Technical problems at the terminal constitutes an extraordinary circumstance
The German Federal Court has recently ruled that technical problems at the airport terminal can constitute an extraordinary circumstance, thereby ruling that five passengers were not entitled to compensation from the carrier.
According to EC Regulation 261/2004 on compensation and assistance to passengers, airline passengers are entitled to compensation up to 600 EUR from the carrier in case of cancellations and delays over three hours.
However, carriers are not obliged to compensate the passenger if the cancellation or delay is due to extraordinary circumstances. Even though EC Regulation 261/2004 is nearly 15 years old, it is still unclear what exactly constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.
The German Federal Court has with a new ruling brought us one step closer to understanding the term. The court has passed a ruling in a case, where five passengers claimed 600 EUR in compensation for a 19-hour delay that was caused by a technical disruption. The court ruled that the carrier was not obliged to pay compensation, because it found that unforeseeable technical problems constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
The court further ruled, that the monitoring, maintenance, and repair of technical facilities do not fall within the carrier’s responsibility and that carriers are not obliged to provide its own specialists to maintain computer systems provided by the airport.
IUNO’s opinion
The ruling helps to gain a better understanding of the carrier’s duties to take reasonable measure and of what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. IUNO’s opinion is that it is still unclear what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance and that there is a need for a clarification from EU on the matter.
IUNO will, amongst other things, discuss the ruling at our seminar January 22, 2019. You can sign up for the seminar here.
According to EC Regulation 261/2004 on compensation and assistance to passengers, airline passengers are entitled to compensation up to 600 EUR from the carrier in case of cancellations and delays over three hours.
However, carriers are not obliged to compensate the passenger if the cancellation or delay is due to extraordinary circumstances. Even though EC Regulation 261/2004 is nearly 15 years old, it is still unclear what exactly constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.
The German Federal Court has with a new ruling brought us one step closer to understanding the term. The court has passed a ruling in a case, where five passengers claimed 600 EUR in compensation for a 19-hour delay that was caused by a technical disruption. The court ruled that the carrier was not obliged to pay compensation, because it found that unforeseeable technical problems constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
The court further ruled, that the monitoring, maintenance, and repair of technical facilities do not fall within the carrier’s responsibility and that carriers are not obliged to provide its own specialists to maintain computer systems provided by the airport.
IUNO’s opinion
The ruling helps to gain a better understanding of the carrier’s duties to take reasonable measure and of what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. IUNO’s opinion is that it is still unclear what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance and that there is a need for a clarification from EU on the matter.
IUNO will, amongst other things, discuss the ruling at our seminar January 22, 2019. You can sign up for the seminar here.
Similar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Senior legal assistant
Albert
Berg Giese
Junior legal assistant
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Senior legal advisor (leave of absence)
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal manager (leave of absence)
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Senior legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Senior legal advisor
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal advisor
Aurora
Maria Thunes Truyen
Associate
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Sofie Urup Malmstrøm
Legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Junior legal advisor
Clara
Caballero Stephensen
Junior legal advisor
Daniel
Bornhøft Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ea
Tingkær Hesselfeldt
Legal assistant
Ellen
Priess-Hansen
Senior legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Senior legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal advisor
Feline
Honoré Jepsen
Legal assistant
Fiona
Wahl
Junior legal assistant
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal advisor
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Senior legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Associate
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant
Holger
Koch-Klarskov
Legal advisor
Ian
Englev Jensen
Legal assistant
Ida
Marie Skovgaard Rubæk
Legal manager
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Senior legal assistant
Jacqueline
Lucia Chrillesen
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant (leave of absence)
Julia
Wolfe
Legal advisor
Kaisa
Maria Falkenberg Lending
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Senior legal advisor
Karl Emil
Tang Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Senior legal manager
Kateryna
Buriak
Legal advisor
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Luna
Bennesen
Legal assistant
Marie
Møller Christensen
Junior legal advisor
Mathias
Bech Linaa
Legal advisor
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Junior legal advisor
Nikita
Brinck Søberg
Senior legal assistant
Nourchaine
Sellami
Legal advisor
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal advisor
Selma
Agopian
Senior Associate, EU-advokat
Selma
Klinker Brodersen
Legal advisor
Silja
Brünnich Fogh von Deden
Legal assistant
Silje
Moen Knutsen
Legal advisor
Stine
Bank Olstrøm
Senior legal assistant
Ulrikke
Sejersbøl Christiansen
Junior legal advisor
Victoria
Mai Gregaard Handberg
Legal advisor (leave of absence)