Short answer
An operator cannot avoid every passenger remedy by saying “force majeure.” Each EU transport regulation defines its own exception, and the exception usually removes standard compensation only—not information, reimbursement, rerouting or reasonable care.
For air travel, the carrier must prove an event not inherent in normal operations and beyond its actual control, plus all reasonable measures that could have avoided the cancellation or long delay without intolerable sacrifice. Ordinary technical faults and staff or planning problems usually remain within the airline's sphere; severe external weather, air-traffic decisions, bird strikes or an unforeseeable unruly passenger may qualify on the facts.
Rail now has a specific extraordinary-circumstances defence to delay compensation, but excludes several operational actors and causes. Bus and sea rules use narrower, remedy-specific weather or natural-disaster exceptions. Passenger fault defeats only rights causally affected by that conduct and does not excuse an operator's independent failures.
The operator must prove the statutory defence.
Use the exception in the correct regulation
First identify the covered disruption and remedy, then the exception attached to that remedy. The operator must prove the event, causal link and reasonable response; the passenger keeps rights outside the exception. A contract's broader force-majeure clause cannot reduce mandatory EU protection, and rarity or expense does not itself make an event extraordinary.
Air requires both an extraordinary event and reasonable measures
Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 removes cancellation and long-delay compensation where the operating carrier proves extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
The Court's two-part test asks whether the event is, by its nature or origin:
- not inherent in the normal exercise of the airline's activity; and
- beyond the airline's actual control.
The carrier must then show that it deployed measures appropriate to the situation, using available staff, equipment, time and financial resources, unless avoiding the disruption would have required an intolerable sacrifice in light of its capacity at the relevant time.
“extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.” —
The defence is flight- and event-specific. A generic weather report, maintenance note or reference to “operational reasons” is not enough. The operator should disclose what happened, when it affected the aircraft or route, what alternatives were assessed and why they failed.
Ordinary technical problems usually remain with the airline
In Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, the Court held that a technical problem discovered during maintenance or caused by failure to maintain is not extraordinary merely because it was unexpected. Technical faults are inherent in operating aircraft. A hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the manufacturer or authority, sabotage or terrorism may be external.
Preventive maintenance compliance alone does not prove that a cancellation was unavoidable. An extraordinary event on an earlier flight may affect a later rotation, but the carrier must establish a direct causal link and a reasonable contingency response within its resources.
Weather and air-traffic restrictions depend on actual effect
Weather endangering safe operation, airport closure, volcanic ash and binding air-traffic-management decisions can be extraordinary. Normal seasonal weather or foreseeable de-icing is not automatically outside operations. The question is whether the conditions actually prevented safe or lawful performance and whether rerouting, retiming or another aircraft was reasonably available.
In AirHelp Germany, C-399/24, the Court held that a lightning strike followed by mandatory safety inspections qualified. That does not make every storm delay exempt: the carrier must still prove causation and that reasonable preventive and mitigation measures could not have avoided the long delay.
“covers a lightning strike to an aircraft ... which led to mandatory safety inspections of that aircraft” —
The General Court held in D, T-134/25, that an air-traffic-management decision may qualify if it was beyond the carrier's actual control and directly caused the later disruption. But the Court of Justice opened an exceptional review in C-108/26 RX concerning that holding. As at 31 July 2026, an operator should not assume that every such decision qualifies regardless of its reason; it should prove the external cause, its lack of contribution, the direct causal link and its reasonable response.
Extraordinary circumstances remove standard cash compensation, not the duty of care. In McDonagh, C-12/11, the volcanic-ash closure did not limit the airline's obligation to provide meals and accommodation. Reimbursement and rerouting choices likewise remain.
Birds, foreign objects and airport equipment
In Pešková and Peška, C-315/15, collision with a bird was extraordinary because it was not inherent in normal airline activity and lay outside actual control. The carrier still had to take reasonable measures. Time attributable to an unnecessary second safety check could not simply be charged to the extraordinary event.
