Mere Diversion Of Flight To Nearby Airport Does Not Entitle Passengers To Lump-sum Compensation

• Published date: 16 May 2021
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Aviation, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Ganado Advocates
• Author: Mr Nigel Micallef

On 22 April 2021, the European Court of Justice (the 'Court') delivered its latest judgment in a series of European judgments relating to air passenger rights in the names of WZ v Austrian Airlines AG (C-826/19). It is not the first time that the Court was requested to interpret the scope and limitations of a number of Articles in Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 relating to the rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (the 'Air Passenger Rights Regulation'). Case C-826/19, which refers to a re-routing of a flight, follows from a preliminary ruling request from Regional Court, Korneuburg, Austria (the 'Regional Court').

Background to the proceedings before the Austrian Court

WZ made a reservation with Austrian Airlines for a trip consisting of two connecting flights on 21 May 2018. The first flight from Klagenfurt Airport to Vienna International Airport, and then a second flight from Vienna International Airport to Berlin-Tegel Airport (Germany). The second connecting flight was scheduled to depart from the Vienna Airport a few hours after the arrival of the first flight.

Due to prevailing weather conditions, the flight to Berlin-Tegel Airport was delayed beyond the latest time permitted under the night flying restrictions in force at the airport in question. Given the circumstances, Austrian Airlines diverted the flight in question to Berlin Sch'nefeld Airport, which is outside the city of Berlin, in the Land of Brandenburg. The diversion of the flight caused WZ to be not only delayed by 58 minutes but also inconvenienced, as the airport of arrival was further from his home, which in turn meant that the journey home took longer.

WZ instituted proceedings before the District Court, Schwechat, Austria against the air carrier for EUR 250 in compensation pursuant to the Air Passenger Rights Regulation. WZ based his claim on the fact that his arrival in Berlin was delayed, and that the air carrier failed to offer him alternative transportation from Berlin Sch'nefeld Airport to Berlin-Tegel Airport. In its counter-arguments, the air carrier argued that the flight was delayed by less than an hour, that WZ had been able to return home without any difficulty, and that the delay was caused due to 'extraordinary circumstances.

The District Court dismissed WZ's claims and declared that the diversion of the flight did not constitute a significant change to the flight itinerary and that...