The Bottom Line
- Liability Shift: Airlines may successfully defend against EU 261/2004 compensation claims by proving a delay was caused by a hidden manufacturing defect, effectively shifting the root cause to the aircraft manufacturer.
- High Bar for Evidence: A successful defense requires detailed proof that the defect was present upon delivery, was undetectable through standard checks, and that the airline took all reasonable steps to mitigate the delay.
- Supplier Risk Management: This ruling underscores the operational and financial risks posed by third-party suppliers. It highlights the importance of robust quality control during asset acquisition and clear liability terms in procurement contracts.
The Details
In a significant ruling for the aviation industry, the District Court of North Holland has sided with Corendon Dutch Airlines in a flight delay compensation case brought by claims agency AirHelp. The case centered on a flight delayed for over three hours, which typically triggers automatic compensation for passengers under EU Regulation 261/2004. Corendon did not dispute the delay but argued it was caused by “extraordinary circumstances” – a technical failure in a brand-new aircraft delivered by Boeing just weeks earlier. The airline successfully contended that this was not a routine technical issue but a hidden manufacturing defect.
The court’s decision hinged on a crucial legal distinction, setting this case apart from established precedent. AirHelp relied on the well-known Van der Lans judgment, where the EU’s top court ruled that unexpected technical problems, including premature component failure, are generally inherent to an airline’s normal operations. However, the Dutch court differentiated the facts. It found that the issue with Corendon’s aircraft—a loosely fitted hydraulic coupling—was not a matter of wear and tear or maintenance. Instead, the evidence strongly suggested the defect was present from the moment of delivery, making it an external event caused by a third party (the manufacturer), rather than an internal operational risk for the airline.
This ruling clarifies the high evidentiary burden on airlines wishing to use this defense. Corendon succeeded by providing a comprehensive account of the events. The airline proved the aircraft was new, that no maintenance had been performed on the faulty part since delivery, and that the defect was not discoverable during standard acceptance flights. Furthermore, the airline demonstrated it had taken all “reasonable measures” to mitigate the disruption. This included documenting its attempts to charter a replacement aircraft from other airlines at its home base before ultimately sourcing one from Germany. The court found this response diligent, fulfilling the two requirements needed to successfully invoke the extraordinary circumstances defense.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
