No Cap on Airline Accommodation Costs Without a Section 9A Order

A recent Israeli ruling confirms: unless the Minister acts, there is no cap on assistance but reasonableness still matters.

In Dahan v. El Al (70105-03-26, 3 September 2026), the Lod District Court (Central District) addressed a question of immediate relevance to every carrier operating flights to and from Israel: when airspace closes for an extended period and passengers are stranded abroad, how many nights of accommodation must the airline cover?

What Happened?

A family of six flew El Al from Israel to Krakow. Hours after landing, Operation Rising Lion began and Israeli airspace closed. Their return flight, scheduled five days later, was cancelled. With no rescue flights from Krakow or Warsaw, the family stayed 16 additional nights in Poland before returning on an El Al repatriation flight.

The passenger claimed accommodation, meals, and ground-transport costs of about NIS 39,000. El Al argued that the war was an exceptional circumstance and that, in any event, section 9A of the Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance for Flight Cancellation or Change of Conditions), 5772-2012 limited its accommodation obligation to two nights.

How Did the Small Claims Court Rule?

The Small Claims Court found the cancellation unavoidable. It held that section 9A did not cap accommodation because it assumed an alternative flight would be available within a reasonable time. Nonetheless, given the exceptional circumstances, it awarded only four nights of accommodation.

How Did the District Court Rule?

The District Court reversed on the accommodation issue. It held that:

• Section 9A does not cap entitlements: It authorizes the Minister of Transport, following the required consultations and Knesset approval, to limit accommodation assistance during a declared special situation. No such order was issued.
• Section 9A was enacted specifically for exceptional circumstances: The amendment was passed during Operation Swords of Iron in response to prolonged flight disruptions, contrary to the lower court’s view that it presupposed readily available alternative flights.
• Without a ministerial order, the ordinary statutory regime applies: Under sections 3 and 6 of the Law, passengers whose flights are cancelled are entitled to accommodation where a stay of one or more nights is required, without a statutory limit.
• Entitlement depends on necessity and reasonableness: Accommodation costs are recoverable only where the stay was genuinely required and the expenditure reasonable.

El Al’s representative confirmed that the 16-night stay was unavoidable, and the airline did not dispute the reasonableness of the claimed costs, about NIS 200 per person per night. The Court awarded the full accommodation amount, bringing total compensation to NIS 29,057 plus costs.

What Does This Mean for Foreign Carriers?

The ruling reinforces that under current Israeli law, airlines cannot rely on section 9A as a defense unless a ministerial order has been issued. Airlines facing claims arising from the wartime airspace closures should note that each case will turn on its own facts, particularly whether the duration of the stay was genuinely unavoidable and whether costs were reasonable. The decision does not create automatic or unlimited liability, but it does confirm that the absence of a section 9A order leaves the full statutory assistance regime in place. A petition to the High Court of Justice concerning the Minister’s exercise of her section 9A powers is currently pending and may reshape the landscape in the coming months.