Van der Lans: Expect the unexpected
Today, the CJEU handed down its judgment in the long-expected van der Lans-case. The European mass media reports that the CJEU has once and for all declined that technical errors may constitute extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004. That is simply not correct.
Today, 17 September 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgment in the case between Corina van der Lans and KLM. The case is a so-called preliminary ruling, where a national court (in casu the Rechtbank Amsterdam) raises a number of issues for the CJEU to clarify. The van der Lans judgment has been much expected since April 2014 when the case was filed, although until earlier this week rumours had it that the case had been withdrawn. The case was decided by three judges from respectively, Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic, together constituting the 9th Chamber of the CJEU.
As this is being written, the case has already been reported in the European media as a landmark decision, which makes it completely impossible for technical problems to qualify as extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004. However, this is clearly not a correct reading of the judgment.
The facts of the Van der Lans-case
The main case concerns a flight from Ecuador to the Netherlands. The aircraft however experienced engine failure before take-off due to lack of fuel feed. The problem could be traced back to the engine fuel pump and the hydro mechanical unit. Due to this problem, the passenger was eventually delayed for 29 hours and claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004.
The case basically concerns the very important question: To what extent and under which circumstances may technical problems relating to an aircraft be considered as extraordinary circumstances in the meaning of Regulation 261/2004?
Air carriers should expect to experience unexpected technical problems!
First of all it should be noted, that the CJEU states that a problem such as that which was at issue in the Dutch case (i.e. the problem with the fuel feed) does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. The CJEU states that air carriers should in connection with their normal activity be prepared to be confronted with unexpected technical problems.
Hidden defects should however not be expected
On the other hand, the judgment clearly also states that certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances. As examples, the CLEU mentions hidden manufacture defects which impact flight safety or damage due to sabotage or terrorism.
Therefore, when flights are delayed due to technical problems, air carriers must carefully look into the reason behind the technical problem. Ordinary wear and tear that gives rise to technical problems is clearly not extraordinary, and even technical problems that occur suddenly and unexpectedly should not per se be considered extraordinary.
“The one-aircraft test”
The judgment however also introduces an important test, namely the question as to whether a problem only affects one particular aircraft, or whether the problem also affects other aircraft of the same kind. In the latter case, such technical problem may be considered equal to a technical manufacture defect and thus be considered as an extraordinary circumstance, provided it impacts flight safety.
However, what remains to be seen is how the CJEU would look at a technical problem that is extremely rare, e.g. a problem that has never been experienced before and which may thus in that respect be considered equal to a technical manufacture defect.
When interpreting the judgment, it should also be remembered that the technical problem in casu related to a fuel pump, i.e. an aircraft part that is known to cause technical problems from time till time.
Although not mentioned as legal criteria in the judgment, it may also be important to note that the passenger in question was in fact delayed for as much as 29 hours during which time she had to stay in Ecuador.
IUNO’s opinion
The van der Lans-decision has already been referred in the European media as meaning that technical problem with aircraft may never be considered extraordinary. Such interpretation is clearly wrong; as the CJEU states in premise 38 of the decision: ‘Certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances’.
Therefore, IUNO suggests that all air carriers now go carefully through all pending cases concerning delays due to technical problems in order to decide whether there are cases that may now be settled. Air carriers should be reluctant to accept to pay legal costs in such connection, since there has been very good reason to stay such cases.
Air carriers should also look very carefully into possible options to file for recourse against suppliers of faulty aircraft parts, maintenance companies or similar, as such parties should in some circumstances and depending on applicable contract provisions hold the air carrier harmless for the resulting claims under Regulation 261 / 2004.
Going forward, air carriers should also consider including legal language in supplier contracts that serve to secure recourse for 261 claims resulting from failing aircraft parts / services.
[C-257/14 Corina van der Lans v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV]
Today, 17 September 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgment in the case between Corina van der Lans and KLM. The case is a so-called preliminary ruling, where a national court (in casu the Rechtbank Amsterdam) raises a number of issues for the CJEU to clarify. The van der Lans judgment has been much expected since April 2014 when the case was filed, although until earlier this week rumours had it that the case had been withdrawn. The case was decided by three judges from respectively, Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic, together constituting the 9th Chamber of the CJEU.
As this is being written, the case has already been reported in the European media as a landmark decision, which makes it completely impossible for technical problems to qualify as extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004. However, this is clearly not a correct reading of the judgment.
The facts of the Van der Lans-case
The main case concerns a flight from Ecuador to the Netherlands. The aircraft however experienced engine failure before take-off due to lack of fuel feed. The problem could be traced back to the engine fuel pump and the hydro mechanical unit. Due to this problem, the passenger was eventually delayed for 29 hours and claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004.
