In short: A lawful strike by an airline’s own pilots, called by their union to press their demands, is not an extraordinary circumstance, so compensation is due.
| Case | Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark – Norway – Sweden |
|---|---|
| Citation | C-28/20 |
| Court | Court of Justice of the EU (Grand Chamber) |
| Date | |
| Full text | EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union) |
The facts
A passenger had booked an SAS domestic flight from Malmö to Stockholm on 29 April 2019. It was cancelled on the day because of a strike by SAS pilots in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Their unions had terminated the collective agreement in 2018, and when negotiations failed they called a strike that ran from 26 April to 2 May 2019. SAS cancelled more than 4,000 flights, affecting about 380,000 passengers.
The passenger assigned the claim to Airhelp, which sued SAS for €250 before the Attunda tingsrätt (Attunda District Court, Sweden). The court asked whether the strike was an extraordinary circumstance.
The question
Is a strike by an airline’s own staff, called by their trade union in compliance with national law, an extraordinary circumstance?
What the Court ruled
Strike action called by a trade union of an airline’s staff, in compliance with the conditions laid down by national law (in particular the notice period), intended to assert the demands of that airline’s workers and followed by a category of staff essential for operating a flight, does not fall within the concept of extraordinary circumstances.
Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
If your flight is cancelled or delayed because the airline’s own pilots or cabin crew strike, you can claim compensation. Strikes by people the airline does not employ, such as air traffic controllers or airport security staff, can be treated differently.
The ruling was given after 31 December 2020, so it does not bind UK courts applying UK261, although they may have regard to it. It applies in full to flights covered by EU261.
Airhelp, which brought this case, is our affiliate partner. That does not change what the Court decided.
Read more: Strikes · Extraordinary circumstances · Cancelled flight compensation.
Status in the UK
Decided after the end of the Brexit transition period (31 December 2020), so it does not bind UK courts applying UK261, although they may have regard to it. It applies in full to flights covered by EU261 in EU courts.
How EU rulings apply after Brexit is explained on our case-law overview.
This is a plain-English summary written by our editorial team, not legal advice. Judgments turn on their facts, and later rulings can refine them. Before relying on a case in a dispute, read the full judgment or get advice.
Related cases
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- Lipton v BA Cityflyer – Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court)
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- McDonagh v Ryanair – Care is owed even in extraordinary circumstances
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- Wallentin-Hermann – Technical problems are normally the airline’s risk; the two-part test
Sources
- Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 23 March 2021, Case C-28/20, Airhelp v SAS – EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)
We check every rule against the sources above. Spotted an error? Tell us – see our editorial policy.