Technical fault compensation in Romania: when an aircraft defect entitles you to EU 261 payment

A technical fault on the aircraft is the cause carriers invoke most often — and the one they get wrong most often too. The rule that actually applies runs against what many Romanian passengers are told at the boarding gate: a technical defect on the aircraft is normally not an extraordinary circumstance. You are therefore usually entitled to compensation of 250, 400 or 600 euro for a delay over three hours caused by a technical fault on a flight from or to a Romanian airport. That is not a marketing claim — it is the position the Court of Justice of the European Union has held since 2008.

If you were stuck at Otopeni, Cluj-Napoca, Timișoara or any other Romanian airport because the inbound aircraft had a hydraulic leak, an engine warning light, or a brake system fault, this guide explains exactly when you can claim, how to argue against the template refusal, and which Romanian bodies — ANPC, AACR, Judecătoria — will back you up.

The starting rule: a technical fault almost always gives compensation

Keeping a fleet airworthy — checking, maintaining, replacing worn parts, dealing with warning lights from the on-board diagnostics — is not an exception to running an airline. It is the airline's core business. That logic is what the CJEU built its judgment on in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008): a technical problem found during routine maintenance, or rooted in poor maintenance, falls within the carrier's normal operations. Such defects therefore lie within the carrier's control, and the article 5(3) exception for extraordinary circumstances does not apply.

In concrete terms that means: an engine fault, a broken component, a hydraulic leak, an APU failure, a fault in the avionics found during the pre-flight check — none of those is, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance. If your flight is delayed by more than three hours at the final destination because of such a fault, the starting point under Regulation 261/2004 is that you are entitled to compensation. Use our router that decides whether you are entitled to EU 261 compensation to confirm your case before contacting the carrier.

The CJEU sharpened the same rule seven years later in van der Lans (C-257/14, 2015). The Court was asked whether a spontaneous technical malfunction — one with no prior warning, identified only on the day of departure — could escape the rule. The answer was no: a technical defect linked to the normal exercise of the carrier's activity, even an unforeseen one, remains within its operational sphere. That ruling closed a loophole carriers had tried to use.

The third pillar is Sturgeon (C-402/07, 2009), which established that a delay of three hours or more at the final destination triggers the same compensation as a cancellation. Combined with Wallentin-Hermann, the practical equation for the Romanian passenger is straightforward: technical defect plus three-hour delay equals a written claim and, in most cases, payment.

"An event beyond our control" — what that answer is really worth

On Romanian consumer forums and English-language Reddit threads about TAROM, Wizz Air, Ryanair or Blue Air the same scenario repeats: a passenger asks for EU 261 compensation after a delay with a technical cause, and the carrier replies that the cause was "an event beyond our control" or "an operational reason outside the airline's responsibility". Read that phrasing for what it is — a template sentence, not legal proof.

The fact that an aircraft developed a technical fault does not, on its own, mean the fault was outside the carrier's control. That is exactly the conclusion the CJEU rejected in Wallentin-Hermann. And a decisive procedural detail follows: under EU 261/2004 the burden of proof is on the airline. It is the carrier that must show both that the defect really was extraordinary and that the delay could not have been limited by reasonable measures — a standby aircraft at the base, a faster part swap, a wet-lease backup.

Since the starting rule says technical faults are not extraordinary, a Romanian passenger holding a boarding pass and an arrival-time receipt starts from a strong position. If you receive a no, send a written reply asking the carrier to specify in detail what the fault was, when it was identified, and on what legal basis the carrier classifies it as extraordinary. If the answer never arrives, or arrives in vague form, escalate to ANPC or the AACR — the silence itself becomes evidence in your file.

The narrow exception: when a technical fault really is extraordinary

The rule has limits, and it is worth stating them honestly. The CJEU has identified two situations in which a technical problem genuinely can be classified as an extraordinary circumstance:

• A hidden manufacturing defect. A design or production flaw that the manufacturer itself discovers and warns about across the whole fleet — not wear on one specific aircraft, but a structural defect that the carrier could not reasonably have known about. Boeing's MCAS issue on the 737 MAX is a textbook example of the type of fleet-wide warning that may qualify.
• External damage to the aircraft. Sabotage, vandalism by a third party at the apron, or an act of terrorism that physically damages the airframe falls outside the carrier's activity. So does damage from a runway incursion involving another aircraft or a service vehicle the carrier does not operate.

The distance from the starting rule is sharp: an ordinary wear or maintenance fault does not belong in this exception. It is not enough that the fault was unusual or hard to foresee — it must genuinely lie outside the carrier's activity and control. And the burden of proof for landing in the narrow exception is, as always, on the carrier.

Common technical scenarios and where they tend to land

The table below maps the recurring real-world situations to the EU 261 outcome under Romanian and European practice.

The pattern is consistent: nearly everything tied to the aircraft's condition and maintenance lies within the carrier's control. Only the narrow category — defects the carrier could not possibly have known about or prevented — can shift the case into the exception.

The duty of care never falls away

Whatever the outcome on the cause question, the duty of care under article 9 of EU 261 applies for the whole waiting time. While you wait at Otopeni, Cluj or any other Romanian airport, the carrier must offer free meals and drinks proportional to the wait, two free phone calls, and — for delays running into the night — hotel accommodation and the transport between airport and hotel.

