Civil Law And Airport Ground Handling Delay Liability Claims In Europe

1. Introduction

Airport ground handling delay liability arises when an aircraft's departure or arrival is delayed because of services performed at the airport, such as:

baggage loading or unloading;

passenger boarding;

aircraft turnaround;

ramp operations;

towing and push-back;

refuelling;

cargo handling;

ground equipment;

aircraft cleaning;

loading documentation;

ground-security procedures.

The issue is legally important because the passenger normally claims against the operating air carrier, while the underlying operational fault may lie with an airport operator or independent ground-handling company.

The most directly relevant CJEU authority is Touristic Aviation Services, C-405/23 (2024). The Court held that a shortage of staff employed by the airport operator responsible for baggage loading may constitute an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004, provided the required conditions are satisfied. (Infocuria)

Therefore, ground handling can affect both:

passenger compensation under EU law, and

civil/contractual liability between the airline and the ground handler.

2. Meaning of Ground Handling Liability

Ground handling refers broadly to services performed on the ground to prepare an aircraft and passengers for safe and timely operation.

A simplified chain is:

Passenger

↓

Operating Airline

↓

Ground-Handling Company / Airport Operator

↓

Actual Ground Service

If the service is performed incorrectly, the legal question becomes:

Who bears the financial consequences of the resulting delay?

The answer depends upon the particular legal regime.

3. Three Different Liability Relationships

It is essential not to confuse these three relationships.

A. Passenger → Airline

The passenger may claim:

Regulation 261/2004 compensation;

care;

reimbursement;

rerouting;

damages under applicable law.

B. Airline → Ground Handler

The airline may seek:

contractual damages;

indemnification;

reimbursement;

contribution;

losses caused by negligent performance.

C. Passenger → Ground Handler

A direct claim against the ground handler is possible in some circumstances, but it depends heavily upon:

applicable national civil law;

whether a contract exists;

tort/delict principles;

the Montreal Convention;

the precise damage suffered.

The passenger should therefore not automatically assume that the ground handler is the statutory debtor under Regulation 261/2004.

4. Principal EU Legislation

Regulation 261/2004

Regulation 261/2004 establishes passenger rights concerning:

denied boarding;

cancellation;

long delays.

For qualifying circumstances, Article 7 provides standardized compensation of:

The Regulation also provides rights to care and reimbursement/rerouting.

The CJEU has repeatedly emphasized that Regulation 261/2004 provides standardized and immediate passenger protection, distinct from individualized damages under the Montreal Convention. (curia)

5. The Most Important Case: Touristic Aviation Services, C-405/23

Facts

In 2021, a flight from Cologne-Bonn to Kos was delayed by approximately 3 hours and 49 minutes.

The principal cause was a shortage of airport staff responsible for loading baggage.

Passengers sought compensation through Flightright against Touristic Aviation Services.

The issue was whether the shortage of airport baggage-loading staff constituted an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004. (curia)

Decision

The CJEU held that:

A shortage of staff of the airport operator responsible for baggage loading may constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

However, the airline must still establish the relevant legal conditions, including that the circumstance was beyond its actual control and could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. (curia)

Importance

This is the leading European authority specifically concerning airport ground handling and passenger delay compensation.

It establishes that not every ground-handling problem is automatically:

“the airline's normal operational responsibility.”

The precise relationship between the airline and airport/handler matters.

6. Ground Handler's Fault Does Not Automatically Eliminate Passenger Rights

This distinction is crucial.

Suppose:

Airline contracts with Ground Handler X.
Ground Handler X fails to load baggage on time.
Passenger arrives four hours late.

The passenger's claim under Regulation 261/2004 is principally assessed against the operating air carrier.

The airline may then argue:

“The delay was caused by the ground handler.”

That argument does not automatically defeat the passenger claim.

Instead, the airline must satisfy the requirements of Article 5(3).

Touristic Aviation Services demonstrates that the nature of the ground-handling event is critical. (curia)

7. Case 2 — Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia, C-549/07

CJEU, 22 December 2008

This is one of the foundational Regulation 261/2004 cases.

