Case C‑501/17
Germanwings GmbH
v
Wolfgang Pauels
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln)
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 4 April 2019
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object lying on an airport runway)
Transport — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Cancellation or long delay of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Condition — Extraordinary circumstances — Meaning — Damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object lying on an airport runway — Included — Air carrier taking all reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation or delay — Scope — To be determined by the national court
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, recitals 14 and 15, Arts 5(3) and 7)
(see paragraphs 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 32-34 and operative part)
Résumé
An air carrier is required to compensate passengers for a delay of three hours or more in the case of damage to an aircraft tyre by a screw lying on the take-off or landing runway only if it did not deploy all its resources at its disposal in order to limit the flight delay
In the judgment in Germanwings (C‑501/17), delivered on 4 April 2019, the Court interpreted the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) by considering that the damage to an aircraft tyre by a screw lying on the take-off or landing runway constitutes such a circumstance. In the event of a flight delay of three hours or more on arrival originating from this same circumstance, an air carrier is however obliged to compensate the passengers if it has not deployed all its resources at its disposal to limit the long delay of said flight.
The main proceedings between a passenger and the air carrier Germanwings concerned the latter’s refusal to compensate this passenger whose flight has suffered a long delay. The air carrier refused to grant the claim on the grounds that the delay of the flight concerned was due to damage to an aircraft tyre by a screw on the take-off or landing runway, circumstance to be described as ‘extraordinary’ (2) within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 and exempting it from its obligation to pay compensation provided for by the same regulation (3).
The Regional Court hearing the case wanted to know whether the damage in question constitutes an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004.
First, the Court stated that the air carrier is not obliged to compensate passengers if it is able to prove that the flight cancellation or flight delay equal to or greater than three hours on arrival is due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and, where such circumstances do arise, that it adopted measures appropriate to the situation, deploying all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal in order to avoid that situation from resulting in the cancellation or long delay of the flight in question, without the air carrier being required to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time.
The Court recalled that events may be classified as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 if, by their nature or origin, they are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are outside that carrier’s actual control.
The Court held that, even if air carriers are regularly faced with damage to the tyres of their aircrafts, the failure of a tyre having its exclusive origin in impact with a foreign object lying on the runway of the airport cannot be considered inherent, by its nature or its origin, to the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned. Furthermore, this circumstance is outside its actual control, and therefore must be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004.
However, in order to be released from its obligation to pay compensation under Regulation No 261/2004, it is for the air carrier to demonstrate that it deployed all its resources at its disposal in order to avoid the changing of a tyre damaged by a foreign object lying on the airport runway from leading to long delay of the flight in question, which is for the referring court to ascertain. In this regard, the Court noted, with regard to the damage to tyres, that air carriers are able to have at their disposal, in the airports from which they operate, contracts for changing their tyres under which they are afforded priority treatment.