Strike as an extraordinary circumstance: when Romanian passengers can still claim EU 261 compensation

A strike is not automatically an extraordinary circumstance under EU Regulation 261/2004. If the airline's own cabin crew or pilots walk out, the disruption normally falls within the carrier's control and Romanian passengers keep the right to 250–600 EUR. If air traffic control (ATC) or airport ground staff strike, the event usually qualifies as extraordinary and the cash compensation is not owed — although the duty to feed and house you stays in place. Every refusal letter that simply says "strike" without naming who was striking has not done the legal work the Regulation requires.

This guide explains exactly where the line falls for passengers flying from Bucharest Otopeni, Cluj-Napoca, Iași, Timișoara, Sibiu or any other Romanian airport, with the CJEU case law that controls Romanian courts and the practical escalation path through ANPC, AACR and the Judecătoria.

What "extraordinary circumstance" really means under EU 261

EU Regulation 261/2004 gives air passengers a fixed cash compensation of 250, 400 or 600 EUR when a flight is cancelled or delayed at the final destination by three hours or more. The right was confirmed by the CJEU in joined cases Sturgeon and Böck (C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009), the ruling that imported the three-hour delay threshold into Regulation 261/2004. You can review the full text on the EU's official legal database at EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 .

Article 5(3) of the Regulation carves out a single exception: the airline does not owe compensation if the cancellation or long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The CJEU stresses that this exception must be interpreted narrowly — it is a derogation from a passenger-protection rule, not a default escape hatch. The leading authority is Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008), which set the standard that an event qualifies as extraordinary only when it is not inherent in the normal exercise of the air carrier's activity and beyond its actual control.

For strikes that two-limb test is decisive. The question is never "did a strike happen?" but "was the strike inherent in this airline's normal activity, and was it within the carrier's control?"

The decisive line: the airline's own people, or someone else's

The simplest way to read any strike refusal is to ask which payroll the strikers were on. Here is how Romanian passengers should map the possibilities.

The thinking is straightforward. When the airline's own employees stop work, the underlying dispute is about that airline's wages, rosters, restructuring or working conditions — choices the airline itself made. That is a business risk it controls. When controllers in France or baggage handlers in Frankfurt walk out, the carrier is hit by someone else's decision, much like bad weather: it can re-route, swap aircraft or cancel, but it cannot make the strike stop.

Romanian passengers should also note that the operating carrier — not the marketing carrier — is on the hook. A code-share Tarom-marketed flight actually operated by a partner airline whose own crew struck is the partner's strike, and compensation tracks the operating carrier.

The airline's own staff strike — not an extraordinary circumstance

The clearest authority here is the CJEU's judgment in Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17, 2018). The background: cabin crew at the German airline TUIfly called in sick en masse after the carrier announced a restructuring. The protest was a wildcat strike — spontaneous, not formally called by a union — and TUIfly argued that exactly because the action was unannounced and outside its negotiation, it was extraordinary.

The Court refused that reading. A labour dispute that grows out of the airline's own management decisions belongs to its normal activity and lies within its control. Crucially, the Court held this even though the strike was a wildcat one and even though TUIfly insisted it had not "chosen" the disruption. Restructurings are routine carrier decisions; the labour reaction to a restructuring is therefore routine carrier risk. Result: no extraordinary circumstance, full compensation owed.

What this means for a Romanian passenger whose Bucharest–Madrid flight is cancelled because Iberia or Air Europa cabin crew struck, or whose Cluj–Frankfurt rotation collapses during a Lufthansa Verdi strike: the rejection letter that calls the airline's own labour action "extraordinary" stands on weak legal ground. Krüsemann binds every Member State court, including the Romanian Judecătoria where a small claim would be filed.

Where it gets contested is announced union-called strikes. Some lower courts have argued these are different from wildcat strikes because the union formally exercises a fundamental right under Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The CJEU has so far stayed close to Krüsemann's logic: as long as the dispute concerns the airline's own employment terms, the strike is part of normal commercial activity. Refusals citing announced strikes are still strongly disputable.

ATC or airport strikes — usually extraordinary, but not a blank cheque

If the strike is at the air traffic control service or among an airport's own ground staff, the picture flips. These workers are not on the airline's payroll, the airline plays no part in the negotiations, and the dispute lies entirely outside the carrier's control. An ATC strike — especially the French DGAC strikes that recur every spring and disrupt overflights across Europe — normally counts as an extraordinary circumstance, and the 250–600 EUR compensation is not owed.

