Check compensationCheck

Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18)

A plain-English summary of the Court of Justice of the EU judgment of 26 June 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: Petrol on a runway that forces the airport to close it is an extraordinary circumstance, as long as the fuel did not come from the airline’s own aircraft.

CaseAndré Moens v Ryanair Ltd
CitationC-159/18
CourtCourt of Justice of the EU (Fourth Chamber)
Date
Full textEUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

The facts

Mr Moens flew with Ryanair from Treviso (Italy) to Charleroi (Belgium) on 21 December 2015. The flight arrived 4 hours and 23 minutes late because petrol on a runway at Treviso Airport led to the runway being closed for more than two hours, which pushed back the take-off.

He asked Ryanair for €250. Ryanair refused, citing extraordinary circumstances, and he sued before the juge de paix (Magistrate’s Court) in Charleroi, which referred questions to the Court of Justice.

The question

Is the presence of petrol on a runway, causing its closure, an extraordinary circumstance? And could the airline have avoided it by taking reasonable measures?

What the Court ruled

  1. The presence of petrol on an airport runway which led to its closure, and so to the long delay of a flight, is an extraordinary circumstance when the petrol does not come from an aircraft of the airline that operated the flight.
  2. Such a circumstance must be regarded as one that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

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

What it means for you

Airport-side problems that the airline has no part in – a runway closure, a spill by someone else’s aircraft – can excuse a delay. The ruling does not cover fuel that came from the airline’s own aircraft.

Under Pešková v Travel Service, only the part of the delay caused by an extraordinary event is excused. Ask the airline for the closure times and compare them with your delay.

Read more: Extraordinary circumstances · 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.

  • LE v TAP (C-74/19, 2020) – Unruly passengers, knock-on delays and re-routing
  • Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17, 2019) – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
  • Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17 etc., 2018) – Mass crew sick-out (“wildcat strike”) is not extraordinary
  • Pešková v Travel Service (C-315/15, 2017) – Bird strikes are extraordinary; other delay still counts
  • 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

All cases in the library

Sources

  1. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 June 2019, Case C-159/18, Moens 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.