Small Claim (Criminal Appeal) 32697-11-24 Sarit Peleg v. Israir Aviation & Tourism Ltd.

The claim in question is a claim for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance Due to Flight Cancellation or Change in its Conditions), 5772-2012 (hereinafter: the "Law").

1. Plaintiff 1 and her four daughters, plaintiffs 2-5, purchased a vacation package to Corfu, through the organizer "Kaminos Tourism", between September 26, 2024 and September 29, 2024, at a total cost of $4,195. The flight tickets were issued for the flight operated by the defendant.  On September 29, 2024, at 10:28 a.m., when the return flight was scheduled to depart at 5:50 p.m., the plaintiffs received a notice from the organizer that the defendant had canceled the flight, due to the security situation.
2. According to the statement of claim, after attempts to obtain a response from the organizer and the defendant regarding an alternative flight were unsuccessful, the plaintiffs purchased flight tickets on Arkia Airlines, at a cost of ILS 12,411, for a flight to Israel on October 1, 2024, the earliest date found by them. The plaintiffs did indeed leave Corfu on the Arkia flight on that date, but due to the Iranian missile attack on Israel, the flight landed at the airport in Larnaca, Cyprus, where the plaintiffs stayed for an additional five days.  Ultimately, the plaintiffs returned to Israel only on October 6, 2024, after purchasing flight tickets for a flight from Larnaca to Tel Aviv, a flight that was also operated by the defendant.
3. The plaintiffs petition to rule in their favor for the following remedies:
4. Reimbursement for the expenses of the hotel stay for an additional three nights during which they stayed in Corfu, between September 29, 2024 and October 1, 2024, in the sum of ILS 5,472;
5. a refund for the purchase of food and beverages in the amount of ILS 407;

• reimbursement for travel in the amount of ILS 205;

1. compensation for the difference between the consideration paid for the flight tickets for the cancelled flight, and the consideration paid by the plaintiffs for flight tickets purchased from the defendant for their return from Cyprus to Israel, in the amount of ILS 3,186;
2. statutory compensation in accordance with section 6(a)(3) and the first addendum to the law, in accordance with the distance of the flight, in the total amount of ILS 7,200;
3. Exemplary damages in accordance with section 11 of the Law, in the total maximum amount of ILS 20,000, following the mental anguish caused to the plaintiffs, the failure to provide assistance services, the lack of assistance in locating an alternative flight and presenting alternatives to reach the destination, and the defendant's disregard of the plaintiffs' earlier application to it.

The total amount claimed is ILS 36,470.

4. With regard to the component of compensation for the difference between the refund of the consideration and the cost of the alternative flight tickets, the plaintiffs noted that the organizer "Caminos" undertook to return to them the sum of ILS 3,210, the cost of the defendant's flight tickets from Corfu to Israel, and also noted that they had received from Arkia a refund of the full consideration they had paid for the return flight from Corfu to Israel (which was referred to Larnaca). Therefore, the plaintiffs petitioned to charge the defendant for the difference between the amount of the refund thatthey would receive through the organizer, and the cost of the flight tickets they purchased from the defendant, from Larnaca to Israel, in the amount of ILS 6,396.
5. The defendant petitioned to dismiss the claim. According to the defendant, the flight cancellation was made against the background of the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of the Hezbollah organization in Lebanon, on September 27, 2024, and the security tension that arose following the expectation of the organization's response, due to which the European Union Aviation Authority recommended not to operate flights to and from Israel, as of September 28, 2024.  It was claimed that the flight was planned to be carried out on a leased plane of a Bulgarian airline, but following the recommendation of the European Aviation Authority, it canceled all its flights to Israel.  The defendant argued that these circumstances constitute special circumstances beyond her control, which exempt her from the obligation to compensate the plaintiffs with any compensation, other than the return of the consideration.  It was argued that due to the security situation, it was not possible to provide the plaintiffs with an alternative flight, and that the diversion of the Arkia flight to Larnaca and the flight tickets purchased by the plaintiffs from Larnaca to Israel as a result, were events beyond the defendant's control.  The defendant also claimed that there was no rivalry, since the plaintiffs should have referred their demands to the organizer, who issued them the flight tickets.
6. In the statement of defense, the defendant noted that after an inquiry she conducted, it became clear to her that the plaintiffs had filed a separate claim against Arkia in this court, for the same events described above, and thus, according to her, required double remedies. The plaintiffs confirmed in the hearing held in the presence of the parties on June 11, 2025, that they had filed a separate claim against Arkia, but claimed that their claims did not constitute duplication of remedies, and that the claim against Israir relates only to the expenses they incurred from September 29, 2024 to October 1, 2024, the date of their departure from Corfu on theArkia flight, and to the compensation that they believe the defendant should be obligated to pay, by virtue of the provisions of the Aviation Services Law.  Following the cancellation of the flight on September 29, 2024.
7. After reviewing the pleadings and their appendices, the evidence that was placed before me, and after hearing the parties and considering their arguments, I found that the claim should be accepted in part, while determining that the defendant will compensate the plaintiffs for the expenses incurred following the cancellation of the flight, on the basis of its duty to provide them with assistance services, and at the same time the defendant will not be obligated to compensate them with the statutory compensation prescribed in the law and exemplary compensation. The reasons for this will be presented below, in summary, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 15 of the Small Claims Jurisdiction Regulations (Procedures), 5737-1976.
8. There is no doubt that the flight in which the plaintiffs were supposed to return to Israel from Corfu on September 29, 2024, is a flight that was canceled, according to the definition in the Aviation Services Law. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefits listed in section 6(a) thereof, which include food and beverages, hotel accommodation, transportation services between the airport and the hotel, and communication services.  The plaintiffs are also entitled, according to the provisions of the law, to a refund of the consideration or an alternative flight ticket, of their choice, and to monetary compensation according to the amounts specified in the first addendum to the law.
9. In the present case, expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for staying in a hotel and for food and beverages were proven in the receipts attached to the statement of claim. Although the transportation services component was not supported by the receipt, a reasonable and proportionate sum was provided, in the circumstances, given the fact that there are five plaintiffs.
10. As for the benefit of restitution or an alternative flight ticket, neither party presented any evidence in this regard. The plaintiffs stated in the statement of claim that the organizer informed them that she would refund them the amount of the consideration paid for the flight tickets for the canceled flight, in the sum of ILS 3,210, and therefore they did not petition to rule in their favor of this component.  The plaintiffs petitioned to require the defendant to pay the sum of ILS 3,186, as compensation for the difference paid by them for the flight tickets they used for the flight from Cyprus to Israel on October 6, 2024, a flight that was operated as aforesaid by the defendant itself.  I found, in the circumstances, that this component should be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, as compensation for the expenses incurred following the cancellation of the flight, and while it has not been proven, nor has it been argued, that the defendant offered the plaintiffs an alternative flight, in a manner that "sterilizes" the plaintiffs' consumer right to choose between these alternative benefits.
11. However, as to the plaintiffs' right to compensation in accordance with section 6(a)(3) of the Law, and the first addendum thereto, I found that the plaintiffs' position should be rejected and that the defendant's position should be accepted.
12. Section 6(e)(1) of the Aviation Services Law states that a passenger whose flight was canceled will not be entitled to financial compensation as stated in the first addendum, if the flight operator proves that the flight was canceled due to special circumstances beyond his control, and even if he had done everything in his power - he could not have prevented its cancellation due to those circumstances. The defendant claimed in the statement of defense, as well as in the testimony of the representative on her behalf, that due to the security situation that prevailed in Israel on September 29, 2024, the foreign company through which the flight was scheduled to take place canceled its flights to Israel.
