Check compensationCheck

Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17)

A plain-English summary of the Court of Justice of the EU judgment of 4 April 2019: the facts, the question, what was decided and what it means for your claim.

By the EU261 Flight Delay editorial team Last reviewed: Reading time: 4 min How we write our guides

Check compensation or start a claim with AirHelp straight away

In short: A tyre damaged by debris such as a screw on the runway is an extraordinary circumstance, but the airline must show it used all its resources to limit the delay.

CaseGermanwings GmbH v Wolfgang Pauels
CitationC-501/17
CourtCourt of Justice of the EU (Third Chamber)
Date
Full textEUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

The facts

Mr Pauels flew with Germanwings from Dublin to Düsseldorf on 28 August 2015. The flight arrived 3 hours and 28 minutes late. Germanwings said that during preparations for take-off a screw was found in one of the aircraft’s tyres, which had to be changed.

The Amtsgericht Köln (Local Court, Cologne) ordered Germanwings to pay €250 plus interest, holding that tyre damage from a screw on the runway is part of an airline’s normal activity and within its control. On Germanwings’ appeal, the German appeal court referred the question.

The question

Is damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object lying on the runway an extraordinary circumstance?

What the Court ruled

  1. Damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object, such as loose debris, lying on an airport runway falls within the notion of extraordinary circumstances.
  2. However, to escape paying compensation, the airline must prove that it deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal to stop the tyre change from leading to a long delay.

Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.

What it means for you

Debris on the runway can excuse the airline, but not automatically. Changing a tyre is routine work; if it took hours because no spare or engineer was available, the airline may still have to pay.

Ask the airline when the damage was found and what it did to fix it quickly.

Read more: Extraordinary circumstances · Technical faults · Flight delay compensation.

Status in the UK

Decided before the end of the Brexit transition period (11 pm on 31 December 2020), so it is assimilated EU case law in the UK. County courts and sheriff courts must follow it when they apply UK261; the UK Supreme Court and the appeal courts listed in the 2020 regulations (including the Court of Appeal in England and Wales) may depart from it.

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.

  • van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14, 2015) – Unexpected component failure is not extraordinary
  • Siewert v Condor (C-394/14, 2014) – Ground equipment hitting the aircraft is not extraordinary
  • Jet2 v Huzar ([2014] EWCA Civ 791, 2014) – Unforeseen technical faults are not extraordinary (UK)
  • Sturgeon (C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
  • LE v TAP (C-74/19, 2020) – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
  • Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18, 2019) – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary

All cases in the library

Sources

  1. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 4 April 2019, Case C-501/17, Germanwings v Pauels – 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.