Israir Ordered to Compensate Family Stranded Abroad During War

Even during a time of war, an airline is not exempt from its duty to care for its passengers. This was the ruling of the Tel Aviv Small Claims Court, which ordered Israir to pay 5,750 shekels, including expenses, to a passenger who was forced to remain with his wife and two young children in Austria for about two weeks longer than planned after their return flight to Israel was cancelled during Operation 'Am Kelavi'. While the court accepted the company's claim that the flight cancellation was due to exceptional security circumstances beyond its control, it emphasized that even in a state of war, this does not exempt it from the obligation to provide passengers with assistance services and to bear the basic expenses incurred due to their forced stay abroad.

The lawsuit revealed that the plaintiff, his wife, and their two children had purchased round-trip tickets to Salzburg, with the return flight scheduled for June 18, 2025. Just two days before departure, they received notification that the flight had been cancelled. According to the plaintiff, Israir did not offer an alternative flight that would allow a return to Israel within a reasonable time, and he chose to accept a credit voucher instead of a refund. Using the voucher, he booked another flight for July 1, but a few days before departure, he was updated that the flight time had been moved up by about six and a half hours. He claimed that the change did not suit his family, and he was forced to purchase tickets from another airline. As a result, the family was forced to extend their stay in Austria by about two weeks, paying for accommodation, food, transport, and additional expenses, including activities for their children aged four and one and a half.

Conversely, Israir argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The company emphasized that the flight was cancelled following the closure of the airspace with the outbreak of Operation 'Am Kelavi', circumstances which it claimed constitute force majeure and grant it an exemption from paying compensation under the law. It further claimed that the plaintiff was offered two alternatives, a full refund or a credit voucher, and he chose the voucher. Regarding the alternative flight, it was claimed that it was not cancelled at all but only moved up by six and a half hours, and that it was the plaintiff who chose to cancel it for convenience reasons. The company added that it has no obligation to indemnify passengers for all expenses incurred during the war period and that the plaintiff could have returned to Israel as soon as the airspace opened.

Registrar Michael Shampel rejected Israir's request to stay the proceedings and determined that there is no justification for preventing the parties from reaching a quick decision in the Small Claims Court. On the merits, he determined that the flight cancellation was indeed due to exceptional security circumstances and that "the defendant succeeded in laying a sufficient foundation that negates the plaintiff's entitlement to statutory compensation." According to him, "It must be remembered that the flight was cancelled due to the closure of Israel's airspace. Therefore, even if it had wanted to, the defendant had no possibility of carrying out the flight." It was also determined that moving the alternative flight up by six and a half hours does not grant a right to statutory compensation, and that its cancellation was done at the plaintiff's initiative.

However, the court determined that the airline's responsibility does not end there. The verdict emphasized that "even where a dispute arises regarding entitlement to statutory compensation, one must examine whether the defendant met its additional obligations under the Aviation Services Law, primarily the obligation to provide the passenger with assistance services during the waiting period for an alternative flight." The registrar added that these obligations "are intended to ensure that a passenger who is forced into a prolonged stay outside of Israel does not bear alone the basic living expenses imposed on him due to the flight cancellation." He further determined that a forced stay of a family of four for about two more weeks abroad creates a "clear factual presumption" that basic expenses for food, drinks, and transport were incurred, even if not all receipts were kept.

The registrar clarified that while the airline should not be seen as an "insurer of all war damages," expenses for food, drinks, and transport are an integral part of the assistance services it must provide to passengers. He also rejected Israir's claim that its bylaws allow it to be released from responsibility, and reminded that the Aviation Services Law does not allow for conditioning passenger rights except in their favor. In conclusion, Israir was ordered to pay the plaintiff 5,000 shekels for the assistance service expenses incurred by his family, as well as 750 shekels in legal costs.