In short: The 2010 ash cloud was an extraordinary circumstance, but Ryanair still owed care – meals, refreshments and a hotel – for the week its passenger was stranded.
| Case | McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd |
|---|---|
| Citation | C-12/11 |
| Court | Court of Justice of the EU (Third Chamber) |
| Date | |
| Full text | EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union) |
The facts
On 11 February 2010 Ms McDonagh booked a Ryanair flight from Faro to Dublin for 17 April 2010, for €98. The Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland had begun to erupt in March; on 14 April it entered an explosive phase, and from 15 April the air traffic authorities closed the airspace over several Member States. Her flight was cancelled after Irish airspace closed. Ryanair’s flights between continental Europe and Ireland resumed on 22 April, and she could not get back to Dublin until 24 April.
Ryanair gave her no care during that week. She went to court for €1,129.41, the cost of her meals, refreshments, accommodation and transport. Ryanair argued that the airspace closure was a “super extraordinary” circumstance that released it from the duty of care as well as from compensation.
The question
Does the closure of airspace after the volcanic eruption release the airline from its duty to provide care under Article 9? Is that duty limited in time or amount?
What the Court ruled
- The closure of part of European airspace after the Eyjafjallajökull eruption is an extraordinary circumstance, but it does not release airlines from their obligation under Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 to provide care.
- Where a flight is cancelled because of extraordinary circumstances lasting as long as these did, the duty to provide care must still be complied with, and this does not affect the validity of those provisions.
- If the airline fails to provide care, the passenger can recover only the amounts that, in the circumstances of the case, were necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for that failure. That is for the national court to assess.
Paraphrased from the operative part of the judgment. The exact wording is in the full text.
What it means for you
Extraordinary circumstances remove the fixed compensation, not your right to care. While you wait for a re-routed flight, the airline must provide meals and refreshments and, where needed, a hotel and transport – even if the disruption lasts days.
If the airline does not provide care, pay for what you reasonably need, keep every receipt and claim it back. Spending that is not necessary or reasonable can be refused.
Read more: Your right to care: meals, hotels and calls · Extraordinary circumstances · Cancelled flight 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
- Lipton v BA Cityflyer – Pilot illness is not extraordinary (UK Supreme Court)
- TAP v flightright – Sudden crew illness or death is not extraordinary
- Airhelp v SAS – Airline’s own staff strike is not extraordinary
- Krüsemann v TUIfly – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
- 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 (Third Chamber), 31 January 2013, Case C-12/11, McDonagh v Ryanair – 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.