The CJEU held that an ordinary technical problem inherent in the normal activity of an air carrier is generally not an extraordinary circumstance.

A technical problem will qualify only where it stems from events that, by their nature or origin:

are not inherent in the normal exercise of the airline's activity; and

are beyond its actual control.

(Infocuria)

Ground-handling relevance

The same analytical distinction is useful for ground handling:

ordinary operational difficulty

versus

external circumstance genuinely beyond airline control.

The precise classification cannot be based simply on the label “ground handling.”

8. Case 3 — Siewert v Condor Flugdienst, C-394/14

CJEU, 14 November 2014

An aircraft was damaged by mobile boarding stairs during a preceding flight.

The CJEU treated the event as an external occurrence rather than an ordinary technical problem inherent in airline activity.

(Infocuria)

Importance for ground handling

This case is particularly useful because mobile boarding equipment is part of airport/ground operations.

It demonstrates that:

Damage caused by external airport equipment may be legally different from an aircraft's ordinary technical failure.

Thus, ground equipment can sometimes produce an extraordinary circumstance.

But the airline still has to satisfy the applicable reasonable-measures requirements.

9. Case 4 — van der Lans v KLM, C-257/14

CJEU, 17 September 2015

The aircraft experienced unexpected technical failures involving components.

KLM argued that the unexpected nature of the defects constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The CJEU rejected that general proposition.

Unexpected technical problems do not automatically become extraordinary circumstances merely because they were:

unforeseen;

unexpected;

not discovered during ordinary checks.

(Infocuria)

Ground-handling relevance

An airline cannot automatically escape compensation simply by saying:

“The ground operation unexpectedly failed.”

The legal inquiry must identify the nature and origin of the event and whether it was genuinely outside the carrier's control.

10. Case 5 — Folkerts v Air France, C-11/11

CJEU, 26 February 2013

The passenger travelled on connecting flights and reached the final destination more than three hours late.

The CJEU held that compensation under Article 7 depends upon the delay at the final destination, not merely the delay at the initial departure point.

(Infocuria)

Ground-handling relevance

Ground handling may cause a relatively small departure delay that ultimately creates a much larger delay at the final destination.

Example:

Baggage-loading delay: 45 minutes

↓

Missed connection

↓

Final destination delay: 5 hours

The relevant Article 7 question is generally the delay at the final destination.

11. Case 6 — Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10

CJEU, 23 October 2012

The CJEU confirmed the compatibility of standardized passenger compensation under Regulation 261/2004 with the Montreal Convention.

It recognized that Regulation 261/2004 provides standardized compensation for passenger inconvenience resulting from qualifying delays, whereas the Montreal Convention deals with individual damages caused by delay. (curia)

Ground-handling relevance

A ground-handling delay may therefore generate:

Regulation 261 compensation

and potentially a separate

individual damages claim

where the legal requirements of the Montreal Convention are satisfied.

These should not automatically be treated as one identical claim.

12. Case 7 — IATA and ELFAA, C-344/04

CJEU, 10 January 2006

The CJEU examined Regulation 261/2004 in relation to the Montreal Convention.

It confirmed that the standardized measures under Regulation 261/2004 are distinct from individual damages claims governed by the Montreal Convention.

The Court specifically explained that Regulation 261 measures concerning long delays do not prevent passengers from bringing additional claims for damage under the Montreal Convention where its conditions are met. (curia)

Ground-handling relevance

This creates a two-level structure:

Ground-handling delay

→ standardized Regulation 261 rights

and potentially

→ individualized Montreal Convention damages.

13. Case 8 — Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07

CJEU, 19 November 2009

The CJEU established the principle that passengers suffering a sufficiently long delay may receive standardized compensation comparable to that available in cancellation cases.

Importance

Ground handling may initially appear to be merely an operational issue.

But if it causes a qualifying delay, it can produce a substantial passenger compensation obligation.

The legal chain becomes:

Ground-handling failure

→ flight delay

→ arrival ≥ 3 hours late

→ Article 7 compensation, unless a valid Article 5(3) exception applies.

