The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

9 The applicants in the case before the referring court booked a direct flight from Helsinki (Finland) to Singapore with Finnair.

10 That flight was scheduled to depart on 11 October 2013 at 23:55. However, it was cancelled due to a technical defect that appeared in the aircraft.

11 After accepting Finnair’s offer, the applicants in the main proceedings were re-routed on the Helsinki-Singapore connecting flight via Chongqing, China, with a scheduled departure the next day, 12 October 2013, at 5.40 p.m., with an expected arrival in Singapore on 13 October at 5.25 p.m.

12 Finnair was the operating carrier for the Helsinki-Chongqing-Singapore re-routing flight.

13 However, due to the failure of a rudder steering servo on the aircraft in question, their re-routing was delayed. They therefore arrived in Singapore at 12.15 a.m. on 14 October 2013.

14 The applicants in the main proceedings brought an action against Finnair before the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (District Court, Helsinki, Finland) seeking to have the airline ordered to pay them the sum of EUR 600 each, together with interest, on account of the cancellation of the original Helsinki-Singapore flight. In addition, they requested that Finnair should also be ordered to pay them the sum of EUR 600 each, together with interest, on account of the delay of more than three hours in the arrival of the Helsinki-Chongqing-Singapore re-routing flight.

15 Finnair awarded compensation of EUR 600 to each of the applicants in the main proceedings in respect of the cancellation of the original Helsinki-Singapore flight. However, the company refused to grant their second compensation claim. Finnair considered that that claim was unfounded, on the ground that Regulation No 261/2004 does not impose an obligation on the air carrier to pay compensation to a passenger whose flight has been cancelled in the event of delay in the re-routing flight subsequently offered to him. In addition, Finnair relied on the fact that the re-routing flight which was accepted by the applicants in the main proceedings had been delayed due to extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation.

16 By judgment of 21 June 2017, the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (District Court, Helsinki) dismissed the claims for compensation submitted by the applicants in the main proceedings in respect of the delay in the re-routing flight, holding that Regulation No 261/2004 did not give rise to an entitlement to compensation in that regard. Consequently, that court did not comment on whether the technical defect that had caused the delay of the re-routing flight constituted an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation.

17 The applicants in the main proceedings appealed against that judgment to the Helsingin hovioikeus (Court of Appeal, Helsinki, Finland) and requested that Finnair be ordered to compensate them in the amount of EUR 600 each, plus interest, on account of the delay in the Helsinki-Chongqing-Singapore re-routing flight.

18 Finnair sought to have the action dismissed on the ground, first, that the applicants in the main proceedings were not entitled to a second compensation under Regulation No 261/2004 and, second, that the re-routing flight had been delayed because of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that regulation. It contends that one of the three rudder steering servos used to control the aircraft on this flight had failed, stating in this regard that this aircraft was an Airbus A330, regarding which the manufacturer had announced (Technical Follow-up) that several aircraft of this type had a hidden manufacturing or planning defect that affected the rudder steering servos. In addition, the rudder steering servo is a so-called ‘on condition’ part, which is only replaced by a new part when it becomes defective.

19 In those circumstances, the Helsingin hovioikeus (Helsinki Court of Appeal), decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Is Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that a passenger has the right to further compensation in accordance with Article 7(1) of that regulation if he has received compensation for a cancelled flight, the operating air carrier of the re-routing flight is the same as that of the cancelled flight, and the re-routing flight after the cancelled flight is also delayed beyond the scheduled time of arrival to such an extent that it entitles the passenger to compensation?

(2) If so, can the operating air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) if, following a technical follow-up by the aircraft manufacturer in relation to aircraft already in use, the part dealt with in that document is in fact treated as a so-called ‘on condition’ part, that is to say as a part that is used until it becomes defective, and the operating air carrier has prepared to replace the part in question by permanently stocking a spare part?’

In the light of the above considerations, the answer to the first question is that Regulation No 261/2004, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger, who has received compensation for the cancellation of a flight and has accepted the re-routing flight offered to him, is entitled to compensation for the delay of the re-routing flight where that delay is such as to give rise to entitlement to compensation and the air carrier of the re-routing flight is the same as that of the cancelled flight.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may not rely, for the purposes of being released from its obligation to pay compensation, on ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, arising from the failure of a so-called ‘on condition’ part, that is to say, a part which is replaced only when it becomes defective, even though it permanently stocks a spare part, except where such a failure constitutes an event which, by its nature or origin, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is outside its actual control, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it being considered, however, that, in so far as that failure is, in principle, intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft, it must not be regarded as such an event.