If there is one category of airline excuse that has been more thoroughly examined and rejected by European courts than any other, it is technical problems. When an aircraft develops a mechanical fault, airlines instinctively frame it as an unforeseeable event beyond their control. Courts see it differently: maintaining aircraft is a fundamental part of running an airline, and mechanical issues are an inherent risk of operating a fleet, not an extraordinary departure from normal business.
What the courts have said
The landmark case is Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (2008), in which the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that technical problems discovered during aircraft maintenance do not fall within the definition of extraordinary circumstances. The court held that such problems are inherent in the normal exercise of an airline's activity, given that airlines are required to ensure regular maintenance of their aircraft.
Since then, national courts across Europe have reinforced this position in hundreds of cases. The principle is now well established: routine technical faults, even if unexpected, are the airline's responsibility.
Why this makes sense
Airlines operate complex machines in demanding conditions. Aircraft components have finite lifespans, hydraulic systems can develop leaks, avionics can malfunction, and engines can throw alerts. None of this is surprising. Airlines know that technical problems will arise. They build maintenance schedules, carry spare parts inventories, and employ engineering teams specifically to deal with them. When a technical issue occurs, it is the manifestation of a known and managed risk, not an extraordinary event.
The comparison courts often draw is instructive. A car rental company cannot refuse liability when a vehicle breaks down, because maintaining the fleet is a core part of the business. The same logic applies to airlines and their aircraft.
When technical issues might be extraordinary
There is a narrow exception. If a technical problem arises from a hidden manufacturing defect that could not have been detected through normal maintenance procedures, and that defect affects the safety of the aircraft, it might qualify as extraordinary. The bar is very high. The airline must demonstrate that the defect was truly undetectable, that it was not a known issue with the aircraft type, and that all maintenance was up to date.
In practice, very few technical issues meet this threshold. Most mechanical problems (engine faults, landing gear issues, hydraulic failures, electrical problems, pressurisation faults) arise from wear, use, or component failure, all of which are inherent to normal aircraft operation.
The airline must prove it, not you
If an airline rejects your claim citing technical issues, ask them to provide specific details: what the fault was, when it was discovered, and why it could not have been detected or prevented through standard maintenance. Vague references to "technical reasons" or "safety-related issues" are not sufficient to meet the extraordinary circumstances standard.
Common airline tactics with technical rejections
Airlines are creative in how they present technical problems. Some frame routine mechanical issues as "safety incidents" to make them sound more serious. Others cite "unforeseen technical difficulties" as if the word "unforeseen" transforms a routine fault into an extraordinary event. Some simply state "the aircraft had a technical problem" and leave it at that, hoping the passenger will not question further.
None of these approaches changes the legal position. A technical problem is a technical problem, and unless the airline can demonstrate the very narrow manufacturing defect exception, it does not qualify as extraordinary circumstances.
What to do if your claim is rejected for technical reasons
Reply to the airline and state clearly that you are aware of the Wallentin-Hermann ruling and subsequent case law establishing that technical problems are not extraordinary circumstances under EC261. Ask them to provide specific evidence of why this particular fault qualifies for the narrow exception. Most airlines, when challenged in this way, will either pay the claim or fall silent, at which point you escalate to the relevant national enforcement body.