C-549/07 · 2008 · UK 261 AND EC 261
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane SpA
Art. 5(3) does not cover a technical problem that leads to a cancellation, unless the problem stems from events which by their nature or origin are not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier's activity and are beyond its actual control. Complying with minimum maintenance rules does not by itself prove all reasonable measures were taken.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-549/07
- JUDGMENT
- 22 December 2008
- CITATION
- ECLI:EU:C:2008:811
What the case was about
An Alitalia flight from Vienna to Brindisi was cancelled after a complex engine fault was found during a check.
The airline argued the fault was an extraordinary circumstance, and the Austrian court asked how narrow that concept is.
What it changed
- This is the judgment behind the standard answer to a technical fault rejection: breakdowns are the airline's business risk, not an external event.
- The burden sits on the carrier twice over. It must show the circumstance was extraordinary and that it could not have avoided the consequences.
- Meeting the legal minimum on maintenance is a floor, not a defence.
SOURCES
- Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia, judgment of 22 December 2008 (ECLI:EU:C:2008:811) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 5(3) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026