A technical fault is the cause airlines invoke most often, and the one they get wrong most often. The headline rule cuts against intuition: a mechanical or technical issue on the aircraft is normally not an extraordinary circumstance under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. If your flight from Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk or Wrocław was delayed more than three hours because a part broke, a system failed or maintenance ran long, the starting point is that you are entitled to compensation of EUR 250, EUR 400 or EUR 600 — roughly PLN 1,100, 1,750 or 2,650 at current rates.
This is not our reading of the rule. The Court of Justice of the European Union settled the question in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008): technical problems that come to light during routine maintenance, or that stem from a maintenance failure, are part of an airline's ordinary activity. They sit within the carrier's control, and the extraordinary-circumstances defence simply does not apply.
This guide explains how to read a "technical fault" refusal, which narrow exceptions actually qualify, and how to push a case in Poland — from a written claim to Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Civil Aviation Authority (ULC) and, if needed, to a Sąd Rejonowy.
The Main Rule: Technical Faults Almost Always Mean Compensation
Keeping a fleet airworthy — inspections, replacing worn parts, fixing hydraulic leaks, swapping faulty avionics — is not an exception to the airline's business. It is the business. That logic underpins Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07): a technical defect identified during maintenance, or rooted in poor maintenance, belongs to the airline's normal operations. Such faults therefore lie within the carrier's control, and Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 does not release the airline from paying compensation.
The CJEU reinforced the point in van der Lans (C-257/14, 2015). A KLM aircraft suffered a fuel pump and hydromechanical unit failure days into a longer rotation; KLM argued the breakdown was unforeseen and therefore extraordinary. The Court disagreed: a technical malfunction that arises spontaneously during normal operations, even if it could not have been detected in the previous check, is still part of the airline's everyday activity. The exception is reserved for events outside that activity, not for routine equipment failure.
In practical terms, the following are virtually always non-extraordinary under EU 261:
- An engine fault detected during the pre-flight check
- A broken component, a hydraulic or fuel leak, an avionics fault
- A faulty APU, brake system, or flap mechanism
- A spare part being unavailable at base
- A fault found on the previous rotation that delayed your flight
If your delay at the final destination exceeds three hours and the cause falls into the list above, you are owed the full EU 261 amount. See our delayed flight compensation guide for the distance bands and how the payout is calculated, and the Polish-language source page at Odszkodowanie za usterkę techniczną for the local context.
"Event Beyond Our Control" — A Stock Phrase, Not a Legal Argument
Airlines refuse claims with a standard line: "the delay was caused by an event beyond our control." Treat that sentence for what it is — a template, not legal proof. The fact that an aircraft developed a technical fault does not mean the fault lay beyond the carrier's control. That is precisely the conclusion the CJEU rejected in Wallentin-Hermann and confirmed in van der Lans.
A decisive procedural detail makes the passenger's position even stronger: the burden of proof sits with the airline. Under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004, the operating air carrier must show both (i) that the cause was genuinely an extraordinary circumstance, and (ii) that the delay could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken — for example, by deploying a reserve aircraft or rerouting passengers on a partner flight. A vague reference to "technical reasons" does not discharge that burden.
When you receive the form refusal, reply in writing and ask the airline to set out, concretely:
- What component or system failed
- When the fault was first detected (this rotation, the previous one, during scheduled maintenance)
- Why the carrier considers it extraordinary in the meaning of Article 5(3) and Wallentin-Hermann
- What reasonable measures were considered and why they were not taken
If the airline returns silence or another template, the refusal is effectively unjustified, and your file is ready to move to RPP or the courts.
The Narrow Exception: When a Technical Fault Really Is Extraordinary
The main rule has a limit, and intellectual honesty matters here. The CJEU has identified two genuinely extraordinary situations involving technical issues:
- A hidden manufacturing defect. A design or production fault that the manufacturer itself discovers and warns about across the whole fleet — not wear on an individual aircraft, but a latent defect the airline could not reasonably have known about. An Airworthiness Directive issued mid-flight by EASA or the FAA grounding a type is the textbook example.
- External damage. Sabotage or an act of terrorism that damages the aircraft sits outside the airline's activity altogether.
The difference from the main rule is sharp: an ordinary wear-and-tear or maintenance fault does not belong here. It is not enough that the defect was unusual or hard to foresee. It must genuinely lie outside the carrier's activity and control. The burden of proving the case fits this exception remains with the airline.
Bird strikes occupy a related but separate category — they are damage from an external source, not a technical fault. The CJEU treated them as potentially extraordinary in Pesková (C-315/15, 2017), provided the carrier proves the damage was the actual cause of the delay and that reasonable mitigation measures were taken.
Common Cases and Where They Tend to Land
| Technical fault | Starting point | Short reason |
|---|---|---|
| Engine fault detected during a pre-flight check | Compensation owed | Maintenance and checks are normal operations (Wallentin-Hermann) |
| Broken component, hydraulic or fuel leak, system fault | Compensation owed | Wear and equipment failure are part of running a fleet (van der Lans) |
| Fault detected on the previous rotation that same day | Compensation usually owed | Airline must show no reasonable rescheduling was possible |
| Spare part unavailable at base | Compensation owed | Spare-part logistics fall inside the carrier's control |
| Hidden manufacturing defect flagged by an EASA directive across the fleet | May be extraordinary | A latent 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 unambiguous: nearly everything to do with the aircraft's condition and maintenance sits within the carrier's control. Only the narrow group — defects the airline could not have known about or prevented — moves the case into the exception.
