flightclaimletters Find my letter

T 06 Triage · 22 reasons · 14 judgments

The airline said “extraordinary circumstances”. Was it right?

Pick the reason the airline gave you. You get the verdict, the judgment of the Court of Justice that decided it — case number, year and a link to the text — and one paragraph you can paste into your letter. Nothing you pick leaves your browser.

Article 5(3) has two limbs and the airline has to win both. The circumstance must be extraordinary and it must be one that “could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”. Airlines argue the first and go quiet on the second. A bird strike, a runway closure, a security alert — every one of them still leaves the airline to prove what it did to get you there anyway (Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07; Eglītis, C-294/10). And whatever the cause, care under Article 9 and a refund or re-routing under Article 8 are never excused.

What reason did the airline give?

Use their words, from the email or the app — not what you think happened. What they called it is what decides whether the refusal stands up.

  1. A technical or mechanical fault with the aircraft Including a fault found during maintenance, or ordinary wear Usually NOT extraordinary
  2. A sudden failure of a part that was not past its lifespan “Nobody could have seen it coming”, “it passed its last check” Usually NOT extraordinary
  3. A hidden manufacturing defect, sabotage or terrorism The manufacturer or an authority told the airline the type was affected Depends — here is the test
  4. A bird strike The aircraft hit a bird and had to be inspected Usually IS extraordinary
  5. A wildcat strike or mass sickout by the airline’s own staff Crew called in sick after a restructuring announcement Usually NOT extraordinary
  6. A lawful strike by the airline’s own pilots or cabin crew Announced by the union, with proper notice, over pay or conditions Usually NOT extraordinary
  7. The airline’s own staff struck in sympathy with a parent company A subsidiary’s crew walked out over the group’s dispute Usually NOT extraordinary
  8. A strike by people who do not work for the airline Air-traffic control, airport security, a separate ground-handling company Usually IS extraordinary
  9. You were refused boarding after an earlier flight was disrupted The airline reorganised its passengers and you lost the seat Usually NOT extraordinary
  10. Airspace was closed — volcanic ash, or a similar closure The flight could not physically be operated Usually IS extraordinary
  11. Something on the runway damaged the aircraft A screw or other foreign object destroyed a tyre Usually IS extraordinary
  12. Fuel spilled on the runway and it was closed The spill came from another aircraft, not the airline’s Usually IS extraordinary
  13. A disruptive passenger forced a diversion The aircraft landed somewhere else to put someone off Usually IS extraordinary
  14. A crew member fell ill or died shortly before departure A pilot or cabin-crew member was suddenly unavailable Usually NOT extraordinary
  15. Ground equipment at the airport hit the aircraft Boarding stairs, a tug or a belt loader caused the damage Usually NOT extraordinary
  16. Air-traffic control held the flight or moved the slot A flow-management restriction on this aircraft, on this day Usually IS extraordinary
  17. Bad weather Storm, fog, snow, wind, thunderstorms at either airport or en route Usually IS extraordinary
  18. The aircraft arrived late from an earlier flight A knock-on delay from the same aircraft’s previous rotation Depends — here is the test
  19. The crew ran out of legal duty hours Flight-time limitations stopped the crew from operating Depends — here is the test
  20. Queues, security or short-staffing at the airport Long security lines, missing ground staff, slow immigration Depends — here is the test
  21. A security alert, political instability or unrest A threat, an evacuation, or trouble at the destination Usually IS extraordinary
  22. “Operational reasons”, a commercial decision, or the airline’s finances Low load factor, aircraft moved to another route, no reason given Usually NOT extraordinary

Every reason, and what the Court has said

The same answers, written out. Verdicts are grouped by what they mean for your claim.

Usually NOT extraordinary

The refusal is weak. Compensation under Article 7 is normally still owed, and the burden of proof is on the airline.

A technical or mechanical fault with the aircraft Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008)

Solving technical problems is part of running an airline. The Court of Justice excludes a technical fault from Article 5(3) unless it stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and are beyond its actual control. The same judgment adds that meeting the minimum maintenance rules does not by itself prove all reasonable measures were taken.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Even if you establish that the fault was extraordinary, Article 5(3) also requires you to show what you did to get me there anyway — a reserve aircraft, a sub-charter, or a seat on another carrier.

