A similar move can also be seen with regard to the legislature's exclusion of certain dates from the provision of statutory compensation in the framework of an Iron Sword War (Amendment No. 2 to the Aviation Services Law (Iron Swords, 5785-2025) in such a way that the airlines do not need to prove that these are special circumstances that were beyond their control and that they did everything in their power but did not succeed in preventing the cancellation, thus sparing litigation on the issue, even if they continued to sell tickets at the time knowing that the flights could be canceled in light of the security situation upon the cancellation of the flight. However, with regard to other dates that were not mentioned in the amendment to the law, they can still prove that they are entitled to the same protection, but then litigation is necessary - according to section 6(e)(1) of the law (see Small Claims Appeals Authority 11606-06-25 Slovitansky et al. v. Ryanair Airlines (June 17, 2025); Small Claims Appeal Authority 13549-08-25 Moran Cohen v. Austrian Airlines (August 11, 2025)). In this context, I will note that against the argument that the defendant was aware of the cancellation of a place where the flight would be delayed and determined, or perhaps it should be said, left a flight at a fixed time that in practice in view of winter time, the landing is close to the beginning of the holiday and still sells tickets (and thus prefers its economic interest), the same is also argued with respect to cancellations due to the security situation due to the Iron Sword War, when the airline cancels a flight and claims protection due to an unforeseen event at that time, but at the same time continues to sell under the same timeframe In a way that puts itself in a position of risk knowing that it will later receive an exemption (although a consumer also took a risk to fly during a war and that he must insure himself at the same time, and still where compliance with section 6(e)(1) is proven, his argument has no significance - see Small Claims Appeal Authority 13549-08-25 and Small Claims Appeal Authority 11606-06-25 above). Either way, in both situations, these are cases in which the legislature covered and granted an exemption where it set certain dates in an Iron Sword War, according to which a flight that was canceled would not obligate the operator to statutory compensation or where a flight was delayed for less than eight hours, even if it is an economic consideration on the part of the flight operator, he is not obligated to statutory compensation, and the same is not the case with respect to cancellation for the purpose of preventing desecration or a holiday. And if the legislature addressed this and made the exception, there is a difficulty in claiming compensation by virtue of another law, as an indirect route, in practice.
- From all of the above, we find the same conclusion, according to which it is sufficient for the defendant to prove that she canceled in order to avoid desecration of the Sabbath or holiday in order to grant herself the protection that exempts her from the duty of statutory compensation. She does not need to prove that she did everything in her power to avoid desecration of Shabbat by taking actions days before the discovery of a malfunction in view of the indirect connection to the flight date, which can and will be canceled if it needs to fix the malfunction. This would not have been required of her if it was another weekday, a place where she would take off the flight after she had managed to fix it before 8 hours had passed. In our case, there is no dispute that the malfunction in the form of a luggage compartment that was broken due to the loading of the passengers' luggage (even a summary of saying that they could have known what the weight was and whether such a weight could be loaded) was not resolved after an hour and a half, and therefore there is no point in continuing to repair in order to reach eight hours or to prove that it was possible to repair less than eight hours, and therefore the reason for canceling the flight is in order to avoid desecration of Shabbat and holidays. and where the matter was discussed that there could be a situation in which a delay would become a cancellation, and the issue of the exemption was not qualified in this context - whether to examine that it did everything in its power, including not to set landing times close to the beginning of Shabbat, or by way of an exception (where it was referred to with regard to flights immediately after the end of Shabbat that require the desecration of Shabbat earlier from the passenger's perspective), I do not believe that the law should be read what is not in it.
