A technical fault is the cause airlines most often invoke wrongly — and the single most misused excuse in the whole framework. The main rule runs against what many people think: a technical fault on the aircraft is normally not an extraordinary circumstance. You are therefore usually entitled to compensation — EUR 250, EUR 400 or EUR 600 (roughly SEK 2,800, 4,500 or 6,800) — for a delay over three hours caused by a technical fault. This is not our interpretation, it is the CJEU's: in Wallentin-Hermann the Court ruled that technical problems belong to an airline's ordinary activity.
This page belongs to our guide to extraordinary circumstances on flights , where all the causes are compared side by side.
The main rule: a technical fault usually gives compensation
Keeping an aircraft fleet airworthy — checking, maintaining, replacing worn parts — is not an exception to the airline's business. It is the business. That logic underpins the judgment in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07), where the CJEU ruled that a technical problem found during maintenance, or rooted in poor maintenance, belongs to an airline's normal operations. Such faults therefore lie within the airline's control, and the exception for extraordinary circumstances does not hold.
Concretely that means: an engine fault, a broken component, a hydraulic leak, a fault in a system found during the pre-flight check — that is generally not extraordinary. If your flight is delayed by more than three hours because of such a fault, the starting point is that you are entitled to compensation. Read more in the router that decides whether you are entitled to compensation .
"An event beyond our control" — what that answer is worth
In forum threads the same case comes up over and over: a passenger claims compensation for a delay with a technical cause, and the airline replies that the cause was "an event beyond their control". Treat that phrasing for what it is — a stock sentence, not legal proof.
That an aircraft develops a technical fault does not mean the fault lay beyond the airline's control. That is exactly what the CJEU has decided. And a decisive detail: the burden of proof is on the airline. It is the airline that must show both that the fault really was extraordinary and that the delay could not have been avoided with reasonable measures — for example a backup plan or a replacement aircraft. Since the main rule says technical faults are not extraordinary, you as a passenger have a strong starting position here. If you get a no, ask for a concrete explanation of what actually happened, and take the case further if the answer is vague.
The narrow exception
The main rule has a limit, and it is worth being honest about. The CJEU has identified a couple of situations where a technical problem genuinely can count as extraordinary:
- A hidden manufacturing defect. A design or production fault that the manufacturer itself discovers and warns about across the whole fleet — that is, not wear on a single machine, but a fault the airline could not reasonably have known about.
- External damage. Sabotage or an act of terrorism that damages the aircraft lies outside the airline's activity.
The difference from the main rule is crystal clear: an ordinary wear or maintenance fault does not belong here. It is not enough that the fault was unusual or hard to foresee — it must genuinely lie outside the airline's activity and control. And the burden of proof for landing in the narrow exception is, as always, on the airline.
Common cases — and where they tend to land
| Technical fault | Starting point | Short reason |
|---|---|---|
| Engine fault found during a check | Compensation is paid | Maintenance and checks belong to the airline's normal operations |
| Broken component, leak, system fault | Compensation is paid | Wear and faults are part of running a fleet |
| Fault found on an earlier flight the same day | Compensation usually paid | The airline must show it could not have rescheduled |
| Hidden manufacturing defect, warned about across the fleet | May be extraordinary | A fault the airline could not reasonably have known about |
| Sabotage or vandalism to the aircraft | May be extraordinary | An external act outside the airline's activity |
The pattern is clear: nearly everything to do with the aircraft's condition and maintenance lies within the airline's control. Only the narrow group — faults the airline could not possibly have known about or prevented — can move the case to the exception.
The common forum case, answered directly
A concrete example that comes up again and again: a passenger claims EU 261 compensation for a delay with a technical cause, and the airline replies that the cause was "an event beyond their control". Is that answer correct?
Almost never. That the plane developed a technical fault does not mean the fault lay beyond the airline's control — that is precisely the conclusion the CJEU rejected in Wallentin-Hermann. The airline cannot settle for noting that a fault occurred; it must show the fault belonged to the narrow group of extraordinary faults and that the delay could not be limited. If you get this answer, write back and ask the airline to set out exactly what the fault was and why it would be extraordinary. If no such explanation comes, treat the no as unanswered and take the case further.
The duty of care applies the whole time
Regardless of how the question of cause lands, the duty of care applies. While you wait, the airline must offer meals and drinks in reasonable quantity and, for a delay overnight, a hotel and transport. Since a technical fault is rarely extraordinary, you are usually entitled to both the duty of care and compensation — but even in the rare case where the exception would hold, the duty of care never falls away. More on that on the right to care, meals and a hotel during a flight delay .
How to proceed
- Start from the main rule. If the cause was a technical fault, the starting point is that you are entitled to compensation.
- Ask for a concrete explanation if the airline says no. "Technical reasons" or "beyond our control" without detail is not enough — the airline has the burden of proof.
- Test against the exception. Is it genuinely a hidden manufacturing defect or sabotage? Otherwise the no probably does not hold.
- Escalate. If the airline stands firm, you can turn free of charge to ARN (Allmänna reklamationsnämnden — the Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes); Transportstyrelsen (the Swedish Transport Agency) is the supervisory authority. How to do it step by step is on claim flight compensation yourself .
If you are not sure your case qualifies, start with our router that decides whether you are entitled to compensation . To see the amount, use the flight compensation calculator .
This is not legal advice
This page is based on published and institutional sources — expert review has not yet been carried out. For advice on your individual case, contact ARN (Allmänna reklamationsnämnden — the Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes) or Transportstyrelsen (the Swedish Transport Agency), the supervisory authority for air passenger rights in Sweden.
Frequently asked questions
Can you get compensation for a flight delay caused by a technical fault?
Yes, usually. In Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07) the CJEU ruled that technical problems found during maintenance belong to an airline's ordinary activity and are therefore normally not extraordinary circumstances. For a delay over three hours caused by a technical fault you are generally entitled to EUR 250, EUR 400 or EUR 600. We work through which causes lie outside the airline's control in a section of its own.
The airline says the technical fault was beyond their control — is that right?
Rarely. That an aircraft develops a technical fault does not mean the fault lay beyond the airline's control. The CJEU has been clear: keeping the fleet airworthy is the core of running an airline. The phrase "event beyond our control" in a standard email is not proof — ask for a concrete explanation and take the case further.
Are there technical faults that genuinely are extraordinary?
Yes, but they are few. The CJEU pointed to hidden manufacturing defects that the manufacturer discovers and warns about across the whole fleet, and to damage from sabotage or an act of terrorism. An ordinary wear or maintenance fault does not belong here. The burden of proof for landing in the exception is on the airline.
Who has to prove the cause of the technical fault?
The airline. It is the airline that must show both that the fault was an extraordinary circumstance and that it could not have avoided the delay with reasonable measures. Since the starting point is that technical faults are not extraordinary, you have a strong position — take the case to ARN if the airline holds to its no.
Sources and further reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , in particular Article 5(3)
- Court of Justice of the EU — Wallentin-Hermann, case C-549/07 (technical faults normally belong to the airline's activity and are not extraordinary)
- Transportstyrelsen — Air passenger rights (the supervisory authority in Sweden)
- Konsumentverket — Delayed or cancelled flights (the Swedish Consumer Agency)
- ARN — Allmänna reklamationsnämnden — resolves disputes free of charge for the consumer
Last reviewed: 17 May 2026.
No comments yet