What to write back

You state that the disruption to flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was caused by a technical or mechanical fault with the aircraft. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008) the Court of Justice held that a technical problem leading to a cancellation is not an extraordinary circumstance unless it stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control, and that compliance with the minimum rules on maintenance does not in itself suffice to establish that all reasonable measures were taken; in van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14, 2015) it added that a fault which occurs unexpectedly and is not detected during routine checks is equally not extraordinary. Please identify the specific fault, its origin, and the measures you took to avoid the disruption. I therefore maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

A sudden failure of a part that was not past its lifespan van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14, 2015)

Surprise does not make a fault extraordinary. The Court has held that a technical problem which occurs unexpectedly, is not attributable to poor maintenance and was not detected during routine checks still falls outside the concept of extraordinary circumstances. This is the most common wrongful refusal on the whole Regulation.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Because the circumstance is not extraordinary, the second limb is not reached at all — but you have in any event not told me what alternatives to the cancelled flight you looked for.

What to write back

You state that the disruption to flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was caused by an unforeseeable failure of a component that was within its service life. In van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14, 2015) the Court of Justice held that a technical problem which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks does not fall within the definition of extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3). The unexpectedness of the failure is therefore not a defence, and the underlying test set out in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008) — events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and are beyond its actual control — is not met. I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

A wildcat strike or mass sickout by the airline’s own staff Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly (C-195/17 and joined cases, 2018)

A spontaneous walkout by the carrier’s own crew, following a surprise restructuring announcement and called not by staff representatives but by the workers themselves going on sick leave, is not an extraordinary circumstance. The trigger came from the airline’s own management decision, which makes it a normal business risk.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

The circumstance is not extraordinary, so the second limb is not reached; if you disagree, set out in writing what re-routing you looked for, including on other carriers.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by a spontaneous absence of your own staff. In Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly (C-195/17 and joined cases, 2018) the Court of Justice held that the spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew staff, stemming from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking and following a call echoed spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by the concept of extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3). I therefore maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

A lawful strike by the airline’s own pilots or cabin crew Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines System (C-28/20, 2021)

Lawfulness does not save the airline. The Court of Justice held that a strike called by a trade union of the carrier’s own staff, in compliance with national law including the notice period, to assert that carrier’s workers’ demands, and followed by staff essential to operating the flight, is not an extraordinary circumstance. Collective action by your own workforce is part of running an airline.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Notice of the strike is itself the point: a carrier told in advance that its own crew will strike is expected to plan around it, not to treat the day as unavoidable.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was cancelled because of industrial action by your own flight or cabin crew. In Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines System (C-28/20, 2021) the Court of Justice held that strike action entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier, in compliance with the conditions laid down by national legislation and in particular the notice period imposed by it, which is intended to assert the demands of that carrier’s workers and which is followed by a category of staff essential for operating a flight, does not fall within the concept of an extraordinary circumstance. I therefore maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

The airline’s own staff struck in sympathy with a parent company CS v Eurowings (C-613/20, 2021)

The Court has extended the own-staff rule to solidarity action inside a group. Strike action by the subsidiary’s own crew, called in solidarity with a strike against the parent company, followed by staff needed to operate the flight, and continuing past the announced end date even after the parent settled, is still not an extraordinary circumstance.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

The action was taken by your own employees, so it was inside your undertaking; the second limb is not reached, and re-routing options should still be disclosed.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by industrial action connected with a dispute at your parent company. In CS v Eurowings (C-613/20, 2021) the Court of Justice held that strike action entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier in solidarity with strike action launched against the parent company of which that carrier is a subsidiary, observed by staff whose presence is necessary to operate a flight, and continuing beyond the period originally announced despite an agreement having been reached with the parent company, is not covered by the concept of extraordinary circumstances; the same conclusion was reached for a lawful strike by a carrier’s own staff in Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines System (C-28/20, 2021). I therefore maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

You were refused boarding after an earlier flight was disrupted Finnair v Lassooy (C-22/11, 2012)

This is denied boarding under Article 4, not a cancellation, and the extraordinary-circumstances defence does not travel across flights. Where a strike had grounded an earlier flight and the carrier then refused boarding on a later, rescheduled one, the Court held that the earlier extraordinary circumstance does not release the carrier from paying compensation to the passenger bumped from the later flight.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Article 4(3) has no extraordinary-circumstances exception at all, so the second limb does not arise; what happened on the earlier flight is not a defence to this one.

