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

Similar

logo
Aviation

26 May 2025

Claims for compensation and interest must be sent to the correct email address

logo
Aviation

22 April 2025

Regulation 261/2004 does not cover helicopter transport

logo
Aviation

18 February 2025

A passenger’s own rebooking did not grant compensation

logo
Aviation

22 January 2025

Internal documentation was sufficient

logo
Aviation

18 December 2024

Sweden to abolish aviation tax

logo
Aviation

11 December 2024

ICAO raises airline liability limits

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Junior legal advisor

Albert

Berg Giese

Legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Senior legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Legal advisor

Anna

Ferguson Bille-Biggart

Junior legal assistant

Anna

Kreutzmann

Legal manager (leave of absence)

Anna

Laura Brohl Larsen

Junior legal assistant

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Senior legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Senior legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Aurora

Maria Thunes Truyen

Associate

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Caroline

Sofie Urup Malmstrøm

Legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Legal advisor

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Junior legal advisor

Ea

Tingkær Hesselfeldt

Legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Junior legal advisor

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Legal advisor

Emilie

Mehl Bagger

Junior legal assistant

Feline

Honoré Jepsen

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Senior legal assistant

Freja

Pedersen

Junior legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Associate

Gustav

Vestergaard

Senior legal assistant

Holger

Koch-Klarskov

Legal advisor

Ian

Englev Jensen

Legal assistant

Ida

Marie Skovgaard Rubæk

Senior legal manager

Isabella

Fjording

Junior legal assistant

Izabell

Celina Bastrup Lüthje

Senior legal assistant

Johanne

Alberte Liljeborg

Junior legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Julia

Wolfe

Legal advisor

Kaisa

Maria Falkenberg Lending

Junior legal advisor

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Senior legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Senior legal manager

Kateryna

Buriak

Legal advisor

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Luna

Bennesen

Legal assistant

Marie

Møller Christensen

Junior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Rex Brohus

Junior legal assistant

Mathilde

Bjørn Bjerring

Junior legal assistant

Mathilde

Stenderup

Junior legal assistant

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Merle

Frisendahl Fog

Junior legal assistant

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal advisor

Nourchaine

Sellami

Legal advisor

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior Associate, EU-advokat

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Legal advisor

Silja

Brünnich Fogh von Deden

Legal assistant

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Legal advisor

Ulrikke

Sejersbøl Christiansen

Junior legal advisor

Victoria

Mai Gregaard Handberg

Legal advisor

Viktoria

Eline Hegelund

Senior legal assistant