EJC: Petrol on the airport runway an extraordinary circumstance
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has recently established that a long delay of a flight, which occurs due to a spillage of petrol on the airport runway, is an extraordinary circumstance which constitutes an exemption from the obligation of the air carrier to pay compensation to a passenger. This applies when the petrol does not originate from the aircraft taking off.
According to the EC Regulation 261/2004, a passenger has the right to receive compensation from the operating air carrier when a flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours. An exemption to this right applies when the cancellation or delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided, even though, all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier. The Regulation does not list all the events that fall within the concept of extraordinary circumstances, this is left to the CJEU to decide through case law.
In the present matter, a passenger was delayed by more than three hours on his flight from Treviso in Italy to Charleroi in Belgium. With reference to the Regulation, the passenger claimed 250 € from the air carrier Ryanair Ltd in compensation for the delay. The delay was caused by a spillage of petrol which caused closing of the airport runway for more than two hours. Ryanair stated that the presence of petrol on the runway, which caused the delay, fell within the scope of an extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, the air carrier claimed that it was not obligated to pay compensation to the passenger.
Consequently, it was up to the CJEU to decide whether a spillage of petrol on the airport runway constitutes an extraordinary circumstance which exonerates the air carrier from the obligation to compensate passengers when a flight is significantly delayed.
An extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided
In its verdict, the CJEU found that a spilling of petrol on the airport runway neither by its nature or origin is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned. The Court also referred to the judgement C-501/17 (Germanwings) where it was emphasized that the maintenance of the airport runway is the responsibility of the airport authorities and is in no way within the competence of the air carrier. Furthermore, the decision of the competent airport authorities to close runways at an airport is binding on air carriers.
Therefore, the EJC established that a spilling of petrol, which leads to closing of the airport runway and significant delay of a flight, is covered by the concept of extraordinary circumstances. Yet, the Court emphasized that the concept only applies where the petrol in question does not origin from an aircraft of the air carrier which operated the flight.
Furthermore, the CJEU specified that the presence of petrol on an airport runway, which leads to the closure of that runway, must be regarded as a circumstance which could not have been avoided if all reasonable measures was taken. For that reason, the spilling of petrol in the present matter fell within the concept of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the air carrier Ryanair was released of its obligation to compensate the passenger for the delayed flight.
IUNO’s opinion
The judgement emphasizes that the maintenance of the airport runways is the responsibility of the airport authorities. Consequently, the spilling of petrol on the runway is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier and is beyond the effective control of the air carrier. The air carrier is, therefore, not responsible for cancellations and delays of flights, which occur because of lack in the maintenance of the airport runways, as this would be too big of a burden for the air carrier concerned.
According to the EC Regulation 261/2004, a passenger has the right to receive compensation from the operating air carrier when a flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours. An exemption to this right applies when the cancellation or delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided, even though, all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier. The Regulation does not list all the events that fall within the concept of extraordinary circumstances, this is left to the CJEU to decide through case law.
In the present matter, a passenger was delayed by more than three hours on his flight from Treviso in Italy to Charleroi in Belgium. With reference to the Regulation, the passenger claimed 250 € from the air carrier Ryanair Ltd in compensation for the delay. The delay was caused by a spillage of petrol which caused closing of the airport runway for more than two hours. Ryanair stated that the presence of petrol on the runway, which caused the delay, fell within the scope of an extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, the air carrier claimed that it was not obligated to pay compensation to the passenger.
Consequently, it was up to the CJEU to decide whether a spillage of petrol on the airport runway constitutes an extraordinary circumstance which exonerates the air carrier from the obligation to compensate passengers when a flight is significantly delayed.
An extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided
In its verdict, the CJEU found that a spilling of petrol on the airport runway neither by its nature or origin is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned. The Court also referred to the judgement C-501/17 (Germanwings) where it was emphasized that the maintenance of the airport runway is the responsibility of the airport authorities and is in no way within the competence of the air carrier. Furthermore, the decision of the competent airport authorities to close runways at an airport is binding on air carriers.
Therefore, the EJC established that a spilling of petrol, which leads to closing of the airport runway and significant delay of a flight, is covered by the concept of extraordinary circumstances. Yet, the Court emphasized that the concept only applies where the petrol in question does not origin from an aircraft of the air carrier which operated the flight.
Furthermore, the CJEU specified that the presence of petrol on an airport runway, which leads to the closure of that runway, must be regarded as a circumstance which could not have been avoided if all reasonable measures was taken. For that reason, the spilling of petrol in the present matter fell within the concept of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the air carrier Ryanair was released of its obligation to compensate the passenger for the delayed flight.
IUNO’s opinion
The judgement emphasizes that the maintenance of the airport runways is the responsibility of the airport authorities. Consequently, the spilling of petrol on the runway is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier and is beyond the effective control of the air carrier. The air carrier is, therefore, not responsible for cancellations and delays of flights, which occur because of lack in the maintenance of the airport runways, as this would be too big of a burden for the air carrier concerned.
Similar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Legal assistant
Amalie
Sofie Sveen Kvam
Legal assistant
Amanda
Jepsen Bregnhardt
Junior legal assistant
Andrea
Brix Danielsen
Legal assistant
Anna
Bonander
Legal assistant
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal assistant
Anne
Poulsen
Senior legal advisor
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Legal assistant
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal assistant
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Carl-Emil
Schumann Dinesen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Skarsø Erwolter
Legal assistant
Cecilie
Padbjerg Kjelstrup
Legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal assistant
Emma
Engvang Hansen
Legal assistant
Emma
Frøslev Larsen
Legal manager
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal assistant
Frederik
Dybro Mikkelsen
Junior legal assistant
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Senior legal assistant
Gabrielle
Marie Rokkjær
Legal assistant
Gustav
Vestergaard
Legal assistant
Hila
Noori Hashimi
Legal assistant
Ida
Ralfkiær Rask
Legal assistant
Ingrid
Lützner Buch
Legal assistant
Isabella
Graae Norsker
Legal assistant
Isabella
Rocio Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ittqa
Hussain
Legal assistant
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Legal assistant
Josephine
Thenning Kannegaard
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Junior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Legal assistant
Kathrine
Arntzen Lauvstad
Junior legal assistant
Laura
Jørgensen
Legal assistant
Lise
Jørgen Carlsen Gjerde
Associate
Liva
Tværmose Høegh
Legal assistant
Magnus
Henckel Holtse
Legal assistant
Marie
Langermann-Nielsen
Legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Legal manager
Nikoline
Lanzky Otto
Legal assistant
Peter
Basbøll
Legal assistant
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal assistant
Selma
Agopian
Senior EU associate
Sille
Lyng Mejding
Legal assistant
Simone
Bjergskov Nielsen
Legal assistant
Sofie
Storli
Legal assistant
Sofija
Cabrilo
Legal assistant
Sophia
Maria Dahl-Jensen
Senior legal advisor