Check compensationCheck

Siewert v Condor (C-394/14)

A plain-English summary of the Court of Justice of the EU order of 14 November 2014: 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: Damage caused when an airport’s mobile boarding stairs hit the aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance, so a long delay still triggers compensation.

CaseSandy Siewert, Emma Siewert and Nele Siewert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
CitationC-394/14
CourtCourt of Justice of the EU (Fifth Chamber (reasoned order))
Date
Full textEUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union)

The facts

The Siewerts booked a Condor flight from Antalya (Turkey) to Frankfurt am Main. The flight took place on 3 October 2011 and arrived 6 hours and 30 minutes late.

Condor refused compensation. It said the aircraft due to operate the flight had been damaged the evening before at Stuttgart Airport, when a set of mobile boarding stairs collided with it and caused structural damage to a wing, so the aircraft had to be replaced. The Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Local Court, Rüsselsheim) asked whether that was an extraordinary circumstance.

The question

Is a collision between an airport’s mobile boarding stairs and the aircraft, during an earlier flight, an extraordinary circumstance that excuses the airline?

What the Court ruled

  1. A situation where an airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft cannot be categorised as an extraordinary circumstance exempting the airline from paying compensation for a long delay to a flight operated by that aircraft.
  2. The Court decided the case by reasoned order under Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure, which it uses when the answer can be clearly deduced from existing case law or admits of no reasonable doubt.

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

What it means for you

Ground-handling mishaps – stairs, vehicles, equipment bumping into the aircraft – are part of an airline’s normal operations, even when a third party caused the damage. Compensation is due.

It also shows that a problem on an earlier flight with the same aircraft does not automatically excuse the delay to your flight.

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.

  • Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17, 2019) – Runway debris damaging a tyre is extraordinary
  • van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14, 2015) – Unexpected component failure 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. Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 14 November 2014, Case C-394/14, Siewert and Others v Condor – 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.