En 
DaAnother birdstrike verdict
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled today in yet another bird strike case – this time on land. When is it time for the airline to reject your compensation claim?
In a judgment of May 4, 2017 (case C-315/15), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that a so-called “birdstrike” – which covers the situation where aircraft and birds collide in the air – is an “exceptional circumstance” within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation.
This means that the airline does not have to pay compensation to passengers for delays and cancellations caused by birdstrikes, as long as and provided that the airline has also done what it could to avoid the resulting consequences. This is the airline’s burden of proof.
Today, the European Court of Justice has ruled on a different kind of incident, which concerns collision with birds, see case C-302/22.
This case involved an interruption of the aircraft’s take-off phase on the ground due to the aircraft’s collision with birds, which occurred during an emergency braking maneuver, resulting in damage to the aircraft’s tires.
This too, the CJEU ruled, falls within the concept of “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of the Regulation. The decision is – of course – not surprising. On the one hand, it is in line with the previous “birdstrike” judgment (Case C-315/15), and on the other hand, it is in line with a third decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-501/17, in which it was held that Article 5(3) in conjunction with Recital 14 to the Aircraft Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that damage to an aircraft tire caused by a foreign object, such as a loose object lying on the runway of an airport, is covered by the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of that provision.
Reference is also made to Case C-159/18 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which states that the presence of gasoline on an airport runway, which leads to the closure of the runway, is an “extraordinary circumstance” within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation.
