EN
Aviation

Van der Lans: Expect the unexpected

logo
Legal news
calendar 17 September 2015
globus Denmark

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since April 2014 when the case was filed, although until earlier this week rumours had it that the case had been withdrawn.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

Partner

Similar

logo
Aviation

12 June 2024

Strike in the sister company

logo
Aviation

22 May 2024

Sudden illness was an unusual circumstance

logo
Aviation

3 May 2024

Proof of payment

logo
Aviation

10 April 2024

Refund through travel agency

logo
Aviation

20 March 2024

Six-hour delay in sight – no compensation

logo
Aviation

26 February 2024

Cancelled tickets resulted in denied boarding

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Junior legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal advisor

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Junior legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Poulsen

Senior legal advisor

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Senior legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Benedicte

Rodian

Legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Senior legal assistant

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Junior legal advisor

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Legal advisor

Frederik

Dybro Mikkelsen

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Senior legal assistant

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Legal advisor

Gustav

Vestergaard

Legal assistant

Hanna

Honerød Augestad

Junior legal advisor

Ida

Ralfkiær Rask

Legal assistant

Isabella

Graae Norsker

Junior legal advisor

Isabella

Rocio Nielsen

Junior legal advisor

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Legal assistant

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Junior legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Junior legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal advisor

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal manager (on leave)

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal advisor

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Junior legal advisor

Sille

Lyng Mejding

Legal advisor

Simone

Bjergskov Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Sofija

Cabrilo

Legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Legal assistant