C-159/18 · 2019 · UK 261 AND EC 261
André Moens v Ryanair Ltd
Petrol spilled on a runway that forces its closure is an extraordinary circumstance under Art. 5(3), provided the fuel did not come from the carrier's own aircraft. The Court held on 26 June 2019 that runway maintenance sits outside the airline's competence and a closure decision binds it, so the resulting delay could not have been avoided by any measure within the carrier's own responsibility.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-159/18
- JUDGMENT
- 26 June 2019
- CITATION
- Case C-159/18, judgment of 26 June 2019
What the case was about
A Ryanair flight from Treviso to Charleroi on 21 December 2015 arrived 4 hours and 23 minutes late.
Petrol on a Treviso runway closed it for more than two hours, and the take off was postponed.
Nothing suggested the spilled petrol came from a Ryanair aircraft, and the passenger's 250 euro claim was refused on extraordinary circumstances grounds.
What it changed
- It applied both limbs of the defence in the airline's favour in one judgment, which is rarer than rejection.
- Reasonable measures are only those actually within the carrier's responsibility: what airport managers and air traffic controllers do is not counted against the airline.
- The origin condition matters: the same spill from the carrier's own aircraft would have put the event back inside its control.
SOURCES
- Case C-159/18 Moens v Ryanair, judgment of 26 June 2019 · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 5(3) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026