What to write back

You refused me boarding on flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] and rely on a disruption to an earlier flight. In Finnair v Lassooy (C-22/11, 2012) the Court of Justice held that the concept of denied boarding is not limited to overbooking, and that extraordinary circumstances leading an air carrier to reschedule flights after they occurred cannot justify denying boarding on a later flight or release the carrier from its obligation to compensate a passenger under Article 4(3). I therefore maintain my claim under Articles 4(3) and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

A crew member fell ill or died shortly before departure TAP Portugal v flightright and Myflyright (C-156/22 to C-158/22, 2023)

The Court decided this on facts as stark as they get — a co-pilot found dead in his hotel hours before the flight — and still held it was not extraordinary. The unexpected absence of a crew member whose presence is essential, through illness or death shortly before departure, is inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Staffing to absorb an absence is the airline’s own planning; the second limb is not reached because the circumstance is not extraordinary.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was cancelled or delayed because a crew member was unexpectedly unavailable. In TAP Portugal v flightright and Myflyright (C-156/22 to C-158/22, 2023) the Court of Justice held that the unexpected absence, due to illness or death of a crew member whose presence is essential to the operation of a flight, occurring shortly before the scheduled departure of that flight, does not fall within the concept of extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3). I therefore maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Ground equipment at the airport hit the aircraft Siewert v Condor Flugdienst (order) (C-394/14, 2014)

Damage from the airport’s own mobile boarding stairs colliding with the aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance. Ground equipment is used on every turnaround, so its use — and the damage it can do — is inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity, even where the handler is a separate company.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

The circumstance is not extraordinary; if you say the damage was different in kind from boarding stairs, identify the equipment, the operator and the inspection that followed.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was delayed by damage caused by ground equipment at the airport. In Siewert v Condor Flugdienst (C-394/14, order of 2014) the Court of Justice held that a situation in which an airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft cannot be categorised as extraordinary circumstances exempting the carrier from paying compensation for a long delay to a flight operated by that aircraft. I therefore maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

“Operational reasons”, a commercial decision, or the airline’s finances Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008)

“Operational reasons” is not a cause and not a defence. Article 5(3) requires the airline to prove a named circumstance, and Recital 14 lists the kinds of event the legislature had in mind — none of them is a commercial choice. Moving an aircraft to a better-selling route, or cancelling a thin flight, is the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and inside its actual control.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

There is nothing to measure against: a commercial decision is the airline’s own act, so the second limb cannot be satisfied.

What to write back

You have described the cause of the disruption to flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] only as operational. That is not a circumstance capable of engaging Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, which requires you to prove a specific circumstance that was extraordinary and unavoidable. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008) the Court of Justice held that the concept covers only events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. Please state the specific cause in writing. If no such cause is given I will treat the claim as refused without reason, and I maintain it under Article 7 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Depends — here is the test

It turns on facts only the airline holds. Ask for them in writing; an unanswered question is not a proven defence.

A hidden manufacturing defect, sabotage or terrorism Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008)

These are the two examples the Court itself gave of a technical problem that could be extraordinary: a hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the manufacturer or a competent authority as affecting flight safety, and damage caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism. That passage is reasoning, not a ruling, and it only opens the door — the airline still has to produce the notice or the security report and show the defect actually grounded your flight.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

A genuine hidden defect still leaves you to prove what you did once you knew — grounding one aircraft is not the same as being unable to operate the flight.

