In short: A “wildcat strike” – crew calling in sick en masse after a surprise restructuring announcement – is not an extraordinary circumstance.
| Case | Helga Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly (and joined cases) |
|---|---|
| Citation | C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17 |
| Court | Court of Justice of the EU (Third Chamber) |
| Date | |
| Full text | EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union) |
The facts
The passengers had booked TUIfly flights between 3 and 8 October 2016. On 30 September 2016 TUIfly’s management told staff about restructuring plans. Sickness absence, usually around 10%, then rose to between 34% and 89% among cockpit crew and between 24% and 62% among cabin crew from 1 to 10 October.
TUIfly abandoned its schedule, sub-chartered other airlines and recalled staff on leave, but many flights were delayed or cancelled; on 7 and 8 October all its flights from Germany were cancelled. On the evening of 7 October management announced an agreement with staff representatives. TUIfly refused compensation, calling the situation extraordinary circumstances. German local courts, including the Amtsgericht Hannover, referred questions.
The question
Is a spontaneous mass absence of flight crew, following a surprise announcement of restructuring, an extraordinary circumstance?
What the Court ruled
The spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew (“wildcat strikes”), stemming from the airline’s surprise announcement of a restructuring and following a call echoed not by staff representatives but by the workers themselves, who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by 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
Disputes between an airline and its own staff are part of its normal business. Whether staff strike formally or simply call in sick together, you are entitled to compensation if the other conditions are met.
This was decided before the end of 2020, so it is part of the assimilated case law UK courts apply. The later Airhelp v SAS ruling (2021) extended the same reasoning to lawful, union-called strikes.
Read more: Strikes · Extraordinary circumstances · Cancelled flight compensation · 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.
Related cases
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
- Sturgeon – A delay of 3 hours or more at arrival gives a right to compensation
- Lipton v BA Cityflyer – Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court)
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- LE v TAP – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
- Moens v Ryanair – Runway closed by a fuel spill is extraordinary
Sources
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 April 2018, Joined Cases C-195/17 etc., Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly – 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.