That said, "extraordinary" is not a free pass. Two checks remain. First, the airline must still prove it took all reasonable measures to avoid your specific cancellation. A French ATC strike does not automatically excuse a Bucharest–Lisbon flight that could have been re-routed via Spain or Germany. The reasonable-measures test was again sharpened in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07) and runs through later case law as a parallel duty the carrier carries even when an extraordinary circumstance is real.

Second, the causal chain must hold. If a controllers' strike ends Tuesday morning and your flight is cancelled Wednesday evening, the connection to the strike is open to challenge. Airlines routinely cite a strike for cancellations that happen well outside its window, and Romanian small-claims courts have shown willingness to reject the defence when the timing does not add up.

Even when the strike defence succeeds, the right to care under Article 9 of EU 261 survives — covered in detail in right to care, meals and hotel . The CJEU confirmed in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013), the volcanic-ash case, that the care duty has no upper limit and applies precisely when the compensation duty falls away. So an ATC strike removes the 250–600 EUR but never removes the meals, drinks and hotel obligation.

"An event beyond our control" — the language airlines use

It helps to recognise the playbook. Refusal letters from European carriers tend to recycle the same three phrases: extraordinary circumstances, force majeure and, almost word-for-word, "the compensation you are claiming does not apply because the disruption was caused by an event beyond our control." The wording itself is not the problem. The problem is that it is deployed as a catch-all without naming the strike or identifying whose staff walked out.

A refusal that only says "strike — beyond our control", without specifying which strike, who was on it, when it began and ended, and why your particular flight could not be re-routed or operated, has not performed the assessment EU 261 requires. Wallentin-Hermann puts the burden of proof squarely on the airline: the carrier must demonstrate both the extraordinary nature of the event and the reasonable measures it took. A two-line boilerplate reply does neither.

Romanian passengers facing such a letter should respond in writing and ask, point by point: which strike, what dates, whose payroll, what re-routing options were considered. If the carrier cannot or will not answer with specifics, the file is ready for escalation.

How to escalate a strike refusal in Romania

The Romanian enforcement path has three escalating layers.

Step 1 — ANPC (Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor). ANPC handles consumer complaints against traders, including airlines. File a complaint online or at the regional county office, attach the booking, boarding pass, the airline's refusal and any correspondence. ANPC will not order payment but it puts written pressure on the carrier and creates an enforcement record that supports a court claim later. This is the cheapest first move and usually takes 30–60 days.

Step 2 — AACR (Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română). AACR is the National Enforcement Body (NEB) Romania notified to the European Commission under Article 16 of EU 261/2004. It is the technical authority that supervises airline compliance with passenger rights. AACR assesses whether the airline correctly applied the extraordinary-circumstance exception. An adverse finding strengthens the case considerably, particularly when the dispute is over cabin-crew or pilot strikes where Krüsemann clearly applies.

Step 3 — Judecătoria (small-claims court). If the airline still refuses, the case goes to the Judecătoria — Romania's first-instance court for civil claims of moderate value. Under the EU Small Claims Procedure (Regulation 861/2007) claims up to 5,000 EUR can be filed on a standard form, in writing, often without a lawyer. The CJEU confirmed in Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) that the passenger may sue either at the departure airport's court or at the destination court, which means a passenger flying out of Bucharest Otopeni can file at the Judecătoria Sectorului 1 even if the airline is based abroad.

The Romanian three-year prescription period under Article 2517 of the Civil Code applies to EU 261 claims. The CJEU confirmed in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that national limitation rules govern these claims, so Romanian passengers have three years from the flight date to file — longer than Sweden's two-year window and considerably longer than airline-imposed "60-day" deadlines, which are not binding under Romanian consumer law.

If you would rather not handle the paperwork yourself, a no-win-no-fee specialist can take the file end to end. Check whether AirHelp can claim your strike compensation on a no-win-no-fee basis — they cover ANPC, AACR and Judecătoria escalation and only take a percentage if money actually lands in your account.

The duty of care never disappears

Whatever the strike turns out to be, one obligation does not move: the duty of care under Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of EU 261. When you wait more than two hours for a short flight, three hours for a medium one or four hours for a long-haul, the airline must provide meals and drinks proportionate to the wait, two free phone calls or emails, and — when the wait crosses into another day — hotel accommodation plus transport between the hotel and the airport.

McDonagh sealed the point: the care duty has no monetary cap and survives even an extraordinary event that lasts for days. So a passenger stuck at Bucharest Otopeni because of a Spanish ATC strike keeps the right to be looked after by the airline. If the carrier fails to organise care, keep every receipt for food, water and accommodation — reasonable out-of-pocket expenses are reclaimable from the airline even when the 250–600 EUR compensation is not. The mechanics are covered in our guide on missed connection compensation for the connecting-flight scenario.