What to write back

You state that the disruption to flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was caused by a hidden defect or by a deliberate act against the aircraft. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008, paragraph 26) the Court of Justice gave as its examples a hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the manufacturer or a competent authority as impinging on flight safety, and damage caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism. Please send me the airworthiness directive, manufacturer’s notice or security report you rely on, together with the date it was issued, so that I can see the causal link to my flight. Until that evidence is produced I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

The aircraft arrived late from an earlier flight LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (C-74/19, 2020)

The chain is allowed, but the airline has to prove it. A carrier may rely on an extraordinary circumstance that affected a previous flight operated by the same aircraft, provided there is a direct causal link between that circumstance and the delay or cancellation of your flight. If the earlier delay had an ordinary cause — a technical fault, crewing, a late turnaround — the chain fails at its first link.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Even with a genuine chain, the airline must show the reserve time in its schedule and the re-routing it looked for once the aircraft was running late.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was delayed because the aircraft arrived late from a previous rotation. In LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (C-74/19, 2020) the Court of Justice held that a carrier may rely on an extraordinary circumstance affecting a previous flight operated by the same aircraft only where there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that circumstance and the delay or cancellation of the subsequent flight. Please identify the earlier flight, the specific cause of its delay and the evidence for it. If that cause was a technical problem, Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008) applies and it is not extraordinary. I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

The crew ran out of legal duty hours LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (C-74/19, 2020)

No judgment of the Court of Justice decides duty-hour limits directly, so this is answered by the general test rather than by a case on the point. Rostering and standby cover are inherent in the normal exercise of a carrier’s activity, so running out of hours is ordinarily the airline’s own risk. It only becomes a defence if the airline proves an extraordinary circumstance earlier in the day caused the overrun, with a direct causal link.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Standby crew, a positioning crew or a sub-charter are the measures to ask about; the airline must say which it considered and why none was available.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] could not operate because the crew reached their duty limits. Please identify what caused the crew to reach those limits, and the evidence for it. Rostering and standby cover are inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity, and in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008) the Court of Justice confined Article 5(3) to events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in that activity and are beyond the carrier’s actual control; in LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (C-74/19, 2020) it required a direct causal link where the carrier relies on a circumstance affecting an earlier flight. I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Queues, security or short-staffing at the airport Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008)

We could find no judgment of the Court of Justice that settles this, and we will not cite one that does not exist. It is decided by the general test: the airline has to prove the congestion was, by its nature or origin, not inherent in the normal exercise of its activity and beyond its actual control, and then that it could not have avoided the disruption anyway. Its own check-in or boarding staffing is not beyond its control.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Ask what the airline did once the queues were known: extra staff at the gate, holding the flight, or re-routing those who missed it.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by congestion or staffing at the airport. Please state which process was affected, who operated it, and the evidence you rely on. Under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 the burden is on you to prove both that the circumstance was extraordinary and that it could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken; in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 2008) the Court of Justice confined that concept to events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. I maintain my claim under Article 7 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Usually IS extraordinary

Compensation under Article 7 is normally excused — but care under Article 9, and a refund or re-routing under Article 8, are still owed.

A bird strike Pešková and Peška v Travel Service (C-315/15, 2017)

A collision between an aircraft and a bird is an extraordinary circumstance. That is only half the test, and the Court used the other half against the airline in the same judgment: a delay caused by the carrier calling in its own expert for fresh safety checks, after an authorised expert had already cleared the aircraft, is not due to extraordinary circumstances. Where a delay has two causes, only the part caused by the bird strike may be deducted.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Reasonable measures here include bird-control measures at the airport that the carrier could actually take without intolerable sacrifice, and not duplicating an inspection an authorised expert had already signed off.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by a bird strike. In Pešková and Peška v Travel Service (C-315/15, 2017) the Court of Justice held that a collision between an aircraft and a bird is an extraordinary circumstance, but also that a cancellation or delay is not due to extraordinary circumstances where it results from the carrier calling on its own expert to carry out fresh safety checks after an authorised expert has already carried them out, and that the delay attributable to the extraordinary circumstance must be separated from any other delay. Please tell me who cleared the aircraft, at what time, and what accounted for the remaining delay, and confirm what preventive control measures you had in place. Until then I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

A strike by people who do not work for the airline Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines System (C-28/20, 2021)

Recital 14 names strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier, and the Court of Justice has read that as pointing at strikes external to the carrier’s activity, giving strike action by air-traffic controllers or airport staff as its examples. That passage is the Court’s reasoning rather than its ruling, and it does not decide who the strikers were on your flight — the airline has to name the organisation and the date.

