Tag Archive for: Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” in air transport

Enrique Ortiz Outlines the Legal Status of the Vessel “MV HONDIUS” in Light of the Serious Health Crisis Unfolding on Board

/in , , /by

We would like to thank the local media outlet “La Voz de Canarias” for turning to our firm to gather and report on the situation regarding the vessel “MV HONDIUS,” which is currently conducting its evacuation operation from the port of Granadilla on the island of Tenerife.

Enrique Ortiz Bastos, our partner and colleague at the Cádiz office, provided a detailed response to the legal issues raised by the situation in the context of the law of the sea, the actions of public health authorities, and the division of responsibilities among institutions. Enrique thus emphasized the importance of implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which must, in this case, be applied in conjunction with the International Health Regulations of 2005  of the World Health Organization (WHO). He also emphasized the need for the various institutions and agencies involved to work very closely with the Captain in order to find the best solution to this serious situation.

The “Certificate of Free Practique” takes on particular importance in this scenario; we discussed this certificate in our October 2021 article, “Impact of COVID-19 on Ship Operations in Spanish Ports” when we were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This certificate consists of a sworn statement made by the ship’s captain regarding the health situation on board. In any case, however, the final decision on whether to authorize the ship’s entry into port will always rest with the Ministry of Health, through the Foreign Health Service, acting in coordination with the Tenerife Port Authority.

Our partner emphasized that the flag state would not bear direct responsibility for the actions of the captain or the shipowners in the event of an epidemic or infection on board, although this does not preclude the captain and the shipowners from being held accountable for the statements they make and the actions and measures they take. Therefore, both parties could face administrative, civil, or criminal liability if they fail to provide the necessary information accurately, fail to comply with onboard protocols, or fail to cooperate with the relevant authorities, thereby minimizing the serious impact of the situation on their passengers, crew, and any third parties who may be affected.

1st Conference on Maritime Law – ELSA UPV/EHU

/in , /by

We at AIYON Abogados are delighted to share news of our participation in the “1st Maritime Law Conference” organised by ELSA UPV/EHU, held on 5 and 6 May at the Naval Command in Bilbao and at the Sociedad Bilbaína.

Our partner Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa had the privilege of speaking as a panellist in the “Merchant Navy” session, addressing the basic rules of maritime safety, compliance monitoring by the authorities, and the penalty system. We hope that his presentation proved useful to those in attendance, particularly for those taking their first steps in the fascinating world of Maritime Law.

The conference covered topics such as security, the merchant navy, underwater cultural heritage, and so on. As Laura Almodóvar noted at the close of the event, maritime law is not an abstract concept but something that “permeates” reality, and specifically the day-to-day operations of the maritime and port sector and international trade.

Our heartfelt thanks go to the organisers for this initiative and for the trust placed in us by Laura Almodóvar Cobo and Joritz García Pérez, president and vice-president of ELSA UPV/EHU, as well as to their team, to whom we offer our sincerest congratulations for their hard work and dedication, which have produced this magnificent result. Given the large audience in attendance and the quality of the programme on offer, with much still to be discussed and developed, we hope that these conferences will continue for many years to come.

Thank you, too, to all the distinguished speakers for their excellent presentations:

  • CN Tomás García-Figueras – Bilbao Naval Command
  • Commander Justo Solano García – Spanish Navy
  • Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Cantero Álvarez – Civil Guard
  • Prof. José Manuel Martín-Osante – Professor of Commercial Law, UPV/EHU
  • Pilar del Campo Hernán – Historical Archive of the Spanish Navy
  • Xabier Armendáriz – Maritime historian
  • Prof. Mariano J. Aznar Gómez – Professor of International Law, Jaume I University
  • Julio Carlos Fuentes Gómez – Deputy Director-General for Maritime Regulations, Directorate-General for the Merchant Navy
  • Miller Wells – Global Factors
  • José María Pedrosa – Director, Howden Pesca Norte
  • Prof. Iñaki Zurutuza Arigita – Public University of Navarre

Nor should we forget the partners who made this conference possible, including: the Sociedad Bilbaína, the Spanish Navy, the University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, the Royal Spanish Naval League, Cepesca – the Spanish Fishing Confederation, Howden, the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, the ERDF and the State Research Agency.

The sea has much to teach us, and the law has much to say about it.

See you at the “2nd Maritime Law Conference”!

Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” in air transport

/in , /by

The General Court of the European Union – Judgment in Case T- 134/25 of January 21, 2026 addresses several key issues related to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, particularly with regard to the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” and how to analyze complex delays in air transport.

Beyond the specific case, the ruling introduces a more technical view of how air transport actually works, attempting to balance passenger protection with the operational reality of airlines.

As we know, Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 ensures that passengers receive compensation when their flights are significantly disrupted, such as denied boarding, cancellations, or long delays. However, airlines may be exempt if they can prove that the cause was an “extraordinary circumstance,”understood as an event beyond their control that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may arise, in particular, in cases of political instability, weather conditions incompatible with the flight, safety risks, unexpected flight safety deficiencies, or strikes affecting the operations of an air carrier (provided that they are beyond its effective control and were not foreseeable).

This is stated in the GCEU ruling itself: “[…] the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No. 261/2004 must be interpreted strictly, and the cumulative requirements that must be met for events to be considered ‘extraordinary circumstances’ must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

Similarly, Article 5.3 of the aforementioned European Regulation states that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the cancellation is due to “extraordinary circumstances”that could not have been avoided, even if it had taken all reasonable measures within its power. This article has generated numerous legal disputes regarding the definition and scope of these alleged circumstances, which an airline may use to exonerate itself and which passengers generally do not have access to.

Now, the European Court recognizes in its ruling that certain decisions by air traffic control bodies may indeed constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” This means that delays caused by factors beyond the airline’s control, such as operational restrictions imposed by air traffic controllers, may exempt it from liability, provided that they are beyond its effective control and there is no negligence on the part of the carrier. Therefore, if a delay is due to the airline’s internal planning or failures, the exemption does not apply.

In situations where a flight is delayed for various reasons, the ruling allows for separating and analyzing which part is due to an extraordinary event. If a partial delay is due to a justified external cause, only the remainder may be considered when calculating compensation. The ruling accepts that delays caused by problems occurring on previous flights of the same aircraft may be considered “extraordinary circumstances,” provided there is a direct causal link with the final delay, thus allowing the entire context of the operation to be assessed.

This resolution has important implications in that it provides legal certainty by offering guidelines on how to assess specific cases. By defining such an ambiguous concept as “extraordinary circumstances,” the      GCEU ruling of January 21, 2026, represents a significant jurisprudential advance in establishing a more balanced and realistic framework for the relationship between airlines and passengers in the air transport sector.