ISSN 2184-8793 ISSNe 2975-9056 must be respected.79 Therefore, in this specific case, the closure of the airport runway corresponded to the definition of extraordinary circumstances, provided that the spilled fuel did not originate from the aircraft operated by the carrier for that flight.80 However, to exempt the carrier from liability for damages, it must be proven that extraordinary circumstances could not have been avoided even by taking appropriate measures.81 In this regard, the CJEU followed the reasoning of Advocate General Tanchev, who emphasized that in this case, the airline is in a position where it does not participate in making decisions regarding the management of the runway. Therefore, it cannot seek solutions on its own and must adhere to instructions received from air traffic control.82 4.2. Non-compliance with the rules of the air carrier The behaviour of air passengers is inherently unpredictable, and considering the circumstances in which flights are conducted, it would be unreasonable to expect an air carrier to anticipate and always successfully control inappropriate passengers’ conduct. The case of Transportes Aeros Portugueses83 serves as confirmation, where a pilot was forced to make an unplanned landing due to the inappropriate behaviour of one passenger who physically attacked a fellow passenger and airline personnel. The unscheduled stop resulted in a delay, causing one passenger to miss a connecting flight. The CJEU, in its reasoning, took the position that such passenger behaviour is not inherently linked to the normal activities of the specific air carrier and can pose a danger to the flight's execution.84 The airline has limited means to control such passengers, and it has no control over such outbursts.85 For these reasons, the conclusion was reached that extraordinary circumstances were present. On the other hand, it is crucial to distinguish events where the air carrier itself contributed to the disruptive behaviour of the passenger or where such behaviour was foreseeable, and preventive measures could have been taken by the carrier. Behavioural issues exhibited by a passenger before boarding the plane are indicators that impose a duty on the air carrier to refuse transportation and disembark such individuals. Even if the behaviour is not inherently linked to the carrier's normal activities, the carrier had actual control over such conduct, excluding the possibility of invoking the existence of extraordinary circumstances.86 4.3. COVID-19 as an extraordinary circumstance? Humanity has faced numerous pandemics throughout history - for example, SARS or MERS-CoV, which impacted the air transportation of passengers, but none demanded such stringent measures globally.87 The latter seemingly reinforces the argument that COVID-19 should be classified as extraordinary circumstances as defined by the Regulation. However, the CJEU, contrary to the 79 Ibid., para. 20. 80 Ibid., para. 22. 81 Ibid., para. 25. 82 Opinion of Advocat General Tancheva in case C-159/18, Moens of 19 December 2018, para. 36. 83 Case C-74/19, Transportes Aéreos Portugueses of 11 June 2020. 84 Ibid., paras. 39-41. 85 Ibid., paras. 41-43. 86 Ibid., para. 47. 87 Trimarchi, 2021, pp.145-146.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==