- The basic concepts are that the Aviation Services Law is a specific law, even though it is essentially consumer. It is intended to strike a balance between consumer protection and the constraints of the airlines, and as I have ruled in relation to the Consumer Protection Law or the Communications Law, a statutory provision that comes out of the legislature's address, as well as regulations and procedures issued by the relevant regulator, are engraved on a book after negotiations have taken place with the dealers on the one hand and the consumers on the other - at least the representatives of all those for whom the legislation is relevant - in an effort to strike a proper balance. Proportionate and reasonable based on an analysis of cost versus benefit inherent in the interest of consumers versus those engaged in the matter, including considerations of all the interests of the representatives of the airlines and passengers, and on the basis of all of these he determined what he determined, when if the case does not come into play, then there is no compensation at all, when sometimes it loses and sometimes it loses in the overall balance (see and compare my judgment regarding the Consumer Protection Law in Small Claim 39585-08-16 Ofir Cohen v. Maccabi Health Services (March 10, 2017)). This also works in both directions. Thus, for example, in a case where a passenger knew the terms of the cancellation of the transaction but the travel agent missed a disclosure document as required of him when a remote sale transaction was executed, I determined that in that case, in his fairness, he could not confirm that a written disclosure document was sent in accordance with the provisions of the law, and that it is understandable to his feeling that a certain person can and should use the law as a stumbling block to dig into, as a wrongdoer with the authority of the Torah and "take advantage" of the provisions of the law in order to receive a full refund. Although the law certainly states that he will have to pay cancellation fees, and even though according to the provisions of the law he is not entitled to cancellation fees. In such cases as well, I have determined that even in situations such as those in which "the spirit of the wise is not comfortable with him", the legislature has had its say, and has made the necessary balances here and there. The legislature did not suffice with the provisions of the law regarding the date of cancellation, but explicitly set the disclosure document as a cogent requirement, and it even overrides the date of execution of the transaction, "whichever is later." Hereby, the legislature sought to protect the consumer and ensure the transparency of information, which is the basis for proper consumerism and the realization of autonomous ability based on informed choice. On the other hand, where the consumer, for example, cancels the transaction and no damage is caused to the dealer, the dealer is not liable for restitution fees and at the same time is not damaged, and therefore he ostensibly "profits" from the seat that the consumer canceled. There is a place where the dealer will lose due to the sale of a ticket to a certain person and not finding someone to replace him and will be forced to refund only the sum of ILS 100 or 5% of the ticket fee before the lower one between them, and in another place he will receive, in practice, double. In the overall balance, once it loses and sometimes it loses. On the other hand, where an airline for economic reasons announces a delay in take-off or a malfunction in the plane that it discovered a few days before the flight and could have found a replacement plane, where the flight took off late on a direct flight that is less than eight hours from the original flight time, the passenger will not be entitled to statutory compensation and must adhere to the definition of the hours prescribed by law (unlike cases where even if it is a number of hours that does not entitle to the benefits of flight cancellation, This was also recognized as flight cancellation - for example, in cases of missing a connecting flight). In other words, in the case examined under section 6(e)(1) of the Law, the airline bears an increased burden of proving that the delay or cancellation of a flight stemmed from exceptional circumstances beyond its control, such as those for which the cancellation of a flight establishes entitlement to statutory compensation, and therefore, a delay of 6 hours, for example, even if it was ostensibly due to purely economic considerations without proof of a malfunction, such as the unfeasibility of issuing a half-empty flight or a decision to consolidate flights in order to save costs (which are not considered special circumstances that are exempt from compensation, and it cannot be argued that The event was not under its control) - the passenger will still be entitled to assistance benefits and refund only and not to monetary compensation, and this only because the event does not exceed the qualifying hours threshold.
