Claiming meteorological causes to cancel a flight is not sufficient reason to avoid the compensation that corresponds to the passengers. That is what a Commercial Court of Barcelona has resolved, which has condemned Vueling to compensate two passengers who saw their flight from Lanzarote to Zurich canceled.
Faced with the company's refusal to compensate them, this couple decided to go to court, which has now ruled in their favor. The ruling establishes that they must receive 400 euros each, plus the corresponding legal interest from when the events occurred until the company makes the payment. “It has incurred in default in the fulfillment of its obligation”, the sentence emphasizes, which concludes that Vueling was obliged to have paid that compensation from the beginning.
In its response to the lawsuit, Vueling Airlines S.A. recognized the “delay” in the flight but blamed it on “storms and meteorological conditions and regulations in air traffic”, pointing out that it should be considered “a risk to safety and, therefore, be qualified as an extraordinary circumstance that exempts it from responsibility.”
However, the Court cites different jurisprudence to conclude that it is not enough to allege “extraordinary circumstances”, but it must be demonstrated that these “could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”, as established by European legislation.
In this case, the sentence begins by making it clear that “the existence of storms or bad weather conditions is in no way considered an extraordinary circumstance” in order to release airlines from compensation for cancellations or delays.
In addition, it points out that the defendant only provided “some documents that accredit that there was wind force much higher than that indicated as safe by the manufacturer of the aircraft model”, but nevertheless could not detail any other flight that was canceled that day for that reason.
“The company's own certificate is not an objective and impartial piece of data”, adds the Court, which concludes that “no evidence has been provided to prove that these conditions affected the flight in question to Zurich”. To this, it also adds that “in relation to the documents presented to prove the meteorology”, the “contribution of Metars” is also not “sufficient”.
Therefore, it concludes that “we are not facing an extraordinary circumstance” that led to the cancellation of that flight or that could not have been avoided by adopting the necessary measures.
Similarly, it questions that Vueling did not even provide “evidence that it informed the plaintiffs of the cause of the flight cancellation” or “of the moment in which said communication would have taken place, had it been carried out”.
Therefore, it fully upholds the claim, condemning Vueling to pay said compensation with interest and to also pay the court costs. The ruling emphasizes that no appeal can be lodged against the sentence, so it is now final.
