Despite the circumstances of the war on October 7, 2023, airlines and travel agencies are obligated to reimburse passengers for accommodation, food, transportation, and alternative flights they purchased themselves, Ashdod Small Claims Court ruled.
The verdict may assist those whose flights were canceled near the start of the war. Its core significance is that, even when an airline is exempt from paying additional financial compensation due to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control (such as war), it is not exempt from its basic duty of care, which includes providing lodging, food and an alternative flight.
The court also ruled that travel agents bear an active responsibility to provide service and assistance, as they are the party holding the passengers' contact information.
The specific case involved a lawsuit filed by Julia and Sagi Navarro, who were vacationing in Corfu with their 18-month-old baby. The couple was scheduled to return to Israel on October 8, 2023, the day after the terror attack, but their Israir flight was canceled due to the outbreak of war.
In the lawsuit, filed with the assistance of the Aviation and Law Clinic at the Academic Center for Law and Business, the plaintiffs claimed they were notified of the cancellation only an hour before takeoff, leaving them stranded at the airport. They alleged they received no response from the defendants - the airline, the travel agency, and the tour organizer - regarding an alternative flight.
The plaintiffs further claimed that after two days of traveling to the airport daily in search of a solution, they were forced to purchase tickets back to Israel on October 10 for 630 euros.
In response, Israir argued that its reservations center in Sderot was disabled at the time due to the war and that the cancellation was an extraordinary event beyond its control.
The airline also claimed it had not issued the tickets directly to the plaintiffs; rather, the transaction was handled by the travel agency for a company that had purchased a block of 40 seats.
The travel agency argued that it serves merely as an intermediary and that responsibility lies with the air carrier and/or the company organizer, therefore they should not be held liable for compensation, given that this was a wartime event beyond its control.
Judge Yehuda Lieblein accepted the majority of the claim. He ruled that while there is an exemption from paying "statutory compensation" (a fixed additional penalty) due to war conditions, there is no exemption from providing the benefits mandated by law, which include lodging, food, beverages and alternative flight.
“All of the defendants were obligated to ensure that the plaintiffs, who were staying in a foreign country, received lodging, food and beverage services, transportation services and an alternative flight. This was not done, and ultimately the plaintiffs were forced to purchase flight tickets themselves, for a flight operated by Israir at the request of the State of Israel, in order to ‘rescue’ Israeli citizens who found themselves outside the country with no way to return,” the judge wrote.
“It should be emphasized that under the amendment to the Aviation Services Law there is an exemption from payment of the statutory compensation in effect at the relevant time, but there is no exemption from providing assistance and paying for the benefits.”
Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiffs reimbursement for the difference in cost between the new tickets and the refund they received for the canceled flight, as well as reimbursement for lodging, food and transportation expenses documented with receipts. The court ordered all three defendants to pay the plaintiffs a total of 5,445 shekels, divided equally among them.
The judge added that “all of the parties were drawn into this situation through no fault of their own,” and said he found no wrongdoing in the conduct of Israir and the organizer. “At the same time, both are required by law to bear the expenses of passengers whose flight was canceled, and therefore I decided to obligate them, in equal parts together with the travel agency, to compensate the plaintiffs."
This is a ruling by a Small Claims Court, which does not constitute binding precedent for higher courts and directly obligates only the parties to the case itself. Still, the decision may serve as a guiding authority for passengers who find themselves in similar situations.
In response, Israir said in a statement: "The court determined that the parties were caught in an extraordinary situation. That said, there is extensive case law that has ruled differently under similar circumstances. Therefore, this judgment does not constitute a binding precedent, and every case requires an individual examination based on its specific circumstances and the applicable law."