A technical problem which occurred unexpectedly, which was not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, did not fall within the definition of “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of article 5(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation 261/2004/EC of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (OJ 2004 L46, p 1).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) so ruled on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank (District Court), Amsterdam, (the Netherlands), in proceedings between the applicant, Ms Corina van der Lans and Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (“KLM”). The applicant’s flight to Amsterdam 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. According to KLM, it appeared 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. KLM relied on the fact that 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 claimed that the components had been tested during the last “A check” carried out about one month before the flight in issue. It opposed the claim for compensation in reliance on the exception of “extraordinary circumstances” provided for in article 5(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation 261/2004/EC.

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) ruled that even assuming that, depending on the circumstances, an air carrier took the view that it could rely on the fault of the manufacturer of certain defective components, the main objective of Regulation No 261/2004, which aimed to ensure a high level of protection for passengers, and the strict interpretation to be given to article 5(3) thereof, precluded the air carrier from justifying any refusal to compensate passengers who had experienced serious trouble and inconvenience from relying, on that basis, on the existence of an “extraordinary circumstance”. The discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 was 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 provided. Such compensation could accordingly reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by carriers in consequence of those obligations. It could not be excluded at the outset that article 13 could be relied on and applied with respect to a manufacturer which was 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.