C-315/15 · 2017 · UK 261 AND EC 261
Marcela Pešková and Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.
A bird strike is an extraordinary circumstance under Art. 5(3): the Court held in 2017 that a collision between an aircraft and a bird is not by its nature or origin inherent in the carrier's activity and is outside its actual control. The airline must still show the preventive and re-routing measures it actually took for the affected flight.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-315/15
- JUDGMENT
- 4 May 2017
- CITATION
- ECLI:EU:C:2017:342
What the case was about
A Travel Service flight from Burgas to Ostrava arrived more than five hours late after a bird strike required an inspection.
The carrier ordered a second inspection by its own technician even though an authorised expert had already cleared the aircraft.
What it changed
- It gave airlines a genuine defence, and then narrowed how far the defence carries.
- The Court held that a second, unnecessary safety check chosen by the carrier does not extend the excuse for the delay it causes.
- Preventive measures the carrier can be held to are its own, not those of the airport operator or air traffic control.
SOURCES
- Case C-315/15 Pešková and Peška v Travel Service, judgment of 4 May 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:342) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 5(3) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026