Quick checklist for a Romanian passenger after a strike disruption

1. Identify who struck. Cabin crew or pilots employed by the operating carrier → compensation almost certainly owed. ATC or airport ground staff → compensation usually not owed.
2. Collect evidence at the airport. Take a photo of the departure board, save the airline app screen showing the cancellation reason, and ask the gate agent for the written reason.
3. Claim care on the spot. Vouchers for meals or hotel, or keep receipts if you have to arrange them yourself.
4. Write the airline within 7 days. Specific demand: 250–600 EUR under EU 261 plus reimbursement of care costs.
5. If refused with a boilerplate, escalate. ANPC first, then AACR, then the Judecătoria. The three-year window is your friend — there is no rush, but do not let it run out.
6. Read also: cancelled flight compensation for the underlying entitlement, and the Romanian-language guide at /strike-extraordinary-circumstance/ if you prefer to share with family in Romanian.

This is not legal advice

This page is built from EU 261/2004, published CJEU case law and Romanian enforcement practice as of June 2026. It is general information, not legal advice on any individual flight. For your specific situation contact ANPC (consumer protection), AACR (the Romanian national enforcement body for air passenger rights) or a licensed Romanian lawyer. Strike case law is still developing — we date and update this page when the CJEU, EUR-Lex or AACR issues something new.

Frequently asked questions

Is a flight strike always an extraordinary circumstance in Romania?

No. EU Regulation 261/2004 applies the same way in Romania as in every other Member State, and a strike is not automatically extraordinary. If the airline's own cabin crew or pilots stop work, the dispute belongs to the carrier and Romanian passengers keep the right to 250–600 EUR. If air traffic control or airport ground staff strike, the event normally lies outside the carrier's control and qualifies as extraordinary. The decisive question is who is striking, not the word "strike" on the rejection letter.

What did the CJEU decide in Krüsemann C-195/17?

In Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that a wildcat strike by TUIfly staff following a restructuring announcement did not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. The Court held that a labour dispute rooted in the airline's own management decisions belongs to its normal commercial activity and stays within its control. The TUIfly passengers were entitled to compensation, and the same reasoning binds every Romanian court including the Judecătoria.

Is an ATC strike that grounded my flight from Bucharest Otopeni extraordinary?

Usually yes. An air traffic control strike — whether French, Italian, Greek or any other ATC service — hits the airline from the outside. The carrier does not employ controllers and does not negotiate their pay, so the event normally counts as an extraordinary circumstance and no 250–600 EUR is owed. The airline must still prove it did everything reasonable to save your specific departure. Even when the strike defence holds, the right to meals, drinks and hotel under Article 9 of EU 261 stays in force.

The airline cited "an event beyond our control" — what should I do?

Ask the airline in writing to name the strike, identify whose staff struck and explain why your specific flight could not be saved. A boilerplate "force majeure" reply fails the evidence test required by EU 261 and confirmed in CJEU Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07). If the carrier refuses, escalate to ANPC, file a complaint with AACR as the Romanian national enforcement body, or bring the claim to the Judecătoria — you have three years from the flight date under Romanian civil prescription rules.

Do I still get meals and a hotel if the strike was extraordinary?

Yes. The duty of care under Article 9 of EU 261 survives even a valid extraordinary circumstance — this was made explicit by the CJEU in McDonagh (C-12/11). Meals and drinks while you wait, two free phone calls or emails, and hotel accommodation plus airport transport when an overnight stay is needed must be provided. Keep every receipt: if the airline failed to organise care, you can claim reasonable out-of-pocket costs even though the 250–600 EUR compensation is not payable.

Sources and further reading

• EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (consolidated text)
• EUR-Lex — CJEU Krüsemann C-195/17 — wildcat strike by airline's own staff is not extraordinary
• EUR-Lex — CJEU Wallentin-Hermann C-549/07 — narrow reading of extraordinary circumstances and burden of proof
• EUR-Lex — CJEU Sturgeon C-402/07 (joined with C-432/07) — the three-hour delay rule
• EUR-Lex — CJEU McDonagh C-12/11 — care duty survives extraordinary events
• EUR-Lex — CJEU Cuadrench Moré C-139/11 — national limitation periods apply (3 years in Romania)
• AACR — Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română, the Romanian National Enforcement Body for EU 261
• ANPC — Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor, consumer complaints handler