The case basically concerns the very important question: To what extent and under which circumstances may technical problems relating to an aircraft be considered as extraordinary circumstances in the meaning of Regulation 261/2004?
Air carriers should expect to experience unexpected technical problems!
First of all it should be noted, that the CJEU states that a problem such as that which was at issue in the Dutch case (i.e. the problem with the fuel feed) does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. The CJEU states that air carriers should in connection with their normal activity be prepared to be confronted with unexpected technical problems.
Hidden defects should however not be expected
On the other hand, the judgment clearly also states that certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances. As examples, the CLEU mentions hidden manufacture defects which impact flight safety or damage due to sabotage or terrorism.
Therefore, when flights are delayed due to technical problems, air carriers must carefully look into the reason behind the technical problem. Ordinary wear and tear that gives rise to technical problems is clearly not extraordinary, and even technical problems that occur suddenly and unexpectedly should not per se be considered extraordinary.
“The one-aircraft test”
The judgment however also introduces an important test, namely the question as to whether a problem only affects one particular aircraft, or whether the problem also affects other aircraft of the same kind. In the latter case, such technical problem may be considered equal to a technical manufacture defect and thus be considered as an extraordinary circumstance, provided it impacts flight safety.
However, what remains to be seen is how the CJEU would look at a technical problem that is extremely rare, e.g. a problem that has never been experienced before and which may thus in that respect be considered equal to a technical manufacture defect.
When interpreting the judgment, it should also be remembered that the technical problem in casu related to a fuel pump, i.e. an aircraft part that is known to cause technical problems from time till time.
Although not mentioned as legal criteria in the judgment, it may also be important to note that the passenger in question was in fact delayed for as much as 29 hours during which time she had to stay in Ecuador.
IUNO’s opinion
The van der Lans-decision has already been referred in the European media as meaning that technical problem with aircraft may never be considered extraordinary. Such interpretation is clearly wrong; as the CJEU states in premise 38 of the decision: ‘Certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances’.
Therefore, IUNO suggests that all air carriers now go carefully through all pending cases concerning delays due to technical problems in order to decide whether there are cases that may now be settled. Air carriers should be reluctant to accept to pay legal costs in such connection, since there has been very good reason to stay such cases.
Air carriers should also look very carefully into possible options to file for recourse against suppliers of faulty aircraft parts, maintenance companies or similar, as such parties should in some circumstances and depending on applicable contract provisions hold the air carrier harmless for the resulting claims under Regulation 261 / 2004.
Going forward, air carriers should also consider including legal language in supplier contracts that serve to secure recourse for 261 claims resulting from failing aircraft parts / services.
[C-257/14 Corina van der Lans v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV]
Receive our newsletter

Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Legal assistant
Amalie
Sofie Sveen Kvam
Legal assistant
Amanda
Jepsen Bregnhardt
Junior legal assistant
Andrea
Brix Danielsen
Legal assistant
Anna
Bonander
Legal assistant
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal assistant
Anne
Poulsen
Senior legal advisor
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Legal assistant
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal assistant
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Carl-Emil
Schumann Dinesen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Skarsø Erwolter
Legal assistant
Cecilie
Padbjerg Kjelstrup
Legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal assistant
Emma
Engvang Hansen
Legal assistant
Emma
Frøslev Larsen
Legal manager
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal assistant
Frederik
Dybro Mikkelsen
Junior legal assistant
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Senior legal assistant
Gabrielle
Marie Rokkjær
Legal assistant
Gustav
Vestergaard
Legal assistant
Hila
Noori Hashimi
Legal assistant
Ida
Ralfkiær Rask
Legal assistant
Ingrid
Lützner Buch
Legal assistant
Isabella
Graae Norsker
Legal assistant
Isabella
Rocio Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ittqa
Hussain
Legal assistant
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Legal assistant
Josephine
Thenning Kannegaard
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Junior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Legal assistant
Kathrine
Arntzen Lauvstad
Junior legal assistant
Laura
Jørgensen
Legal assistant
Lise
Jørgen Carlsen Gjerde
Associate
Liva
Tværmose Høegh
Legal assistant
Magnus
Henckel Holtse
Legal assistant
Marie
Langermann-Nielsen
Legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Legal manager
Nikoline
Lanzky Otto
Legal assistant
Peter
Basbøll
Legal assistant
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal assistant
Selma
Agopian
Senior EU associate
Sille
Lyng Mejding
Legal assistant
Simone
Bjergskov Nielsen
Legal assistant
Sofie
Storli
Legal assistant
Sofija
Cabrilo
Legal assistant
Sophia
Maria Dahl-Jensen
Senior legal advisor