The background to the decision is an accident on August 03.08.2016, XNUMX at Dubai Airport, in which an Emirates plane crashed on approach and the airport had to be closed for several hours as a result. As a result, there were numerous delays. In particular, thousands of European passengers who wanted to travel to Dubai or had to transfer at Dubai Airport, the hub of Emirates, were affected. For these passengers, the question arose whether, based on the European Air Passenger Rights Regulation (EC-Regulation 261 / 2004) the airline Emirates has to compensate the affected passengers. The decisive question was therefore present, whether the incident of the 03.08.2016 represents an exceptional circumstance for Emirates, which eliminates a claim for compensation.
The airline relied in particular on the fact that the delays were due to the airport closure, which was due to an official order. In any case, that is an exceptional circumstance, so that no compensation is payable.
The district court Frankfurt a. M. (ref. 29 C 2646 / 16 (97)) did not agree with this view: An airport closure is not an exceptional circumstance per se, but it is crucial to address the cause of the airport's closure. Only if the airport closure is the result of an exceptional circumstance is an air carrier exempted from its obligation to pay compensation. Because the blocking of an airport can have many reasons. For example, a reason for an airport closure could be a circumstance that the ECJ does not classify as an exceptional circumstance because it is usually linked or connected with the flow of passenger air transport. A different view would be contrary to the objectives of the passenger rights legislation, according to which Community aviation measures should inter alia aim to ensure a high level of protection for passengers and to take into account the requirements of consumer protection in general. Only if the airport closure is the result of an exceptional circumstance is an air carrier exempted from its obligation to pay compensation. However, this was not the case in the present constellation of facts.
The judgment is convincing both in the grounds and in the result. Because according to the case law of the European Court of Justice, exceptional circumstances exist if they relate to an occurrence which - as those listed in recital 14 of the regulation - is not part of the normal exercise of the activity of the airline concerned and, due to its nature or cause, is part of it actually cannot be controlled (ECJ, judgment of December 22, 12 - C-2008/549 Wallentin-Herman / Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiana SpA). Both requirements must be met cumulatively.
In the present case, however, not even one of the two conditions was fulfilled:
The landing of own aircraft is part of the normal exercise of the defendant's activities as an air carrier. In principle, landing is also to be controlled by the defendant.
It is therefore irrelevant that the closure of the airport was ultimately prompted by an administrative decision, as the cause of the decision by the authorities is crucial.
If you too are affected by a flight delay, please contact us! Mr. Attorney Michael Gabler will inform you about existing compensation claims and enforce them consistently!
Your comment
Participate in discussion?Leave us your comment!