Background
Mme [Z] purchased an Air France ticket for two connecting flights scheduled for June 6, 2023, with arrival at her final destination at 1:05 p.m. The first flight was delayed because another passenger became ill and had to be removed from the aircraft.
Mme [Z] consequently missed her connection and reached her final destination more than five hours late. She sued Air France for standardized compensation under Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. The Aulnay-sous-Bois local court rejected her claims in a final-instance judgment dated November 14, 2024, and she appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It held that a passenger’s illness requiring removal from the aircraft can constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” under Article 5(3) of Regulation No. 261/2004 when the event is not inherent in the airline’s normal operations and is beyond its effective control.
The Court also explained that a carrier must establish that measures appropriate to the situation, under technically and economically bearable conditions, could not have avoided the extraordinary circumstances and that it deployed all available personnel, equipment, and financial resources to prevent those circumstances from causing the substantial delay. Here, the trial court found that the delay was attributable to another passenger’s illness, that Air France had no means of avoiding it, and that the airline transported Mme [Z] onward at the earliest opportunity. The lower court therefore properly denied compensation.
The Court ordered Mme [Z] to pay costs, rejected her claim under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and ordered her to pay Air France €1,200.
Key Takeaways
- A passenger’s medical incident requiring removal from an aircraft may qualify as an extraordinary circumstance under EU air-passenger law.
- The event must be outside the airline’s normal operations and beyond its effective control; both requirements must be assessed case by case.
- The airline must also show that appropriate measures could not have avoided the circumstances and that it used all available resources to prevent them from causing the substantial delay.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies that a medical incident involving a passenger is not automatically treated as part of an airline’s normal activity merely because it occurs aboard a flight. Depending on the facts, it can relieve the carrier of standardized delay-compensation liability.
The decision also preserves a demanding evidentiary burden for carriers: establishing an extraordinary circumstance alone is insufficient without proof that the required measures and available resources could not have avoided or mitigated the resulting substantial delay.