- In any event, the plaintiffs claimed statutory compensation but did not deal with the defense that exists for the defendant by virtue of section 6(e)(3) of the Law - not even once, not even in the framework of their summaries. They attacked the defendant's policy, as they called it, when she herself does not actually observe the Sabbath through her employees who are forced to work during the holiday, but takes advantage of the designated exemption that she has when she is the one who also set the time of landing, knowingly that she will not have to provide compensation where the flight will be canceled, and that someone who puts himself at a known and advance risk cannot benefit from such a sweeping exemption when the Sabbath "is not a wall. Shabbat is not an unexpected event" (paragraph 65 of the plaintiffs' summaries) while repeatedly emphasizing the significance of staying in New York on Simchat Torah, at which time it was ostensibly supposed to select and check the level of rooms that it was able to provide so that they would be of a higher standard (by implication) and that they would be satisfied with the assistance services they provided regarding the hotels or that they would present receipts of "food and drink that they bought on the morning of Simchat Torah at some cheap diner in New York instead of staying with their families" and all this when it comes to "policy" An unfamous internal. However, these arguments, without taking their importance lightly, God forbid, are subject to clarification in the framework of an administrative attack, some in the framework of a class action, and some are a matter which, as stated, the legislature must provide a solution. These claims, as justified as they may be, do not provide statutory compensation for the cancellation of the flight. The argument that the Sabbath was not an unexpected event and that it was not a technical malfunction and that the flight was canceled due to an "independent decision of the defendant" does not help where the expectations are not required for the application of the exemption, as well as if it is an independent decision of the legislature, and not a prohibition by the legislature to fly on the Sabbath.
- It should be noted that even if the mind is not comfortable, as stated, with the issuance of tickets to a destination where the landing time is very close to the beginning of the Sabbath or holiday, given that the Aviation Services Law is a consumer law but is not a tort law, there is also a difficulty in recognizing contributory fault (see and compare in an analogy to the Credit Cards Law, Judgment in Small Claim 26113-01-20 Yitzhak Twito v. Isracard in Tax Appeal (January 27, 2021)). Where case law recognizes the possibility of applying the principles of "contributory fault" in cases of overlap between contractual and tortious liability, the Aviation Services Law establishes an increased liability regime, and therefore it seems to me that the exemptions granted by the legislature from the payment of compensation (when it acts from the perspective of the actions of the organizer or operator and not from the perspective of actions or omissions of the passenger, since the law requires compliance with the standard of expected behavior of the operator and does not require a causal connection between the cancellation of a flight and the result) is sufficient to grant statutory compensation. The application of "contributory fault" where a flight operator has received an exemption from payment of compensation will remove that exemption. Moreover, these are predetermined times of flight every day, except for the Shabbat start and departure period, when the flight does not enter the flight schedule. As her counsel noted in the hearing on September 22, 2022: "To the court's question, even if we have a defense set forth in the law regarding the non-desecration of the holiday and the Sabbath, why did we organize such a flight schedule that the flight lands an hour before the holiday in such a way that any delay can lead to desecration, I answer that there is a fixed flight schedule and the Sabbath is something that is fixed and the holiday is not fixed and El Al observes the Sabbath, unlike other companies... and EL AL cannot change the flight schedule in accordance with the holidays" (p. 3 of the minutes of the hearing, paras. 2-5) and "As an airline that observes Shabbat, I do not set a slot during Shabbat, and even for a holiday during the holiday, I do not schedule flights during the holiday, I can schedule flights after or before, and here they did not deliberately determine that it would arrive an hour before the holiday, and that's how it turned out. This is a flight that is fixed in the annual schedule of an airport that takes off in New York on Saturday night. It turned out like this, saw that they could arrive before the holiday began and left the flight. If the flight had been lowered, the flight to Israel would have been on Thursday" (p. 3 of the minutes of the hearing, paras. 16-21). In addition, "the reasonable passenger knows the flight times" (p. 4, s. 22). Therefore, imposing contributory fault in effect imposes an unreasonable regulatory burden in demanding the cancellation of flights whose landing date is close to the beginning of Shabbat, while distinguishing between daylight saving time and winter time, and alternatively, updating in the framework of each sale when Shabbat begins and that the company observes Shabbat and that the law grants compensation where a flight will be canceled as a result when it comes to information that is published to the public - both in relation to the hours of the start of a holiday or Shabbat. Both in relation to the fact that it observes the Sabbath even before the enactment of the Aviation Services Law by virtue of the status quo in the 1970s and 1980s and coalition agreements, and it is not hidden that this appears in the contract of carriage that appears on its website (even if the company was privatized and continued on the same line) and at the time of booking, when not only the link to the Aviation Services Law is displayed, but also its summary in simple words in Hebrew and English, in which there is a chapter dedicated to "flight cancellation" emphasized on the line and bold, in which the exemption regarding flight cancellation in order to avoid desecration is also mentioned. Shabbat or holiday - "Subject to the exceptions specified in the law, if one of them exists, you will not be entitled to compensation. The exceptions set out in the law are, inter alia, as follows:
- The cancellation of the flight was caused by special circumstances that were beyond the company's control.
