EN
Aviation

Collisions with foreign objects is considered an extraordinary circumstance.

logo
Legal news
calendar 7 August 2019
globus Denmark

In a recent ruling, The European Court of Justice (CJEU) declared that damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object, in this case screws, falls within the notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation to passengers in these situations, according to art 7 in the 261/204.

Passengers are entitled to compensation if the flight is more than three hours delayed, unless the event which caused the delay is to consider an extraordinary circumstance. Circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The case revolved around a passenger who had booked a flight from Dublin to Düsseldorf with Germanwings. The flight was delayed for 3 hours and 28 minutes due to a screw in a tyre that was found during the preparations for take-off, which meant that the tyre needed to be changed.

Due to the delay, the passenger claimed 250 euro in compensation in accordance with art 7 of regulation 261/2004. Germanwings, refused to pay compensation, on the ground that the delay of the flight in question was due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

At first Amtsgericht Köln (Local Court, Cologne, Germany) held that the reason for the delay, constituted a circumstance which is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier, thus inside of their actual control and did not fall under the notion of extraordinary circumstances. The court ruled for Germanwings to pay the plaintiff 250 euro in compensation for the delay.

Germanwings contested that the screw in the tyre was within their control, as they argued that it can impossibly be an assessment of air carriers to clean the runways from foreign objects, in this case screws. This is within the scope of the airport, not the air carrier.

Consequently, Germanwings brought an appeal against that decision before the Landgericht Köln (Regional Court, Cologne). The court requested in turn for a preliminary ruling in order to achieve clarity of whether this situation is to be considered an extraordinary circumstance or not.

The CJEU acknowledge that there are strict demands on air carriers regarding regular safety as an everyday operating procedure. However, the obligation is not limitless. And CJEU found that damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object, such as loose debris, falls within the notion of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, Germanwings were not obliged to pay compensation to the passenger, if they could prove that they deployed all their resources in order to avoid the changing of a tyre damaged by a foreign object.

 

IUNO’s opinion

The compensation responsibility would be too comprehensive if it was air carriers obligation to clean the runways. Cleaning and clearing the airport runway is to be attributed to general air traffic and not to the specific tasks of an air carrier.  However, it is currently unclear exactly how Swedish law will react to CJEU’s judgment. We will closely follow future cases concerning the interpretation of extraordinary circumstances and report relevant information further on.

(European court of justice ruling of 4th of April 2019 C‑501/17)

In a recent ruling, The European Court of Justice (CJEU) declared that damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object, in this case screws, falls within the notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation to passengers in these situations, according to art 7 in the 261/204.

Passengers are entitled to compensation if the flight is more than three hours delayed, unless the event which caused the delay is to consider an extraordinary circumstance. Circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The case revolved around a passenger who had booked a flight from Dublin to Düsseldorf with Germanwings. The flight was delayed for 3 hours and 28 minutes due to a screw in a tyre that was found during the preparations for take-off, which meant that the tyre needed to be changed.

Due to the delay, the passenger claimed 250 euro in compensation in accordance with art 7 of regulation 261/2004. Germanwings, refused to pay compensation, on the ground that the delay of the flight in question was due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

At first Amtsgericht Köln (Local Court, Cologne, Germany) held that the reason for the delay, constituted a circumstance which is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier, thus inside of their actual control and did not fall under the notion of extraordinary circumstances. The court ruled for Germanwings to pay the plaintiff 250 euro in compensation for the delay.

Germanwings contested that the screw in the tyre was within their control, as they argued that it can impossibly be an assessment of air carriers to clean the runways from foreign objects, in this case screws. This is within the scope of the airport, not the air carrier.

Consequently, Germanwings brought an appeal against that decision before the Landgericht Köln (Regional Court, Cologne). The court requested in turn for a preliminary ruling in order to achieve clarity of whether this situation is to be considered an extraordinary circumstance or not.

The CJEU acknowledge that there are strict demands on air carriers regarding regular safety as an everyday operating procedure. However, the obligation is not limitless. And CJEU found that damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object, such as loose debris, falls within the notion of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, Germanwings were not obliged to pay compensation to the passenger, if they could prove that they deployed all their resources in order to avoid the changing of a tyre damaged by a foreign object.

 

IUNO’s opinion

The compensation responsibility would be too comprehensive if it was air carriers obligation to clean the runways. Cleaning and clearing the airport runway is to be attributed to general air traffic and not to the specific tasks of an air carrier.  However, it is currently unclear exactly how Swedish law will react to CJEU’s judgment. We will closely follow future cases concerning the interpretation of extraordinary circumstances and report relevant information further on.

(European court of justice ruling of 4th of April 2019 C‑501/17)

Receive our newsletter

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Sofie

Aurora Braut Bache

Associate

Similar

logo
Aviation

25 August 2021

logo
Aviation

15 April 2021

logo
Aviation

5 April 2021

logo
Aviation

15 March 2021

logo
Aviation

5 March 2021

logo
Aviation

23 February 2021

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Anne

Poulsen

Legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Junior legal assistant

Carl-Emil

Schumann Dinesen

Junior legal assistant

Caroline

Bruun Ibsen

Senior legal assistant

Cecilie

Marie Hoff Schmidt

Senior legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Christian

Hulegaard Kjær Sørensen

Senior legal assistant

Clara

Andersen Øfeldt

Senior legal assistant

Ellen

Thorn Ekstrøm

Senior legal assistant

Elsa

Kalén

Legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Junior legal assistant

Emma

Zisko Norman Svendsen

Senior legal assistant

Fanny

Hansson

Junior legal assistant

Ingrid

Nordgård Kvaal

Legal assistant

Julie

Aagaard Thomsen

Senior legal assistant

Joachim

Sieverts Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Kathinka

Buchter

Legal assistant

Kathrine

Münter

Legal assistant

Kathrine

Wohlers Sørensen

Junior legal assistant

Kirstine

Damkjær Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal assistant

Line

Ponton Nemeth

Junior legal assistant

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Legal assistant

Sandra

Miriam Westall Dovalo

Legal assistant

Sara

Helenius

Senior legal assistant

Selma

Agopian

EU Lawyer

Siri

Agnete Bennekou

Junior legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal assistant

Sophie

Toftegaard

Senior legal assistant