of an aircraft lasts forever.
42 Therefore, it must be held that, in the course of the activities of an air carrier, that unexpected event is inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity, as air carriers are confronted as a matter of course with unexpected technical problems.
43 Second, the prevention of such a breakdown or the repairs occasioned by it, including the replacement of a prematurely defective component, is not beyond the actual control of that carrier, since the latter is required to ensure the maintenance and proper functioning of the aircraft it operates for the purposes of its business.
44 Therefore, a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
45 Lastly, it must be stated that, even assuming that, depending on the circumstances, an air carrier takes the view that it may rely on the fault of the manufacturer of certain defective components, the main objective of Regulation No 261/2004, which aims to ensure a high level of protection for passengers, and the strict interpretation to be given to Article 5(3) of that regulation, preclude the air carrier from justifying any refusal to compensate passengers who have experienced serious trouble and inconvenience from relying, on that basis, on the existence of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’.
46 In that regard, it must be recalled that the discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to air carriers’ rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay, including third parties, as Article 13 of the regulation provides. Such compensation may accordingly reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by carriers in consequence of those obligations (judgment in Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, EU:C:2009:716, paragraph 68 and the case-law cited).
47 It cannot be excluded at the outset that Article 13 of Regulation No 261/2004 may be relied on and applied with respect to a manufacturer which is at fault, in order to reduced or remove the financial burden born by the air carrier as a result of its obligations arising from that regulation.
48 In so far as a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstance’, there is no need to give a ruling on the reasonable measures that the air carrier should have taken to deal with the situation, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
49 Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.
Useful for
Treaty provisions considered
No treaty provisions considered.Legislation considered
EU Regulation 261/2004/Key subjects or concepts
Extraordinary Circumstances/ Local Law on Consumers/Appeals history
No relevant appeals or appeal history identified for this case.Other case information
Lawyers or counsel before the European Court of Justice, Ninth Chamber:No counsel or legal team identified for this case.
Additional case references or citations:
Sometimes cited as C. van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, ECLI:EU:C:2015:618.
Do you have a suggestion, correction or update for this case?
