THE BOTTOM LINE
- Airlines may be exempt from paying EU flight delay compensation if the disruption is caused by a “hidden manufacturing defect” present from the moment of aircraft delivery.
- The burden of proof is high: carriers must convincingly demonstrate the defect originated with the manufacturer, was not discoverable through standard checks, and that they took all reasonable steps to mitigate the delay.
- This ruling draws a critical line between routine operational failures (an airline’s risk) and external manufacturing errors, classifying the latter as an “extraordinary circumstance” that can absolve the airline of liability.
THE DETAILS
This case revolved around a standard passenger compensation claim for a significantly delayed flight under EU Regulation 261/2004. AirHelp, representing the passenger, sued Corendon Dutch Airlines after a flight to Turkey arrived over three hours late. Corendon’s defense was unusual: the delay was caused by a technical failure on a brand-new Boeing aircraft that had been delivered just weeks earlier. The airline argued the fault—a loose coupling in the hydraulic system—was a hidden manufacturing defect, not an operational issue, and therefore constituted an “extraordinary circumstance.”
The Noord-Holland District Court agreed with the airline, providing a nuanced interpretation of what qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance.” The court distinguished this situation from previous European rulings where premature component failure was deemed an inherent risk of running an airline. Here, the court was persuaded that the defect was present from the moment of manufacture and was not detectable during standard acceptance procedures. It was classified as an external event caused by a third party (the manufacturer), not a problem that arose from the airline’s day-to-day operations or maintenance schedule. This shifted the event from an inherent business risk to an unforeseeable, external disruption.
Crucially, having a valid excuse was not enough. The airline also had to prove it took “all reasonable measures” to prevent or minimize the delay. The court examined the steps Corendon took after grounding the faulty aircraft. The airline demonstrated that it had a small fleet and had attempted to lease a replacement aircraft from other local carriers without success. Its decision to reschedule one of its own planes was deemed the fastest available option to avoid cancelling the flight altogether. This satisfied the court that the airline had acted diligently, cementing its defense and leading to the dismissal of the compensation claim.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland
