vluchtclaimhulp.nl
NLEN
← back to the tool

Sources

How the tool works, which sources the tool uses, and where your data goes — so you don't have to trust anything.

Check citations before you send

A Dutch court (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2025:8495) awarded full procedural costs in 2025 after someone filed an AI-drafted document with a non-existent ECLI — analysis: IT-en-Recht analysis. To limit that risk, the tool only cites from the fixed set below.

What does this tool send where?

  • What you type into a form goes to the AI platform that finishes the letter.
  • Evidence (photos of the info board, screenshots, receipts for care) stays on this device (browser storage, IndexedDB). It does not go to our servers, and it does not go to the cloud. Delete each item via the button next to the evidence, or all at once below.
  • Nothing is stored. No database, no logs of input, no cookies. (Crash logs may exist on the hosting platform without your data.)
  • No analytics are built in at this time. If that ever changes, it will be Plausible (cookieless, EU-hosted).

Wipes all binary evidence (images, PDFs) on this device. Your text fields (airports, names, IBAN) are kept.

Which language model?

The tool sends your data to a European AI platform for the letter and stores nothing. There's also a hard monthly cap: if costs hit that cap, AI polish stops automatically until it is re-enabled.

For some cases the tool makes one extra AI call to assess which alternative route fits your situation (small-claims court, agency, ECC-NL mediation, etc.). Input: your form state. Output: a scenario ID from a fixed list. Same closed-set principle as for letter generation — the AI cannot invent new scenarios, only choose from what is prepared in advance.

Which rulings does the tool use?

Letters may only cite from the collection below. The AI cannot invent ECLIs. New rulings are added manually after verification on EUR-Lex.

EU 261

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights

EUR-Lex 32004R0261
CJEU

Sturgeon and Others v Condor / Böck and Lepuschitz v Air France

C-402/07 and C-432/07 (joined) · 2009-11-19
ECLI:EU:C:2009:716

Passengers on a flight with an arrival delay of three hours or more are entitled to the same flat-rate compensation as passengers on a cancelled flight (Article 7).

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia

C-549/07 · 2008-12-22
ECLI:EU:C:2008:771

A technical problem on an aircraft arising during maintenance or due to defective maintenance does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances': it is part of an air carrier's normal operations. Only problems beyond that (e.g. a hidden manufacturing defect announced by the manufacturer) may fall outside this scope.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Van der Lans v KLM

C-257/14 · 2015-09-17
ECLI:EU:C:2015:618

An unexpected technical fault that does not result from defective maintenance and was not detected during scheduled maintenance is not an extraordinary circumstance if the fault arises from the regular functioning of the aircraft. Confirms and reinforces Wallentin-Hermann.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Pešková and Peška v Travel Service

C-315/15 · 2017-05-04
ECLI:EU:C:2017:342

A collision between an aircraft and a bird constitutes an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The carrier remains required to show it took all reasonable measures to limit the consequences. Delay attributable to an avoidable additional inspection does not count as a consequence of the extraordinary circumstance.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly

C-195/17 and Others (joined) · 2018-04-17
ECLI:EU:C:2018:258

A 'wildcat strike' by a carrier's own staff in response to a surprise restructuring announcement does NOT fall within 'extraordinary circumstances': such labour unrest is inherent to the carrier's normal operations and within its actual control. The concept of 'extraordinary circumstances' must be interpreted strictly.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

SATA International — Azores Airlines

C-308/21 · 2022-07-07
ECLI:EU:C:2022:533

Failure of the airport's fuel-supply system can be an extraordinary circumstance when that system is operated by the airport and therefore lies outside the carrier's actual control. Operational system failures that do fall within the carrier's control are not.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Matkustaja A v Finnair

C-385/23 · 2024-06-13
ECLI:EU:C:2024:497

An unexpected, previously-unseen technical fault on a new aircraft type — where the manufacturer subsequently acknowledges a hidden design defect affecting all aircraft of that type and impacting flight safety — falls within 'extraordinary circumstances'. This is an exception to Wallentin-Hermann/Van der Lans and applies only to manufacturer-acknowledged hidden design defects.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Nelson and Others v Lufthansa / TUI Travel and Others v CAA