14. Case 9 — Pešková and Peška, C-315/15

CJEU, 4 May 2017

This case concerned a bird strike and the subsequent delay.

The Court treated a bird strike as an extraordinary circumstance, while emphasizing the carrier's obligation to take reasonable measures.

The CJEU's broader jurisprudence distinguishes genuinely external events from ordinary airline operational problems. The Court's own materials identify bird strikes, airspace closure and certain external security events among circumstances capable of being extraordinary. (curia)

Ground-handling relevance

An external event affecting airport operations may qualify as extraordinary, but a subsequent airline operational decision may still affect causation.

15. Case 10 — European Air Charter, T-656/24

General Court, 4 March 2026

This recent case concerned shortcomings in airport security checks and the airline's decision to wait for passengers who had not yet completed security screening.

The Court emphasized the importance of causal connection.

An external circumstance affecting airport operations does not automatically excuse a later delay if an autonomous decision by the airline becomes the determining cause of that later delay. (Infocuria)

Importance for ground handling

This provides an important modern principle:

External airport disruption + airline operational decision = separate causation analysis.

An airline cannot necessarily attribute the entire resulting delay to the airport event.

16. What Is an "Extraordinary Circumstance"?

Under Article 5(3), the airline can be exempt from Article 7 compensation if the cancellation/delay results from extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The CJEU jurisprudence generally asks two questions.

Question 1 — Is the event inherent in normal airline activity?

If yes, it is generally less likely to qualify.

Question 2 — Is it beyond the airline's actual control?

If yes, it is more capable of qualifying.

But both elements must be examined.

17. Ground-Handling Examples

18. The Reasonable-Measures Requirement

Even where a ground-handling event is extraordinary, the airline must still show that it could not have avoided the delay by taking reasonable measures.

Examples may include:

arranging alternative ground staff;

using another baggage-loading arrangement;

reallocating personnel;

changing aircraft rotation;

adjusting turnaround procedures;

using alternative handling facilities;

arranging replacement equipment.

The precise measure depends on:

size of airport;

available resources;

timing;

operational feasibility;

safety requirements;

cost;

regulatory constraints.

19. Airline's Liability to Passenger

The primary passenger-law question is:

Was the operating carrier required to pay compensation under Regulation 261/2004?

The airline cannot necessarily avoid that responsibility merely because it subcontracted ground handling.

Outsourcing an operational task does not automatically rewrite the passenger's statutory rights.

The airline must establish the applicable Article 5(3) exemption if it seeks to avoid compensation.

20. Airline's Liability to Ground Handler

This is a separate civil-law question.

Suppose:

Airline contracts with Ground Handler A.

Ground Handler A negligently loads baggage.

Airline suffers €100,000 in disruption costs.

The airline may potentially claim:

contractual damages;

indemnification;

costs of passenger accommodation;

aircraft/crew disruption costs;

additional handling expenses;

losses from missed rotations.

The result depends primarily on the ground-handling agreement and applicable national law.

21. Typical Ground-Handling Contract

A ground-handling contract may contain provisions concerning:

scope of services;

turnaround times;

service-level agreements;

staffing levels;

equipment;

safety;

regulatory compliance;

reporting;

delay notification;

indemnity;

insurance;

limitation of liability;

exclusion clauses;

subcontracting;

force majeure;

dispute resolution.

These provisions can become decisive in an airline-ground-handler dispute.

22. Breach of Contract

A typical civil-law claim may be formulated as:

Contract

↓

Ground handler's contractual duty

↓

Failure to perform correctly

↓

Delay

↓

Causation

↓

Financial loss

↓

Damages

For example:

The ground handler promised baggage loading to be completed within the agreed turnaround period but failed to deploy sufficient personnel.

The airline may then allege breach of contract.

23. Tort/Delict Liability

Where no direct contractual relationship exists, national tort/delict law may become relevant.

The claimant generally has to establish:

legally recognized duty;

breach;

causation;

damage;

absence of applicable defence.

A passenger's direct claim against a ground handler will therefore depend heavily on national law.

24. Montreal Convention

The Montreal Convention is important for international carriage by air.

