(3) - and this is the foiling clause - "The flight operator or the organizer proved that the cancellation of the flight was due to special circumstances that were beyond his control, and even if he had done everything in his power - he could not have prevented the cancellation of the flight due to those circumstances;
(4) The flight operator or the organizer proved that the flight was canceled in order to avoid desecration of the Sabbath or holiday."
Go out and see that the verb "to prove" also appears twice in the framework of each defense separately - a collective dispute (3) and a collective dispute (4), and therefore it is sufficient to prove that the flight was canceled in order to avoid desecration of the Sabbath or holiday, and also to prove that the flight cancellation was due to special circumstances that were beyond his control, and even if he had done everything in his power he would not have been able to prevent the cancellation of the flight due to those circumstances. Thus, the factor of eight hours is not required to prove that it could have been corrected earlier, since the legislature has determined that the cancellation of a flight will be considered if eight hours have passed, but even regardless of the length of time, even if two hours have passed, a flight operator can order the cancellation of a flight in a way that will receive compensation since the flight was canceled (and therefore there is also a collective dispute (1) and a collective dispute (2) that are not dependent on the calculation of eight hours, The same applies to a collective dispute (4) and therefore a discussion as to whether it was possible to repair it in less than eight hours or whether the flight was canceled in any case because it could not be repaired within eight hours and then a discussion whether the malfunction could have been discovered earlier as an exemption from compensation for a canceled flight and could not have been repaired within 8 hours, since if it could have been repaired within eight hours, it would not have been necessary to enter into the discussion whether it was possible to find out and anticipate in advance, given that this does not grant compensation as well. If he caused the damages (since this is not a case where the law does not apply, and then compensation for indirect damage is examined, but the law excludes it from compensation) - it is irrelevant.