C-257/14 · 2015 · UK 261 AND EC 261
Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
A technical problem that appears unexpectedly, is not attributable to poor maintenance and was not detected during routine checks still falls outside Art. 5(3). The Court held in 2015 that premature failure of a component is intrinsically linked to the aircraft's operating system and therefore inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V5 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-257/14
- JUDGMENT
- 17 September 2015
- CITATION
- ECLI:EU:C:2015:643
What the case was about
A KLM flight from Quito to Amsterdam left about 29 hours late after two parts failed, including a fuel pump.
KLM argued that a component failing before the end of its expected life is an event outside its control.
What it changed
- It closed the gap Wallentin-Hermann left open. Surprise is not the test; origin is.
- The phrase premature failure, common in rejection letters after 2015, describes a circumstance the Court has already held to be ordinary.
- Manufacturing defects found by the manufacturer or a safety authority remain a separate category the Court has treated differently.
SOURCES
- Case C-257/14 van der Lans v KLM, judgment of 17 September 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:643) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia, judgment of 22 December 2008 (ECLI:EU:C:2008:811) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026