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
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Senior legal assistant
Albert
Berg Giese
Junior legal assistant
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Senior legal advisor (leave of absence)
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal manager (leave of absence)
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
Junior legal advisor
Clara
Caballero Stephensen
Junior legal advisor
Daniel
Bornhøft Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ea
Tingkær Hesselfeldt
Legal assistant
Ellen
Priess-Hansen
Senior legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Senior legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal advisor
Feline
Honoré Jepsen
Legal assistant
Fiona
Wahl
Junior legal assistant
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal advisor
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Senior legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Associate
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant
Holger
Koch-Klarskov
Legal advisor
Ian
Englev Jensen
Legal assistant
Ida
Marie Skovgaard Rubæk
Legal manager
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Senior legal assistant
Jacqueline
Lucia Chrillesen
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant (leave of absence)
Julia
Wolfe
Legal advisor
Kaisa
Maria Falkenberg Lending
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
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
Legal advisor
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Junior legal advisor
Nikita
Brinck Søberg
Senior legal assistant
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
Stine
Bank Olstrøm
Senior legal assistant
Ulrikke
Sejersbøl Christiansen
Junior legal advisor
Victoria
Mai Gregaard Handberg
Legal advisor (leave of absence)