Authority

  • Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines System (C-28/20) 2021 paragraph 42 — the Court’s reasoning, not its ruling 62020CJ0028
  • Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, recital 14 Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

The second limb — reasonable measures

An external strike excuses compensation only if you also show what you did once you knew — re-routing, including on other carriers, and the reserve time your schedule allowed.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by a strike. Please confirm in writing which organisation’s employees were on strike and on which date. In Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines System (C-28/20, 2021, paragraph 42) the Court of Justice read recital 14 as referring to strikes external to the activity of the air carrier concerned, giving strike action by air-traffic controllers or airport staff as its examples; a strike by your own employees is not such a case. If the strike was internal to your undertaking, I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Airspace was closed — volcanic ash, or a similar closure McDonagh v Ryanair (C-12/11, 2013)

The closure of part of European airspace after the Eyjafjallajökull eruption was an extraordinary circumstance, so the fixed compensation was not owed. The point the Court actually decided, though, was the opposite of what airlines quote it for: the duty to provide care under Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 carried on regardless, with no time limit and no monetary cap.

Authority

  • McDonagh v Ryanair (C-12/11) 2013 62011CJ0012
  • Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, recital 14 Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

The second limb — reasonable measures

Care under Article 9 is owed whatever the cause, so the closure does not answer this part of the claim at all.

What to write back

You rely on an airspace closure affecting flight [Flight number] on [Flight date]. I accept that such a closure can be an extraordinary circumstance, and I am not asking for compensation under Article 7 on that basis. In McDonagh v Ryanair (C-12/11, 2013) the Court of Justice held that such circumstances do not release an air carrier from its obligation under Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 to provide care, and that this obligation is neither limited in time nor capped in amount. I am therefore claiming reimbursement of the meals, refreshments and accommodation set out below, in the sum of [Currency] [Amount], with receipts attached.

Something on the runway damaged the aircraft Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17, 2019)

Damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object lying on an airport runway is an extraordinary circumstance. The Court attached a condition in the same ruling: the carrier is exempt only if it also proves it deployed all its resources in staff, equipment and money to avoid the tyre change causing a long delay.

Authority

  • Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17) 2019 62017CJ0501
  • Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, recital 14 Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

The second limb — reasonable measures

A tyre change is routine work: the question is not whether the object was extraordinary but why the replacement took as long as it did.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was delayed by damage from an object on the runway. In Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17, 2019) the Court of Justice held that damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object lying on an airport runway falls within the concept of extraordinary circumstances, but that the carrier is exempted from compensation only where it proves it deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal in order to avoid the replacement of the damaged tyre leading to a long delay. Please set out those measures and their timings. Until you do, I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Fuel spilled on the runway and it was closed Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18, 2019)

Petrol on a runway that leads to the runway being closed, and so to a long delay, is an extraordinary circumstance where the fuel did not come from the carrier’s own aircraft. The Court went further than usual here and held that such a circumstance must be regarded as one that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Authority

  • Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18) 2019 62018CJ0159
  • Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, recital 14 Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

The second limb — reasonable measures

The Court treated this circumstance as unavoidable in itself, so the live question is what the airline did after the runway reopened.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was delayed by a runway closure caused by spilled fuel. In Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18, 2019) the Court of Justice held that the presence of petrol on a runway which led to its closure falls within the concept of extraordinary circumstances where that petrol did not originate from the aircraft of the carrier that operated the flight. Please confirm in writing whose aircraft the fuel came from and when the runway reopened, since the delay beyond the reopening is not covered by that ruling. Subject to that answer, my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount] stands.