C-581/10 and C-629/10 (joined) · 2012-10-23
ECLI:EU:C:2012:657

Confirms and reinforces Sturgeon: passengers on a flight with an arrival delay of three hours or more are entitled to flat-rate compensation. The Court explicitly holds that Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 is compatible with the Montreal Convention and with the principle of legal certainty.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Air France v Folkerts

C-11/11 · 2013-02-26
ECLI:EU:C:2013:106

On connecting flights the relevant delay is measured at the FINAL DESTINATION, not at a connection. An arrival delay of three hours or more at the final destination gives rise to compensation even if the first flight departed on time or the connection was reached on time.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Eglītis and Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija / Air Baltic

C-294/10 · 2011-05-12
ECLI:EU:C:2011:303

The 'reasonable measures' test requires the carrier to build buffer time into its planning and operations so that, given foreseeable disruptions, it can still depart on time. A carrier with no schedule margin cannot simply rely on extraordinary circumstances — the minimum necessary preparation is part of normal operations.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Bossen and Others v Brussels Airlines

C-559/16 · 2017-09-07
ECLI:EU:C:2017:644

The 'distance' under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 is the great-circle distance between the original point of departure and the final destination. Connections do not count toward the distance band. This prevents a carrier from influencing the band by choosing a routing detour.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

Germanwings v Pauels

C-501/17 · 2019-04-04
ECLI:EU:C:2019:288

A screw or other foreign object debris (FOD) on the runway that damages an aircraft tyre is an extraordinary circumstance. This differs explicitly from technical faults arising from the normal functioning of the aircraft: the cause of damage lies outside the carrier's control and responsibility.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

TAP Portugal — death of co-pilot (flightright/Myflyright)

C-156/22, C-157/22 and C-158/22 (joined) · 2023-05-11
ECLI:EU:C:2023:393

The sudden and unexpected death of a co-pilot shortly before scheduled departure, requiring the flight to be cancelled, is NOT an extraordinary circumstance. Though tragic and unforeseeable, the general event 'unexpected loss of a crew member' is part of the carrier's normal operations and within its actual control — comparable to the Krüsemann reasoning on staff unrest.

Source on EUR-Lex
CJEU

AirHelp Germany v Austrian Airlines (lightning judgment)

C-399/24 · 2025-10-16
ECLI:EU:C:2025:791

A lightning strike on an aircraft during the previous flight, requiring a mandatory safety inspection and resulting delay, falls within 'extraordinary circumstances'. A lightning strike is not inherent in the normal operation of aviation activity and lies outside the carrier's actual control. The carrier must still demonstrate it took all reasonable replacement / re-routing measures.

Source on EUR-Lex

The tool falls under the EU AI Act as a limited-risk AI system. Not high-risk — the tool helps a consumer draft a letter, not a judicial authority or government body.

  • Transparency: this page explains what the tool does and doesn't do, and which sources are used.
  • No free citation generation: the AI only cites from a fixed, manually curated set.
  • No legal advice: the tool is a drafting assistant, not an advisor.
  • Closed-set fallback: if the AI goes out of bounds, the tool falls back to the template letter.
Full AI Act dossier →

Frequently asked questions

What do you do with my data?

Nothing stored. Your data goes to the AI platform to draft the letter — and for some cases one extra call for scenario matching (see 'Which language model?' above) — and after that everything lives only in your browser. No database, no account, no mailing list. If you clear your browser cache, it's all gone — which in this case is a feature.

Does the AI make things up?

Sometimes, yes. So this tool is only allowed to cite from a fixed, hand-checked set — the Regulation, EU Court of Justice rulings, Dutch court decisions. The full list is on this page, under 'Which rulings does the tool use?'. Doubt a citation in the letter? Verify it yourself via the links on this page.

What does "limited-risk AI" under the AI Act mean?

The EU classifies AI systems by risk. A drafting assistant generating legal text for consumers falls under "limited-risk" — the obligation is that the tool is transparent about what it is (an AI), what it can/can't do, and which sources it uses. No regulator approval, no licence, just transparency. Hence this page.
Write my claim letter →← back to the tool