- Flight cancelled due to strike or protected shutdown
- The flight was canceled in order to avoid desecration of the Sabbath or holiday..."
I do not believe that it is expected that it will positively mark to the passenger the relevant clause in the contract of carriage and the summary of the law, or that it will state at the time of purchase - whether by the passenger or by the agent - that it observes Shabbat and therefore where the flight is canceled, it will not be entitled to compensation. Moreover, the dates of the holiday are determined according to the Hebrew calendar and change in synchronization with the foreign calendar, as opposed to Fridays when a passenger consciously chooses to fly on Friday, and a place where the passengers wished to come to celebrate the eve of the holiday with their families as stated in the statement of claim, then they knew in advance when the flight landed and close to the holiday, and they knew in advance that an airline - any airline - is entitled to cancel a flight in order to avoid desecration of Shabbat and holidays when the legislature did not put its words in vain. When the name of the matter is an absolute, explicit and clear exemption when it uses the words "Shabbat" and "holiday" (as opposed to casting an interpretation for the cancellation of a flight due to a technical malfunction, for example, whether it grants an exemption or not), all the more so it is an Israeli company that has certainly declared itself a Shabbat observant for several decades. The passenger has the information when he wants to return when he purchases a ticket. If the flight had been canceled due to a security need, even where he was traveling during a period of security tension, would he have claimed contributory fault by selling her ticket and not informing the passenger that he would know that the flight could be canceled and that he would not receive statutory compensation? In any case, as stated, this is a law with an increased liability regime with respect to the flight operator in such a way that contributory fault on the part of a passenger in a place where a flight is canceled and is entitled to compensation (so if a passenger is aware of the time of landing in Israel and could have clarified this if it were a material detail for him in purchasing the transaction, all the more so it is a matter of the time of Shabbat in Israel). So it is also not a flight to a destination country that is not aware of the local time). In any case, contractual contributory fault is raised as a defense claim and therefore it is only on the part of a defendant and not on the part of a plaintiff, and in any event, as stated, a flight operator cannot claim under the Aviation Services Law contributory fault of a passenger as an exemption from payment of compensation or its reduction. Therefore, the demand that was also raised several times in the framework of the EL AL representatives' interrogation that it did not actually warn the customer with white kiddush letters under a sentence in which it will be written in the order that he should know that she is observing Shabbat and that due to landing close to Shabbat the flight can and then he will not receive compensation, it has no normative anchor for the purpose of charging it, and it is a regulatory burden that the legislature must give its opinion when, as aforesaid, this raises a difficulty in making any transaction with a specific reference to that flight and the date of its landing. With specific reference to the protection of the Sabbath or the holiday (while it is not expected that it will be noted that due to the security situation, for example, the flight may be canceled and will not be entitled to statutory compensation, or there will be a protected strike or the airport will be closed at a certain time (something that the passenger is certainly not aware of, but then he can and will receive compensation in the framework of non-compliance with section 6(e)(1) that does not exist in relation to the protection of the Sabbath), When the reference is only in relation to statutory compensation, the rest of the benefits arise for passengers at least even if the law grants an exemption from the payment of statutory compensation and the point that is the "relevant variance" is the addition of statutory compensation). Moreover, it seems that if the passenger recognizes the issue of statutory compensation in itself, then he is aware of the Aviation Services Law that grants him and therefore is also aware of the exceptions that do not grant him, and there is no reason to impose on the airline a "go into detail" of the manner in which the information is provided in this context.