Because a technical fault is rarely extraordinary, a Romanian passenger is usually entitled to both the duty of care and the fixed compensation. Even in the rare case where the exception would apply, the duty of care still stands. Keep every receipt: meals, taxi rides, hotel bill, calls. They are reimbursable separately from the EU 261 lump sum, and they strengthen your file if the carrier later disputes the timeline. More on this in our guide to the right to care, meals and hotel during a flight delay .

How to proceed step by step in Romania

1. Start from the main rule. If the cause was a technical fault, the starting point is that you are entitled to compensation.
2. Document the delay. Boarding pass, arrival receipt or flight tracker screenshot, any written or SMS notice from the carrier, photos of departure boards showing the delay.
3. Submit a written claim to the carrier. Cite Regulation 261/2004 article 7 and the Wallentin-Hermann judgment. Set a 30-day deadline for a substantive reply.
4. Ask for a concrete explanation if the carrier says no. A formula like "technical reasons" or "beyond our control" without detail is not enough — the carrier carries the burden of proof.
5. Test the answer against the narrow exception. Is it genuinely a hidden manufacturing defect, sabotage or vandalism? If not, the refusal probably does not hold.
6. Escalate to ANPC (Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor) for consumer mediation, and to AACR (Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română) as the national enforcement body designated under Regulation 261/2004.
7. File at the Judecătoria. If both routes fail, the local Judecătoria (district court) hears small-value civil claims. For EU 261 sums up to 5,000 euro the European Small Claims Procedure is also available and works in English.

Romanian passengers benefit from a three-year prescription period under article 2517 of the Civil Code. The CJEU confirmed in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that national limitation periods apply to EU 261 claims, so the three-year window is the operative deadline. After that the right is time-barred and the court will dismiss the case regardless of the merits.

If you would rather hand the file off to a specialist agency that absorbs the legal risk and only takes a share if the claim is paid, you have the option to start a no-win-no-fee claim.

Check your technical fault claim with AirHelp — free and no obligation

This is not legal advice

This guide is based on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, published CJEU case law, and the practice of ANPC and AACR. It is general information, not advice for your individual case. For tailored guidance, contact ANPC, the AACR, or a Romanian lawyer specialised in transport law. For the official text of the Regulation, see EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 .

For the Romanian-language version of this guide, see Compensare pentru defecțiune tehnică a aeronavei .

Frequently asked questions

Can I get compensation for a flight delayed by a technical fault in Romania?

Yes, in the vast majority of cases. The CJEU ruled in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) that a technical fault discovered during maintenance belongs to the carrier's ordinary activity and is therefore not an extraordinary circumstance. For a delay of three hours or more at your final destination caused by a technical fault, you are generally entitled to 250 euro (up to 1,500 km), 400 euro (intra-EU over 1,500 km or other 1,500–3,500 km) or 600 euro (non-EU over 3,500 km). Romanian passengers have three years to file the claim under article 2517 of the Civil Code.

The airline says the technical fault was beyond their control — is that legally correct?

Rarely. The fact that an aircraft developed a defect does not mean the defect lay outside the carrier's control. That is precisely what the CJEU rejected in Wallentin-Hermann and reaffirmed in van der Lans (C-257/14, 2015). A template reply that mentions an unspecified "event beyond our control" is not legal proof — request a concrete written explanation, and if it does not arrive, file a complaint with ANPC or the AACR.

Are there any technical faults that genuinely count as extraordinary?

A narrow category exists. The CJEU has pointed to a hidden manufacturing defect that the manufacturer itself discovers and warns about across the entire fleet, and to damage from sabotage or an act of terrorism. Ordinary wear, a worn part, an engine failure on a regularly serviced aircraft — none of those qualifies. The carrier carries the burden of proof for the exception.

Who has to prove the cause of the technical fault — me or the airline?

The airline. Under Regulation 261/2004 the carrier must prove both that the defect was an extraordinary circumstance and that the delay could not have been avoided with reasonable measures, such as a standby aircraft or a faster maintenance turnaround. As a Romanian passenger you only need to prove the delay itself — boarding pass, arrival time, route distance.

How long do I have to file a technical fault claim under Romanian law?

Three years from the scheduled date of the flight, under article 2517 of the Romanian Civil Code, as confirmed for EU 261 claims by the CJEU in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013). After that the right is time-barred and Romanian courts will dismiss the claim regardless of how strong the merits are.

Sources and further reading

• EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , in particular Article 5(3) and Article 7
• CJEU — Wallentin-Hermann, case C-549/07 (technical faults are within the carrier's ordinary activity)
• CJEU — van der Lans, case C-257/14 (spontaneous technical malfunction during regular operation is not extraordinary)
• CJEU — Sturgeon, joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 (3-hour delay equals cancellation for compensation purposes)
• CJEU — Cuadrench Moré, case C-139/11 (national limitation periods apply — for Romania, three years under article 2517 Civil Code)
• ANPC — Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — consumer mediation
• AACR — Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română — national enforcement body under Regulation 261/2004

Last reviewed: 2 June 2026.