The Right to Care Applies Regardless
Whatever the eventual outcome on compensation, the right to care under Articles 8 and 9 applies from the moment your delay crosses the relevant threshold (two, three or four hours depending on distance). The airline must provide meals and refreshments in reasonable relation to the waiting time, two free phone calls or emails, and, if you are kept overnight, hotel accommodation plus transfers to and from the airport.
This duty exists independently of the question of whether the cause was extraordinary. Even in the rare case where the exception applies — a fleet-wide manufacturing recall, say — the right to care does not disappear. Because a technical fault is almost never extraordinary, Polish passengers are usually entitled to both the right to care and monetary compensation. See our right to care, meals and a hotel guide for what to keep in receipts and how to seek reimbursement if the airline failed to provide care on the day.
How to Claim in Poland: Step by Step
Polish jurisdiction adds a few specifics that work in the passenger's favour, in particular a very long prescription period.
- Start from the main rule. If the cause was a technical fault, assume you are entitled to compensation. Demand the full sum (EUR 250, 400 or 600 depending on distance) in your first letter.
- Ask for a concrete explanation if the airline refuses. "Technical reasons" or "beyond our control" without detail does not discharge the carrier's burden of proof under Article 5(3) and Wallentin-Hermann.
- Test the refusal against the narrow exception. Is it genuinely a hidden manufacturing defect or sabotage? If not, the refusal will not hold.
- File with Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) — the Polish Civil Aviation Authority. RPP is a free out-of-court dispute resolution body for EU 261 claims involving flights departing from Poland or operated by an EU carrier into Poland. You file online; the airline must respond within a set period, and RPP issues a non-binding recommendation that carriers usually follow.
- Escalate to a Sąd Rejonowy. If the airline refuses to comply with the RPP recommendation, file a civil suit at the Sąd Rejonowy competent for either the departure or arrival airport, following Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) on jurisdiction. Court fees on EU 261 claims are modest, and Polish judges are familiar with the regulation.
- You have ten years. Polish civil law previously offered a generous prescription period for EU 261 claims; under the current Civil Code, claims have a ten-year prescription when not pursued as business activity. The CJEU confirmed in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that national limitation periods govern EU 261 claims — and the Polish rule is among the most passenger-friendly in the EU. Even a four-year-old flight is still claimable.
If you would rather hand the file to a specialist on a no-win-no-fee basis, a professional claims agent will manage the airline correspondence, the RPP filing and, if needed, the lawsuit:
Check your technical-fault claim with AirHelp — no win, no fee
For a self-managed path, see our DIY or claim service comparison to weigh the trade-offs.
This Is Not Legal Advice
This page is based on published EU regulations, CJEU rulings and the practice of Polish institutions. It does not replace individual legal advice. For your specific case, contact Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC), the supervisory authority for air passenger rights in Poland, or a Polish advocate (adwokat / radca prawny).
Sources and Further Reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , in particular Article 5(3)
- CJEU — Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07 (technical faults normally part of normal operations, not extraordinary)
- CJEU — van der Lans, C-257/14 (spontaneous technical malfunction during regular maintenance is not extraordinary)
- CJEU — Cuadrench Moré, C-139/11 (national limitation periods govern EU 261 claims)
- CJEU — Rehder, C-204/08 (passenger may sue at either departure or arrival airport)
- Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) — Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów, the Polish supervisory authority
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you get compensation for a flight delay caused by a technical fault in Poland?
Yes, in most cases. In Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07) the CJEU ruled that technical problems found during maintenance belong to an airline's ordinary activity and are 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 under Regulation 261/2004, with the claim enforceable in Poland through RPP and, if needed, a Sąd Rejonowy.
The airline says the technical fault was beyond their control — is that right?
Rarely. The CJEU has been explicit: keeping the fleet airworthy is the core of running an airline. The phrase "event beyond our control" in a template email is not legal proof. Under Article 5(3), the burden lies with the carrier to show both that the cause was extraordinary and that the delay was unavoidable. Ask for a concrete explanation and, if it does not come, file with Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów.
Are there technical faults that genuinely are extraordinary?
Yes, but they are few. The CJEU pointed to hidden manufacturing defects that the manufacturer itself discovers and warns about across the whole fleet (typically through an EASA Airworthiness Directive), and to damage from sabotage or terrorism. Ordinary wear, maintenance failures and spontaneous part breakdowns do not qualify, as van der Lans (C-257/14) confirms.
Who has to prove the cause of the technical fault?
The airline. Under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 and consistent CJEU case law, the operating carrier must show both that the cause was an extraordinary circumstance and that the delay could not have been avoided with reasonable measures. Because the starting point under Wallentin-Hermann is that technical faults are not extraordinary, the passenger holds a strong evidential position.
How long do I have to claim in Poland?
You have a ten-year prescription period under the Polish Civil Code for EU 261 claims pursued as a consumer matter. The CJEU confirmed in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that national limitation rules apply. Compared with the two-year Montreal Convention limit invoked by some airlines, the Polish ten-year window is one of the most passenger-friendly in the EU — flights from several years back are still claimable.
Where do I file the claim?
First, send a written demand to the airline. If refused, file with Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) — free, online, and binding on most carriers in practice. If the airline still refuses, sue at the Sąd Rejonowy competent for the departure or arrival airport in Poland, relying on Rehder (C-204/08) for jurisdiction.