ANSWER · UK 261 AND EC 261

The runway was closed. Is that an extraordinary circumstance?

Usually yes, when the closure came from outside the airline. The Court held on 26 June 2019 in Moens that petrol spilled on a runway, closing it for more than two hours, was an extraordinary circumstance: runway maintenance is not the carrier's job and the closure decision binds it. The caveat is origin, because a spill from the carrier's own aircraft changes the answer.

REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026

Why a closure usually excuses compensation

An airline cannot reopen a runway. Once the closure is established as extraordinary, the Court accepted in Moens that waiting for the authorities' decision is all the carrier can do about the closure itself, so the reasonable measures limb is satisfied for that event.

What a closure does not switch off

The duty of care. McDonagh, decided after a week long airspace closure, held that Art. 9 meals, accommodation and transfers continue for the whole wait, with no time or money ceiling, even where compensation itself is excused.

Closures the airline still answers for

Origin decides: fuel or debris from the carrier's own operation puts the event back inside its control. And a closure does not excuse the schedule that follows it badly; Eglītis requires reserve time in the plan for exactly these days.

THE JUDGMENTS BEHIND THIS ANSWER

McDonagh, C-12/112013 Moens, C-159/182019

SOURCES

Case C-159/18 Moens v Ryanair, judgment of 26 June 2019 · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
Case C-12/11 McDonagh v Ryanair, judgment of 31 January 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:43) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 9 · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026