Van der Lans ruling: hidden defect remains inherent to operations
The Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM) ruling (CJEU, 17 September 2015, C-257/14) closed the last door airlines were trying to keep open after Wallentin-Hermann: that of "unexpected and hidden defects".
The facts: a Quito-Amsterdam delayed by double engine failure
Mrs Corina van der Lans boarded a KLM Quito (Ecuador) → Amsterdam flight on 13 August 2009. At pre-flight inspection, KLM found two successive failures on two different engines. The airline had to repair and wait for spare parts. The flight finally departed with 29 hours' delay.
KLM refused compensation, arguing the failures were:
- Unexpected (not detectable at previous inspection)
- Hidden (cause not visible)
- Therefore independent of usual maintenance
The argument aimed at distinguishing this case from Wallentin-Hermann, where the defect was attributable to maintenance.
The Amsterdam court referred to the CJEU.
The decision: no difference, still inherent to operations
The Court answers clearly (paragraph 41):
"The premature malfunction of certain components of an aircraft does indeed constitute an event intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft. [...] Such an event, which remains intrinsically linked to the exercise of the activity of the air carrier, is not, by its nature or origin, [...] beyond the actual control of the carrier."
In other words: it doesn't matter whether the failure is expected, unexpected, hidden or apparent. As long as it's a failure of an aircraft part, it's inherent to operations and therefore NOT extraordinary.
The reasoning
Operating an aircraft involves wear, material fatigue, latent manufacturing defects. It is a structural risk of the activity. An airline cannot exempt itself from what is the very essence of its business.
For an event to be extraordinary, it must be external to normal activity. A part defect, even hidden, is not.
The real exceptions, very narrow
The Court recalls (paragraph 38) the only cases where a technical defect can be extraordinary:
- Defect revealed by the manufacturer same day via a service bulletin requiring immediate grounding (e.g. urgent modification on the entire model following safety alert).
- External sabotage on the aircraft.
- Terrorist act.
Outside these three cases, no mechanical failure is extraordinary. Not even one "detected at final inspection just before flight".
Practical impact: Wallentin-Hermann + van der Lans citation
Since van der Lans, the established legal formula to defend a file is: "Pursuant to Wallentin-Hermann case law (CJEU, C-549/07) and van der Lans (C-257/14), a technical defect inherent to operations, whether expected or unexpected, does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004."
This formula defeats 95% of refusals for technical reason.
Common airline tactics and how to defeat them
| Airline argument | Counter |
|---|---|
| "Defect detected at pre-flight inspection" | van der Lans: irrelevant when detected, it's inherent to operations |
| "Unforeseeable failure" | van der Lans: unforeseeability is not the criterion, only externality is |
| "Hidden defect, not detectable at maintenance" | van der Lans: explicit confirmation this case is insufficient |
| "Aircraft just out of maintenance, nothing on us" | Wallentin-Hermann: maintenance is part of normal activity |
| "Manufacturer has a known issue on this model" | If known for more than a day, it's not extraordinary |
Summary
| Reference | CJEU, 17 September 2015, van der Lans v KLM, C-257/14 |
|---|---|
| Principle | An "unexpected and hidden" technical defect is not an extraordinary circumstance |
| Decisive criterion | Externality to operations (not unpredictability nor hidden nature) |
| Confirmation | Reinforcement and tightening of Wallentin-Hermann (2008) |
| Official text | EUR-Lex CELEX 62014CJ0257 |
To contest a refusal for technical defect, contact Robin des Airs via WhatsApp.
Related articles
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the van der Lans ruling decide?
Are there technical defects that remain extraordinary?
Ready to claim your compensation?
Article written and verified by the Robin des Airs team (robindesairs.eu) — specialists in EC 261 flight compensation on the Europe-Africa axis. Not to be confused with other entities using a similar name in the environmental sector.
General information. This article provides an educational summary of the regulations in force (Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Montreal Convention, CJEU case law) at the date of publication. It does not constitute personalized legal advice or an attorney consultation. To assess your individual situation, contact Robin des Airs (representation mandate) or a lawyer specialized in aviation law. The amounts, deadlines and examples mentioned are indicative and may evolve according to court decisions and regulatory updates.