The appellate court ruled that according to article 4, 7. Directive 90/314 (implemented in Belgian law through article 15 of the Act of 16 February 1994) the plaintiff was indeed obliged to provide suitable alternatives or to compensate the consumer (where such alternatives are impossible or not acceptable to the consumer for good reasons). The fact that the plaintiff did not have a representative in Iceland was discarded as an invalid reason.
The appellate court further ruled that the force majeure event, caused by the volcano eruption, does not relieve the plaintiff from the aforementioned obligation.
The Supreme Court agreed with the motivation of the appellate court and confirmed the judgement.