UPDATE: No compensation for flat tire?

A passenger demanded compensation from the Germanwings airline under the European Air Passenger Rights Regulation after his flight from Dublin to Düsseldorf was delayed by more than three hours. The reason for the delay was a screw that was lying on the tarmac in Dublin and had damaged the aircraft's tire. Because of the necessary repairs, the aircraft was only able to take off with a significant delay. The airline “Germanwings” referred - as airlines are always happy to try - to “extraordinary circumstances”, which means that the airline is no longer obliged to pay compensation. The passenger therefore sued the Cologne District Court responsible for the case. The Cologne District Court decided - like the Stuttgart Regional Court cited above - in favor of the plaintiff. However, the Cologne District Court did not see an exceptional circumstance. Possible damage to an aircraft on the tarmac is one of the risks of normal flight operations and is therefore not an extraordinary, but a controllable circumstance. Germanwings appealed. The Cologne Regional Court, which is now involved in the proceedings, submitted the question of whether the damage to an aircraft tire by a foreign body on the runway of an airport was an “exceptional circumstance” to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg for decision.

The ECJ answered the question now surprisingly that this is an exceptional circumstance. In summary, the ECJ considers that the damage with a "foreign body" such as a screw can not be considered to be inseparable from the system used to operate the aircraft. In the view of the ECJ, the airline thus does not bear the responsibility for a screw on the runway.

However, the reasoning of the ECJ is wrong. In fact, a screw is not a "foreign body" that is not inextricably linked to the operation of an aircraft. The ECJ misinterpreted the decisive recitals 14 and 15 of the Passenger Rights Regulation. In principle, the elements of the offense for exceptional circumstances that lead to the loss of compensation are to be interpreted narrowly in order to ensure a high level of protection for the passengers. In previous decisions, the ECJ - z. For example, if an aircraft is damaged by a collision with a stair vehicle on the tarmac, it depends on whether the damaging cause - in this case the stair vehicle - is necessarily used when transporting passengers by air, so that the airlines are regularly confronted with situations resulting from the use of such stair vehicles (ECJ - Siewert / Condor, judgment of November 14.11.2014, 394, case C-14/20). The BGH has also decided on this basis that nothing else applies to a collision with a baggage cart, since such a cart is also necessarily used when transporting passengers by air. An aviation company is therefore regularly confronted in a comparable manner with situations that result from the use of such vehicles (BGH, judgment of December 2016, 75 - X ZR 15/XNUMX).

Applied to the present case, this means that the "screw on the runway" initially with the events mentioned in recitals (14) and (15) such as political instability, terrorist acts, volcanic eruptions or weather conditions, which are prime examples of extraordinary circumstances , cannot be compared. If an aircraft tire is damaged by a foreign body on the runway, there is still an inseparable connection with the system for operating the aircraft. Because naturally planes have to use the tarmac as well as numerous other vehicles that have to be used for general operations at an airport. Aviation companies are therefore regularly confronted with situations that result from the use of the maneuvering area or the runways. It is not uncommon for foreign objects to be found on this, which is why airport operators have to clean the taxiway and the runways regularly. The pollution is therefore a circumstance that air carriers usually have to accept when using the runway. The presence of foreign bodies on this is consequently - comparable to the use of stair vehicles or luggage trolleys - inextricably linked with the system for operating an aircraft.

The fact that the ECJ has limited its previous very consumer-friendly case law with its latest opinion on the problem "extraordinary circumstance" (also with a wrong reason!), Is regrettable from the point of view of the passengers. In particular, airlines are likely to be encouraged to return to the horse more often than "exceptional circumstance" to avert traveler claims.