13. The complex security situation in the State of Israel has continued, in fact, since October 7, 2023, when difficult and painful events took place, the consequences of which are evident in the various aspects of life of the country's citizens and residents, including the presence of abducted Israeli citizens in Gaza, loss and injury to the soul and body of civilians and soldiers, extensive evacuation of settlements, extensive and ongoing reserve mobilization, and the home front's handling of rocket and missile fire from various arenas. All over Israel.
14. After months of heavy fire on northern communities that led to tragic loss of life, on September 27, 2024, the secretary-general of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, Hassan Nasrallah, was assassinated in Lebanon by IDF forces, along with other senior members of the organization. This unusual event created a high level of alert in anticipation of the organization's response, and rocket fire was directed at Israel from a number of fronts.  Subsequently, IDF forces intensified their activity inside Lebanon, and within a few days, 30 September 2024, many forces entered Lebanon in order to carry out a ground maneuver that would uproot the terrorist organization's capabilities and restore calm to the evacuated northern communities.  On October 1, 2024, for the second time, there was a large-scale missile and unmanned aerial attack (UAV) by Iran against Israel in its territory, and the rocket fire at Israel increased from the north as well.  In addition, on the same day, a murderous terrorist attack took place at the Jaffa light rail station, which led to severe casualties and the death of innocent civilians.  Despite the calm that has prevailed in the northern sector since the ceasefire with Lebanon was reached, the IDF is still operating in the Gaza Strip, the Syrian sector, and other ground sectors, and since the hearing on this demand, which took place only six days ago, there has been another significant escalation in the opening of a direct front against Iran, as part of Operation Am Kalvia, and massive rocket fire has begun into the country's territory from its direction.
15. Beyond the dramatic effects of the war situation on Israeli society, this situation also has a significant impact on the economic and business reality, including the ability of Israeli and foreign airlines to provide continuous and regular service in times of war. Following the aforementioned events, many foreign airlines canceled their operations in Israel, while the Israeli airlines, including the defendant, continued to provide service as much as possible, except in situations where the Israeli authorities ordered the "closure of the skies".  However, despite the Israeli airlines' attempt to maintain the flight schedule as planned, there have been many disruptions that have affected their operations, among other things, due to the fact that some of their activities are carried out through the leasing of aircraft from foreign companies.  For more on the effects of the war situation on the aviation sector and the constraints resulting from it, see Small Claim (Haifa) 11206-05-24 Balkai v.  Blue Bird Airways in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (April 6, 2025); Small Claim (Jerusalem) 65750-11-24 Holtz v.  Delta Airlines Inc .  [Nevo] (March 26, 2025); Small Claim (Rishon LeZion) 43924-12-24 Hamo v.  Smartair Tel Aviv in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (May 12, 2025).
16. In circumstances similar to those in the case here, the Nof HaGalil-Nazareth District Court ruled that the provisions of section 6(e)(1) of the Law apply, which exempt the flight operator from paying compensation to the passenger in accordance with the first addendum to the Law (see: Small Claims Appeals Authority (Nazareth) 22801-08-24 Wizz Air v. Alon [Nevo] (September 10, 2024)).  The Small Claims Courts also reached a similar conclusion, in a series of recent rulings, some of which the defendant referred to in its statement of defense: Small Claim (Petah Tikva) 24207-07-24 Shahak v.  Air India [Nevo] (November 26, 2024); Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 54920-02-24 Raziel v.  Israir [Nevo] (July 29, 2024); Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 918-03-24 Roda v.  Vacation Lines in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (August 5, 2024); Small Claim (Petah Tikva) 4283-02-24 Torem v.  Arkia Israeli Airlines in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (July 22, 2024); Small Claim (Rishon LeZion) Rokni v.  Israir Aviation and Tourism in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (March 12, 2024); Small Claim 28949-02-24 Fedatzur v.  Israir Aviation and Tourism in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (July 27, 2024); Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 40828-11-23 Levy v.  Vacation Lines in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (March 10, 2024); Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 63977-01-24 Charlin v.  Ryanair DAC [Nevo] (August 25, 2024); Small Claim (Jerusalem) 19640-11-23 Mizrahi v.  Israir Aviation and Tourism in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (May 30, 2024); Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 5093-12-23 Shachar v.  Israir Aviation and Tourism in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (June 9, 2024); Civil Case (K.S.) 48111-03-24 Pearl v.  Israir [Nevo] (September 12, 2024).
17. At times, the courts found weight to be given to the fact that the passenger chose to leave the country by flight during wartime and in times of regional security uncertainty, while taking the risk that the flight might be canceled, and the risk was indeed realized in the end. In a small claim (Jerusalem) 65486-11-24 Hirshman v.  ITA [Nevo] (March 18, 2025), the court noted that "it is not self-evident that this risk should fall on the defendant." See also in this matter in Small Action (Ramla) 39209-11-24 Solomon v.  Arkia Israeli Airlines in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (April 22, 2025).
18. The date of the flight that was canceled is, as stated, September 29, 2024, a date on which intense fighting took place in Israel in a number of sectors, and in which a number of significant security incidents took place, as detailed above, so that it cannot be determined that a kind of "routine of war" took place on this date, in the sense that this term was given in court rulings (see: Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 38042-05-24 Yigal v. Air Canada [Nevo] (August 18, 2024)).
