Originally Posted by
ce92
[MENTION=865099]ce92[/MENTION]: thank you for posting links to a certified English translation of the judgment by the Amtsgericht Erding.
Having read the judgment, I do not think it is compatible with the CJEU's decision in
van der Lans (which is not cited by the Amtsgericht Erding anywhere in its judgment).
In
van der Lans, the CJEU stated the following at paragraphs 37 and 38:
37. Since the functioning of aircraft inevitably gives rise to technical problems, air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with such problems. In that connection, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C‑549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraphs 24 and 25).
38. Nevertheless, certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances. That would be the case in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C‑549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraph 26).
In the light of the CJEU's statement, the technical problem encountered by the aircraft designated to operate flight AY 089 on 25 March 2016 did not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' for 2 reasons.
First, the technical problem (the fault in the fuel gauge) was discovered by Finnair during the standard pre-flight maintentance and refuelling process, and was then reported to Airbus (which subsequently provided technical support to Finnair). It was not a technical problem that was revealed by Airbus or a competent authority.
Second, the technical problem was not a 'hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety'. As the Amtsgericht Erding itself noted in the last sentence of paragraph 3 on page 3 of its judgment, 'Given that this did not constitute a problem with safety implications, the aircraft was back in operation the following evening'.
In any case, however, as
loimu has stated, the decision of the Amtsgericht Erding is not legally binding in Finland. In contrast, the decisions of the CJEU (including
van der Lans) are authoritative and legally binding in Finland. In your case, Trafi has already issued a decision in your favour – Finnair should respect this decision and compensate you.