Foreign runway objects or airport-equipment failure may be external; routine wear and airline ground-handling problems are commonly inherent. Outsourcing a normal operational task does not automatically make it extraordinary.
Strikes and staff shortages turn on control
An airline's internal workplace strike may be inherent and partly within managerial control; an external air-traffic-controller strike is more likely extraordinary. Labels do not decide the matter. Crew sickness, rostering shortfalls and unavailable reserves are ordinarily operational risks.
Passenger conduct can be extraordinary—but not carrier-created
In Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, C-74/19, the Court held that an unruly passenger whose conduct caused diversion could constitute an extraordinary circumstance unless the airline contributed to the behaviour or the conduct was foreseeable and manageable through measures reasonably expected from the carrier.
The airline must also show reasonable rerouting after the event. Placing the affected passenger on the airline's next flight may be insufficient if an earlier reasonable flight on another carrier was available, unless using it would impose an intolerable sacrifice.
Late check-in or inadequate travel documents can remove rights tied to denied boarding. The carrier must prove the ground and still apply disability, free-movement and non-discrimination safeguards. One passenger's conduct does not remove everyone else's care rights.
The same causal discipline applies to the carrier's later choices. In NI and HZ, T-656/24, the General Court held that an airline's autonomous decision to wait for passengers delayed at airport security could break the direct link between that external problem and a later flight's delay if the decision itself was the determining cause.
Rail has an express but bounded defence
Regulation 2021/782 allows a railway undertaking to avoid arrival-delay compensation where the delay, missed connection or cancellation was caused directly by:
- extraordinary circumstances not connected with railway operation, such as extreme weather, a major natural disaster or a major public-health crisis, which could not be avoided or prevented despite required care;
- the passenger's fault; or
- third-party behaviour that could not be avoided or prevented despite required care, such as people on the track, cable theft, on-board emergencies, law enforcement, sabotage or terrorism.
Strikes by railway staff, acts or omissions of another undertaking using the same infrastructure, and acts or omissions of infrastructure and station managers are expressly not treated as third parties for this defence. Replacement transport providers are also not third parties. Infrastructure failure therefore commonly remains inside the railway system's allocated risk.
“acts or omissions of the infrastructure and station managers are not covered by the exemption” —
The defence affects delay compensation, not the Article 18 choice of reimbursement or rerouting, information and applicable assistance. A railway must identify the causal category rather than relying on the general phrase “infrastructure problem.”
Bus exceptions are remedy-specific
Regulation 181/2011 does not create an airline-style general extraordinary-circumstances exemption from the obligation to offer rerouting or reimbursement after qualifying cancellation or departure delay. The additional 50% payment follows if the carrier fails to offer that choice.
For overnight accommodation, however, the carrier is not required to cover lodging where cancellation or delay is caused by severe weather conditions or major natural disasters endangering safe operation. Information, journey choice and reasonable refreshments remain governed separately.
Passenger fault may break causation for a missed service. Bus breakdown is ordinarily operational.
Sea distinguishes compensation from care
Regulation 1177/2010 removes arrival-delay compensation where the carrier proves weather conditions endangering safe ship operation or extraordinary circumstances hindering performance that could not have been avoided even with all reasonable measures.
Weather endangering safety can also remove overnight-accommodation duties. It does not automatically remove rerouting or reimbursement and information. The carrier must prove actual unsafe conditions, not merely commercial inconvenience or ordinary bad weather.
Evidence decides the defence
Passengers should request the precise cause, incident time, affected route, alternatives considered and delay attributed to the event. Operators should retain contemporaneous logs, notices and weather data.
Conclusion
Extraordinary circumstances are a narrow, proved defence attached to particular compensation duties. Externality alone is insufficient: the operator must show causation and reasonable mitigation. Ordinary technical, staffing and infrastructure risks usually remain within the transport system. Even when the defence succeeds, reimbursement, rerouting, information and care often survive.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.