A disruptive passenger forced a diversion LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (C-74/19, 2020)

Disruptive behaviour serious enough to justify diverting the aircraft is an extraordinary circumstance — unless the carrier contributed to the behaviour or failed to take appropriate measures in view of the warning signs. The same judgment sets the airline a hard second test on re-routing.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

The re-routing limb is where these claims are usually won: the airline must show it looked beyond its own next flight, including at other carriers.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by the behaviour of another passenger. In LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (C-74/19, 2020) the Court of Justice held that such behaviour falls within the concept of extraordinary circumstances unless the operating carrier contributed to it or failed to take appropriate measures in view of the warning signs, and separately that re-routing a passenger on the carrier’s own next flight arriving the following day is not a reasonable measure unless there was no other direct or indirect re-routing arriving earlier, or such re-routing would have been an intolerable sacrifice. Please state what earlier flights, including other carriers’ flights, you considered. I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount] pending that answer.

Air-traffic control held the flight or moved the slot Eglītis and Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (C-294/10, 2011)

Recital 15 says extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air-traffic-management decision, in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day, causes a long delay, an overnight delay or a cancellation. The recital carries its own condition — that all reasonable measures had been taken — and the Court has held that planning must include a reserve time for such risks.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

The reserve time the airline built into the schedule is the measure the Court looks at, judged against what the airline could do without intolerable sacrifice.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was affected by an air-traffic-control restriction. Recital 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies only where the impact of an air-traffic-management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to the delay or cancellation, and only where all reasonable measures had been taken. Please send me the flow-management message or slot record for my flight, with the times. In Eglītis and Ratnieks (C-294/10, 2011) the Court of Justice held that a carrier must reasonably, at the stage of organising the flight, take account of the risk of delay connected to such circumstances and provide for a certain reserve time. Pending that evidence I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Bad weather Eglītis and Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (C-294/10, 2011)

Recital 14 names meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned. That wording is narrow: the weather has to have been incompatible with operating your flight, not merely bad. If other aircraft were operating the same route in the same conditions, ask why yours did not, and ask for the report the airline relies on.

Authority

The second limb — reasonable measures

Weather that closed the airport for an hour does not explain a six-hour delay: the airline must account for the gap between the conditions and the disruption.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by weather. Recital 14 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 refers to meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, so please send me the meteorological report and the operational decision for my flight, and confirm which other flights at that airport were operating in the same window. In Eglītis and Ratnieks (C-294/10, 2011) the Court of Justice held that a carrier must take account, when organising the flight, of the risk of delay connected with such circumstances and provide for a certain reserve time. Pending that evidence I maintain my claim under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

A security alert, political instability or unrest Recital 14, Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

Recital 14 names political instability and security risks among the circumstances that may be extraordinary. There is no CJEU judgment on this site’s verified list that decides a security alert, so this entry rests on the recital and on the general test, not on a case. The airline still has to name the alert, its source and its timing.

Authority

  • Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, recital 14 Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

The second limb — reasonable measures

A cordon that lifts at midday does not explain a cancellation at six in the evening; the airline must account for the time between the two.

What to write back

You state that flight [Flight number] on [Flight date] was disrupted by a security incident or by political conditions. Recital 14 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 names political instability and security risks among the circumstances that may be extraordinary, but Article 5(3) requires you to prove both that such a circumstance caused this flight’s disruption and that it could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Please identify the incident, the authority that reported it, the times involved, and the re-routing you considered. Pending that, I maintain my claim under Article 7 in the sum of [Currency] [Amount].

Where this goes next

A strike is the commonest refusal of all — whose strike it was decides your claim.

Sources

Every judgment below was opened on EUR-Lex by CELEX number on 6 September 2026, and the case number, the parties, the year and the operative part were read from the judgment itself. curia.europa.eu is a JavaScript shell that returns no text to a fetch, so the CELEX permalink is what is cited here. No holding on this page comes from a secondary source.

General information, not legal advice. This page says what the Court has held about a kind of reason; it cannot say what a court would decide about your flight. The airline carries the burden of proof on both limbs of Article 5(3), and an unanswered question is not a proven defence.

↑↓ move↵ open

 Find my letter
  1. CLCompensation claims7
  2. ALBy airline30
  3. RFRefunds & expenses10
  4. BGBaggage6
  5. RTKnow your rights13
  6. XPYour situation, explained11
  7. EXIf they refuse9
  8. CPHonest comparisons2

Keyboard

⌘/ctrl+K or /
Search every letter and guide
j / k
Move through a list
c
On a letter page: copy the letter
t
Light / dark
?
This list