Article 19 provides carrier liability for damage caused by delay in the carriage of:

passengers;

baggage;

cargo.

However, the carrier can avoid liability under Article 19 by establishing that it and its servants or agents took all measures reasonably required to avoid the damage, or that it was impossible to take such measures.

The CJEU has recognized this framework in cases such as Folkerts and Air Baltic. (Infocuria)

25. Ground Handler as Agent or Service Provider

An important issue is whether the ground handler is:

an independent contractor;

an agent;

a servant/employee;

a subcontractor performing the carrier's obligations.

This classification may affect:

contractual liability;

attribution of conduct;

Montreal Convention liability;

indemnity;

limitation clauses.

The answer cannot be determined merely from the fact that the ground handler works at an airport.

26. Passenger Damage vs Airline Economic Loss

This distinction is especially important.

Passenger's loss

Examples:

missed connection;

hotel expense;

food;

additional transport;

lost baggage-related expense;

compensable delay damage.

Airline's loss

Examples:

aircraft ground time;

crew overtime;

missed slot;

cancelled rotation;

additional aircraft;

passenger accommodation;

compensation payments;

fuel/handling costs.

These may be governed by different causes of action.

27. Direct Passenger Claim Against Ground Handler

A passenger might argue:

“The ground handler caused my delay, therefore the ground handler must pay me.”

That conclusion is not automatic.

The passenger must identify:

contractual relationship;

statutory obligation;

tort/delict duty;

applicable aviation convention;

causation;

recoverable damage.

In many Regulation 261 cases, the passenger's statutory claim is directed toward the operating carrier, even where the underlying operational problem occurred at airport level.

28. Causation

Causation is central.

Consider:

Baggage-loading shortage

↓

20-minute delay

↓

Aircraft misses departure slot

↓

45-minute additional delay

↓

Connecting passenger misses connection

↓

Final destination 5 hours late.

A court may need to determine:

Was baggage loading the determining cause?

Did the airline contribute?

Did airport slot allocation contribute?

Did the airline make an independent decision?

Was there another intervening event?

The 2026 European Air Charter decision illustrates the importance of this causal analysis. (Infocuria)

29. Concurrent Causes

Ground delays frequently have multiple causes.

Example:

The court may need to identify whether:

one cause was decisive;

several causes jointly produced the delay;

an extraordinary event was sufficient to excuse compensation;

the airline contributed independently.

30. Regulatory Compliance Is Not the Same as Civil Liability

A ground handler may violate airport regulations.

But:

Regulatory breach does not automatically establish the passenger's damages claim.

A civil claimant generally still needs to establish:

Duty → breach → causation → legally recognized damage.

Conversely, compliance with a regulation does not necessarily eliminate contractual liability.

31. Evidence in Ground-Handling Litigation

Important evidence includes:

ground-handling agreement;

service-level agreement;

staffing schedules;

baggage-loading records;

turnaround logs;

aircraft movement records;

ramp records;

loading timestamps;

baggage reconciliation records;

airport operational logs;

staff rosters;

equipment records;

incident reports;

ATC records;

slot records;

passenger manifests;

delay codes;

airline communications;

invoices;

passenger compensation records.

The delay code alone should not necessarily be treated as conclusive evidence of legal responsibility.

32. Delay Codes

Airlines and airports often use standardized operational delay codes.

For example, a delay may be recorded as relating to:

baggage;

boarding;

ramp;

loading;

fuelling;

aircraft handling;

security.

But civil litigation requires deeper analysis.

A delay code can help establish the factual history, but the court may still need to determine:

Who caused the delay, whether the cause was extraordinary, and whether reasonable measures were available?

33. Ground Handler's Staff Shortage

The Touristic Aviation Services case is particularly important here.

A staff shortage is not automatically treated as an ordinary airline problem merely because it delays a flight.

The CJEU held that a shortage of airport staff responsible for baggage loading may qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. (curia)

However:

“May constitute” ≠ “always constitutes.”

The factual circumstances and reasonable-measures analysis remain important.

34. Ground Equipment Failure

Ground equipment can include:

baggage belts;

loaders;

stairs;

tractors;

push-back tugs;

GPUs;

catering vehicles;

refuelling equipment.

