(AGENPARL) – Thu 16 October 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 132/25
Luxembourg, 16 October 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-399/24 | AirHelp Germany (Aircraft struck by lightning)
A lightning strike to an aircraft may constitute an extraordinary
circumstance
It constitutes an extraordinary circumstance which may relieve the airline of the obligation to pay
compensation for cancellation or long delay where it leads to mandatory safety inspections which
result in the aircraft’s delayed return to service
Shortly before landing in Iași (Romania), an Austrian Airlines aircraft was struck by lightning. Due to the
mandatory safety inspections that followed, that aircraft was unable to operate the subsequent flight to
Vienna (Austria) as planned.
A passenger who was supposed to take that flight arrived in Vienna, on a replacement flight, with a delay of
more than seven hours. He assigned the potential claim arising from that delay to AirHelp, which is claiming
compensation of €400 from Austrian Airlines before the Austrian courts.
Austrian Airlines considers that the lightning strike, followed by mandatory safety inspections, constitutes an
extraordinary circumstance. Moreover, it had, in its view, taken all reasonable measures to remedy the
delay. Thus, according to the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, 1 it did not have to pay compensation.
The Austrian court hearing the case referred a question to Court of Justice on that point.
The Court 2 replies that a lightning strike to an aircraft with which a flight was to be operated constitutes an
extraordinary circumstance where that lightning strike led to mandatory safety inspections which resulted
in the aircraft’s delayed return to service.
It observes, inter alia, that the EU legislature included meteorological conditions incompatible with the
operation of the flight concerned – including the risk of the aircraft being struck by lightning – in the concept
of ‘extraordinary circumstances’. A lightning strike, after which the aircraft must undergo mandatory safety
inspections, is not intrinsically linked to its operating system. It is, therefore, not inherent in the normal
exercise of the activity of the airline concerned and is beyond the airline’s actual control. That conclusion
makes it possible to guarantee the objective of passenger safety by preventing airlines from being
encouraged not to take the necessary measures and to prioritise the maintaining and punctuality of their
flights over that objective of safety.
In order to be released from the obligation to pay compensation to the affected passengers, the airline must
still show that it took all reasonable measures to avoid the extraordinary circumstances 3 and the
consequences thereof, 4 such as a long delay. It is for the Austrian court to assess that point in the present
case.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes
which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of
EU law or the validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly
binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the
day of delivery.
Stay Connected!
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights.
It should be recalled that, since 1 October 2024, it is in principle the General Court of the European Union that has jurisdiction to hear
questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning air passenger rights. However, as the request for a preliminary ruling in the present
case was received by the Court of Justice on 7 June 2024, the Court of Justice has retained jurisdiction to reply. As regards the partial
transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings, see Press Releases Nos 125/24, 126/24 and 154/24.
Although preventive measures, such as measures to circumvent areas affected by storms, make it possible to avoid a lightning strike, it is
particularly difficult, despite the meteorological data and modern routes, to completely exclude the possibility of crossing some of those
areas.
The airline must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its
disposal, it would clearly not have been able, unless it had made intolerable sacrifices, to prevent the extraordinary circumstances leading
to the cancellation or long delay of the flight.
Communications Directorate