(d) two telephone calls, as well as sending a message by facsimile or e-mail of the passenger's choice (in this law - communication services);
It should be noted that even if an airline is exempt from providing statutory compensation if one of the exceptions appearing in section 6(e) of the aforementioned law exists, this does not exempt it from providing assistance services. With regard to the legislature's exclusion of cases in which the airline is exempt from statutory compensation, for example, in relation to section 6(e)(1) of the Law, it was ruled that the words "special circumstances" should be given a very restrictive interpretation, and they are consistent with the words "that were not under its control". In the Regev case (Civil Case in Fast Track Proceedings (St.) 69167-11-16 Uri Regev v. El Al Israel Air Lines Ltd.) (March 29, 2017)) it was held that the intention is that "only circumstances that are 'force majeure', such as sudden and unexpected weather, general natural disasters, wars, unexpected lateral strikes, general structural malfunction in this type of aircraft, etc., will justify the exemption. The court must give the law an interpretation that encourages the defendant to improve and correct its ways... To become more efficient, while reducing the possibility of harming passengers, even at a certain economic cost... It's all a question of price, economic feasibility, planning and deploying a technical system that can provide a proper response to malfunctions in a reasonable time." It should also be emphasized that the burden is on the defendant to prove that she did everything in her power. This is not just a box of special circumstances that were beyond its control that led to the cancellation of the flight, but also a cumulative condition of its attempts to maintain the high bar "as much as it can" to prevent the cancellation of the flight. In fact, this can be read as three cumulative conditions. First, special circumstances are required. The second was that they were not under the control of the operator. Both of these conditions come under the test of expectations. Third, the operator did everything in its power to prevent the flight cancellation - not the incident. As part of the expectation test, the question arises as to what "precautions" were taken in advance before the flight in order to prevent the flight from being changed, as well as retroactively in order to minimize the damage in such a way that, for example, the incident would enter under delay and not under cancellation, with its consequences for each party. And as I ruled in the Berger case (small claim 32765-06-16 Berger v. Croatia Airlines (August 30, 2016)):