Siewert demonstrates that damage caused by mobile boarding stairs can be treated differently from ordinary aircraft technical problems. (Infocuria)

Therefore, courts should distinguish:

aircraft-internal defect

from

external ground-equipment event.

35. Passenger Compensation Formula

Where Regulation 261/2004 applies:

Qualifying long delay

Arrival at final destination ≥ 3 hours late

No valid Article 5(3) extraordinary-circumstance defence

=

Potential Article 7 compensation

Folkerts confirms that, for connecting flights, the relevant delay is measured at the final destination. (Infocuria)

36. Standardized Compensation vs Actual Damages

These should be separated.

Regulation 261

Provides standardized compensation.

Montreal Convention

Addresses individualized damage resulting from delay, subject to its conditions and limits.

National contract/tort law

May provide additional remedies where not precluded by applicable EU/international law.

The CJEU made this distinction clear in IATA and ELFAA and Nelson. (curia)

37. Airline's Right of Recourse

Suppose:

Passenger → Airline: €600 compensation

and

Airline → Ground Handler: breach of contract

The airline may seek recovery from the ground handler if the handling agreement and applicable law permit it.

Thus, the system can operate as:

Passenger claim

→ Airline pays passenger

→ Airline pursues ground handler

This protects the distinction between passenger protection and allocation of ultimate loss between commercial parties.

38. Indemnification

Ground-handling contracts often contain indemnity clauses.

An indemnity may require the handler to reimburse the airline for losses arising from:

negligent handling;

failure to provide personnel;

equipment failure;

breach of safety requirements;

delay caused by handler;

third-party claims.

But courts may scrutinize:

scope;

causation;

limitation clauses;

exclusions;

negligence standards;

applicable mandatory law.

39. Limitation of Liability

Ground-handling contracts may attempt to limit the handler's liability.

Possible provisions include:

fixed monetary caps;

per-event limits;

annual aggregate limits;

exclusion of consequential loss;

exclusion of lost profits;

insurance-based limits.

However, enforceability depends on applicable national law and the particular wording.

A contractual limitation does not automatically override mandatory passenger rights under EU law.

40. Duty of Care

Ground handlers operate in an environment involving:

passengers;

aircraft;

baggage;

cargo;

airport infrastructure;

dangerous goods.

Consequently, their civil duties may extend beyond mere punctuality.

A negligent ground-handling operation can potentially cause:

physical injury;

property damage;

baggage loss;

aircraft damage;

passenger delay;

economic loss.

The applicable cause of action depends on the claimant and jurisdiction.

41. Baggage Handling

Baggage handling is particularly significant.

Potential problems include:

late loading;

incorrect loading;

baggage misrouting;

baggage loss;

damaged baggage;

security discrepancies;

failure to reconcile baggage.

Where the claim concerns damage, loss or delay of checked baggage, the Montreal Convention may become directly relevant.

The CJEU has addressed baggage liability in cases such as Walz, C-63/09, concerning the scope and limits of carrier liability for baggage damage. (Infocuria)

42. Ground Handling and Cargo

Cargo handling raises a similar distinction.

Possible claims include:

cargo delay;

temperature damage;

loading error;

documentation error;

misrouting;

dangerous-goods mishandling.

For international carriage, Montreal Convention rules concerning cargo may become relevant.

Commercial cargo contracts can also impose additional obligations.

43. Airport Operator vs Independent Ground Handler

The claimant must determine which entity actually performed the service.

There may be:

Airport operator

and separately:

Ground-handling company

and separately:

Airline's own handling department.

Responsibility cannot be assigned merely because the incident occurred “at the airport.”

44. Outsourcing Does Not Necessarily Transfer Passenger Liability

An airline may outsource:

baggage handling;

check-in;

ramp services;

boarding;

fuelling coordination.

But the airline's statutory obligations toward passengers do not automatically disappear.

The airline may subsequently seek contractual recourse against its supplier.

This is an important distinction between:

external allocation of operational responsibility

and

statutory passenger protection.

