ECJ - Air passenger rights: Compensation in case of group strike

Oct 27, 2021 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) handled the question of whether a strike by the cabin crew of a subsidiary company in solidarity with the striking staff of the parent company is to be considered an "extraordinary circumstance" under Article 5 para 3 of the EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation (No 261/2004).

In the present case, the plaintiff's flight from Salzburg to Berlin was cancelled due to a strike. The flight would have been operated by Eurowings, a subsidiary of Lufthansa. The strike took place as a result of collective bargaining with the parent company, but was extended to include the workforce of several subsidiaries, including Eurowings.

The plaintiff demanded the referenced compensation payment of EUR 250. Eurowings refused to pay because the strike constituted an "extraordinary circumstance" and it was thus exempt from payment.

The proceedings were suspended by the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht Salzburg) and submitted to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

According to the ECJ, an "extraordinary circumstance" includes events which, by their nature or cause, are not part of the normal activities of an airline and cannot actually be controlled by the airline. However, a strike aimed at a pay increase for cabin crews, if lawful, is part of the normal activity of an airline. Since the social and group policy of the parent company can also have an impact on social policy throughout the group, a strike in solidarity with the striking staff of the parent company cannot be considered unusual or unforeseeable. Such strikes are therefore also part of normal activity (unlike strikes by ground staff or air traffic controllers).

Furthermore, the strike is not an "extraordinary circumstance" even if the strike continues beyond the originally announced duration, although an agreement had been reached with the parent company in the meantime.

The airline was therefore wrong to refuse to pay compensation.

ECJ C‑613/20 (06.10.2021)