19. In the hearing, the plaintiffs argued that the fact that the canceled flight date was not included among the dates that were retroactively excluded in the framework of the amendment to the Aviation Services Law as recently amended (Amendment to the Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance Due to Flight Cancellation or Change in its Conditions) (Amendment No. 2 and Temporary Order Iron Swords), 5781-2025) shows that the legislature has given its opinion that flight operators who If they are canceled on other dates, they will not be relieved of their obligation to compensate the passengers in accordance with the first addendum to the law. Among other things, the plaintiffs referred in this matter to the judgment given in a small claim (R.A.) 39505-11-24 Tayeb v.  Israir Aviation and Tourism in a Tax Appeal [Nevo] (February 24, 2025).  My opinion on this matter, with all due respect, is different.  I am of the opinion that the amendment to the law did not create a negative arrangement with respect to the possibility that the court will exercise its discretion, and determine that in the circumstances that were proven before it, the exemption provision listed in section 6(e)(1) of the Law applies.  The amendment to the law did not limit the court's authority to apply the said exemption clause in the appropriate cases.  For a similar position, see Small Claim (Haifa) 11206-05-24 Balkai, supra, [Nevo], and in Small Claim (Jerusalem) 65486-11-24 Hirshman, supra, [Nevo], where the Court noted that the amendment to the Law does not exclude section 6(e)(1) from application and that it is a matter of "parallel tracks".
20. It should be emphasized that the existence of circumstances that exempt the flight operator from bearing the obligation to compensate the passenger in accordance with section 6(a)(3) and the first addendum to the law, does not exempt him from providing the passenger with assistance services and other benefits enumerated in the law (Civil Case (Nazareth) 55048-12-16 Ghassan Jubran v. Shadi Yosef Jaraisi [Nevo] (January 31, 2021); Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 39460-11-24 Salomon v.  Leviathan Sharon Orad Legal Services [Nevo] (March 9, 2025), at paragraph 38).
21. As to the plaintiffs' demand to award exemplary damages in their favor by virtue of section 11 of the Law, I find that this too should be rejected. This section allows the court to award compensation in favor of the passenger, for example, if it finds that the flight operator or organizer knowingly did not provide benefits to the passenger whose flight was canceled, in contravention of the provisions of section 6 of the law.  There is no doubt that in the circumstances of the case here, the defendant did not provide the plaintiffs with any assistance services.  However, according to the evidence, the plaintiffs received a notice from the organizer regarding the cancellation of the defendant's flight, stating that it was possible to contact her regarding the arrangement of an alternative flight ticket, and regarding a credit for the refund of the consideration.  The plaintiffs did not leave any evidence regarding their contacts with the organizer or the defendant, regarding the aforesaid issues, from a real time, and I am convinced by the defendant's claim that when the flight tickets were issued by the organizer, the defendant was unable to contact the plaintiffs directly with the offer to issue them flight tickets for an alternative flight.  In fact, the first documented contact with the defendant by the plaintiffs is from a date after their return to Israel.  The plaintiffs also did not present evidence to support their claim that the organizer referred them to the defendant for this purpose.  Therefore, the element required under the aforementioned section, according to which the defendant "knowingly breached" its obligations under section 6 of the Law, has not been proven .
22. In any event, exemplary damages should be awarded only in exceptional cases, in cases where it has been proven that it is appropriate to award damages intended to achieve the purpose of punishment and deterrence (Small Claim (K.S.) 66049-11-24 Bar-Ziv v. Austrian Airlines [Nevo] (May 20, 2025); Small Claim (K.S.) 56643-11-24 Goreb v.  Israir Aviation and Tourism in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (May 11, 2025)).  I found that the circumstances in question do not justify awarding exemplary damages in favor of the plaintiffs in accordance with the provisions of section 11. 
23. I will note that I have considered, in the circumstances, to reduce the amount of compensation that will be awarded in favor of the plaintiffs in the judgment, due to the fact that the plaintiffs chose to file the claim against the flight operator, but not against the organizer, without explaining why they chose to do so in the statement of claim, and given that the Aviation Services Law does not distinguish between the operator and the organizer with regard to the obligation to provide assistance services to the passenger. However, I found that it was not necessary to instruct as aforesaid, when the defendant could have joined the organizer in the proceeding on her own initiative, such as by way of submitting a notice to a third party, but she did not do so.
24. In addition, it was not without hesitation that I found that the defendant should be charged the amount of the difference between the flight tickets purchased by the plaintiffs from Cyprus to Israel and the consideration paid for the canceled flight tickets (and a refund for which they would receive in the future, or perhaps had already been received) - when it became clear that a separate claim filed by the plaintiffs against Arkia, from which they purchased tickets for an alternative flight from Corfu to Israel, a flight that finally landed in Cyprus due to the Iranian missile attack of October 1, 2024, was pending. In fact, the plaintiffs found that their claim regarding these two flight operators should be split, even though at the end of the day, it is the same factual set and the same circumstances, and it would have been appropriate to clarify the plaintiffs' claims in relation to these flight operators, jointly.  I found it appropriate to instruct as aforesaid, inter alia, since that flight was in fact operated by the defendant herself, so that for reasons of fairness, it is appropriate for the defendant to bear the difference in prices charged to the plaintiffs, whose only desire was to reach their home in Israel.
25. In view of the above, I determine as follows: The defendant will compensate the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, for the expenses of staying at the hotel, in the sum of ILS 5,472, for the purchase of food and beverages in the amount of ILS 407, for travel in the amount of ILS 205, and for the difference claimed between the amount of the consideration and the cost of the return flight tickets to Israel in the amount of ILS 3,186. The total of the aforementioned sums is ILS 9,270.  The defendant will also bear their expenses in the sum of ILS 700.

The sums will be paid within 30 days from the date the defendant receives the judgment, otherwise a shekel interest will be added to them from that date until the date of actual full payment.