Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

186 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE nature or origin 11 . Technical problems of an aircraft therefore could only constitute extraordinary circumstances if they stem from events like hidden manufacturing defects or acts of sabotage or terrorism 12 . Case C-394/14 – Siewert v Condor regarded a collision between an aircraft and a set of mobile stairs. The CJEU held that such an event must be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier as such mobile stairs or gangways are indispensable to air passenger transport, enabling passengers to enter or leave the aircraft, and, accordingly, air carriers are regularly faced with situations arising from their use 13 . In case C-315/15 – Pešková ea v Travel Service , the court repeated its opinion that events may be classified as extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, if, by their nature or origin, they are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are outside that carrier’s actual control. A collision between an aircraft and a bird, as well as any damage caused by such collision, were not intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft and therefore not by their nature or origin inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and were outside the carrier’s actual control. Accordingly, such collision must be classified as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ 14 . The Advocate General had been of the opposite opinion and had qualified the risk of a bird strike as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity 15 . In case C-195/17 – Krüsemann ea vTUIFly the court held that a “wild cat strike” or “sick out” of cabin staff who had declared themselves ‘unfit to fly’ in order to protest against alleged restructuring operations did not constitute extraordinary circumstances because it had been provoked by management announcement and could have been avoided or terminated by an agreement with the employees 16 . In case C-501/17 – Germanwings v Pauels the court decided that a so called “foreign object damage” caused to the aircraft by a screw or nail lying on the runway constituted extraordinary circumstances 17 and, according to the 11 CJEU Judgement of 22 December 2008 in Case C-549/07, paragraph 23. 12 CJEU Judgement C-549/07 as above, paragraph 26. 13 CJEU Order of 14 November 2014 in Case C-394/14, paragraph 19. 14 CJEU Judgement of 4 May 2017 in Case C-355/15. 15 Opinion of Advocate General Bot in case C-315/15, delivered on 28 July 2016, paragraph 33. 16 CJEU Judgement of 17 April 2018 in Case C-195/17. 17 CJEU Judgement of 4 April 2019 in Case C-501/17.