Our readers may be interested to know that on January 14 the CJEU issued an order in the case Airhelp (C-264/20), which confirmed really the already previously issued judgments on the obligations of air passengers under Regulation 261/2004, including the judgment in the recent TAP case (see our comment here Deja vu...).
In the Airhelp case, passengers were delayed on their flight from the US to Austria with Austrian Airlines, as a part of the aircraft they were originally supposed to fly with was damaged. What happened was that when it was parked, a wing of another aircraft collided with it. The CJEU had no doubts that this was a clear example of extraordinary circumstances, as the situation was outside the operating airlines' control (para 24) and was not directly linked to the exercise of their services (para 23).
More importantly, the CJEU highlighted again, following from the TAP case, that if the airline then re-routed passengers to their original destination by placing them on the next following flight, taking place the next day, this should be assessed from the point of view of whether it was a 'reasonable measure' pursuant to Article 5(3) allowing the airline to avoid paying compensation pursuant to Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of the Regulation 261/2004. The CJEU mentions again that the airline should not limit themselves to just re-routing passengers on their next available flight (para 29) but instead, if their resources allow it (which the national court should assess - para 32), look for an option to provide a substitute aircraft or arrange for seats on flights of other airlines. Again, the re-routing is described as needing to be 'reasonable, satisfactory and the earliest possible' (para 30).
