An air passenger may be entitled to compensation for both a cancelled flight and a delay in the re-routing flight simultaneously, the Court of Justice of the European Union has recently affirmed. Compensation for one inconvenience does not exclude the other.
EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, makes provision for various rights to which air passengers are entitled in the eventuality of denied boarding, a delayed flight or a cancelled flight. Such rights apply to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of an EU country and passengers departing from an airport located in a non-EU country to an airport situated in the territory of an EU country, if the operating air carrier of the flight is an EU carrier.
One of these rights relates precisely to the right of an air passenger to seek monetary compensation from the airline in question in the eventuality of a flight cancellation or substantial delay. The airline may, however, raise in its defence to such a request the fact that the cancellation or the delay were caused by extraordinary circumstances.
The facts of this case were briefly as follows. Some travellers booked a direct flight from Finland to Singapore with Finnair. This flight was cancelled due to a technical defect that appeared in the aircraft. The travellers were offered and took the option to be rerouted on the Helsinki-Singapore connecting flight via China with a scheduled departure the next day and with an expected arrival in Singapore on the following day.
Finnair was also the operating carrier for the Helsinki-China-Singapore rerouting flight. However, due to the failure of a rudder steering servo on the aircraft in question, their rerouting was delayed. They therefore arrived in Singapore much later than scheduled.
The passengers brought an action against Finnair requesting the payment of €600 each, together with interest, by way of compensation for the cancellation of the original Helsinki-Singapore flight. They also requested Finnair to pay them the additional sum of €600 each, together with interest, for the extensive delay in the arrival of the Helsinki-China-Singapore re-routing flight.
Finnair paid the compensation in respect of the cancellation of the original flight but refused to grant them compensation for the delay.
EU law does not limit the rights of air passengers who are rerouted
The airline claimed that, in terms of EU law, the passengers were not eligible for a second compensation payment. Furthermore, it alleged that the rerouting flight had been delayed due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of the law, namely, the fact that one of the three rudder steering servos used to control the aircraft had failed.
Finnair maintained that the aircraft manufacturer had indicated that aircraft of the type in question had a hidden manufacturing or planning defect that affected the equipment in question. The airline explained that the rudder steering servo is a so-called ‘on condition’ part, which is only replaced by a new part when it becomes defective.
The national appellate court filed a preliminary reference before the CJEU requesting guidance as to whether an air passenger, who has received compensation for a cancelled flight and accepted the rerouting flight offered, is also entitled to compensation for an extensive delay of the rerouting flight, where the air carrier of the rerouting and the cancelled flight is the same. It also requested the guidance of the CJEU on whether the failure of a part which is only replaced by the airline when it becomes defective, which part is however permanently stocked, can be considered as an “extraordinary circumstance” in terms of EU law. The latter case would then exonerate the airline from paying compensation.
The CJEU observed that EU law does not limit the rights of air passengers who are rerouted, including their right to compensation for a delay. Passengers who have been exposed to cancellations or long delays have suffered inconvenience both as a result of the cancellation of their initially booked flight as well as subsequently, as a result of the long delay of their rerouting flight. It is, therefore, in line with the objective of addressing such serious inconvenience that these passengers are endowed with a right to compensation for each of the successive inconveniences.
The Court went on to affirm that, in line with previous jurisprudence on the matter, two conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively in order for events to be classified as ‘extraordinary circumstances’: the events in question, by their nature or origin, must not be inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and must be outside the carrier’s actual control.
The CJEU observed that technical shortcomings inherent in aircraft maintenance cannot, in principle, constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’. The failure of a so-called ‘on condition’ part, which the air carrier has prepared to replace by permanently stocking a spare part, constitutes an event which, by its nature or origin, is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is not outside its actual control, provided that such a failure is not intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft. The Court concluded that an air carrier may not, therefore, rely, for the purposes of being released from its obligation to pay compensation, on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ arising from the failure of a so-called ‘on condition’ part.
Legal certainty for both air passengers, in so far as their rights are concerned, as well as for airlines, is proving to be of crucial importance in these troubled times for the industry in question. Such certainty facilitates the settlement of claims made by air passengers whose flights are cancelled or delayed, without the inconvenience for both parties to go through lengthy and expensive litigation procedures.
Mariosa Vella Cardona, M’Jur, LL.D., is a freelance legal consultant