45. Force Majeure

A ground handler may invoke:

severe weather;

airport closure;

security threat;

government action;

sudden infrastructure failure;

labour disruption.

Whether the event qualifies as force majeure depends upon:

applicable national law;

contractual wording;

foreseeability;

avoidability;

control;

causation.

The Regulation 261 test of an extraordinary circumstance is not necessarily identical to the national-law concept of contractual force majeure.

46. Labour Shortages

Labour shortages require careful analysis.

Ordinary commercial staffing problem

Potentially more likely to remain within the service provider's operational sphere.

Airport-wide shortage outside airline control

Touristic Aviation Services demonstrates that this may potentially qualify as extraordinary under Regulation 261. (curia)

Therefore:

The identity of the employer, location of the staff and degree of airline control can be legally significant.

47. Airline's Reasonable Measures

An airline confronted with ground-handling disruption may need to consider:

alternative handlers;

additional staff;

alternative loading methods;

changing aircraft;

delaying or rearranging rotation;

rerouting passengers;

alternative airport facilities.

The test is not whether the airline could have prevented every delay.

The question is whether it took measures that were reasonable in the circumstances.

48. Documentation and Burden of Proof

A successful claim often depends on evidence.

The airline may need to prove:

what caused the delay;

who controlled the relevant operation;

why the circumstance was extraordinary;

what reasonable measures were considered;

why those measures could not avoid the delay.

A bare assertion such as:

“Ground handling problem”

is much weaker than contemporaneous operational evidence.

49. Civil-Law Liability Formula

For a direct civil claim against a ground handler:

Legal duty

↓

Contractual/tortious breach

↓

Actual causation

↓

Legal causation

↓

Recognized damage

↓

No applicable defence

↓

Damages

For a Regulation 261 passenger claim:

Covered flight

↓

Cancellation/qualifying delay

↓

Article 7 entitlement

↓

No valid Article 5(3) defence

↓

Compensation

50. Key Distinction: Ground Handler Fault vs Extraordinary Circumstance

This is the most important conceptual point.

It is possible for:

Ground handler to have caused the delay

and yet for the airline to have a valid Article 5(3) defence.

Conversely:

Ground handler to have caused the delay

but the airline may still be liable to passengers if the event does not satisfy the extraordinary-circumstances test.

The passenger-law question and the commercial recourse question are therefore not identical.

51. Practical Example

Facts

An airline contracts with an airport ground handler.

The handler normally provides 20 baggage-loading employees.

On the day of the flight, only 8 are available.

The aircraft departs 3 hours and 40 minutes late.

Passenger claim

Passengers may claim Regulation 261 compensation.

Airline's defence

The airline may invoke Touristic Aviation Services and argue that the airport staffing shortage was an extraordinary circumstance. (curia)

Court's questions

The court may examine:

Who employed the workers?

Was the shortage airport-wide?

Could the airline control staffing?

Could alternative handlers be obtained?

Did the airline take reasonable measures?

Was the shortage actually the determining cause?

Did another airline decision prolong the delay?

52. Evidence Checklist for Passenger

A passenger should preserve:

booking confirmation;

boarding pass;

actual arrival time;

scheduled arrival time;

airline delay notification;

reason given for delay;

correspondence with airline;

receipts for meals;

accommodation receipts;

replacement transport receipts;

connecting-flight information;

baggage documentation.

53. Evidence Checklist for Airline-Ground Handler Litigation

The airline should preserve:

ground-handling agreement;

SLA;

staff rosters;

delay codes;

loading records;

turnaround reports;

baggage reconciliation records;

equipment logs;

airport operational reports;

emails;

incident reports;

invoices;

passenger compensation records;

evidence of mitigation efforts.

54. Six Core Cases to Memorize

Additional useful authorities are Nelson, Sturgeon, Pešková and Peška, and the recent European Air Charter decision. (curia)

55. Exam-Ready Legal Test

When answering an airport ground-handling delay problem, use this sequence:

Step 1 — Identify the delay

Was the passenger's final arrival delayed by at least three hours?

Step 2 — Identify the cause

Was it:

baggage handling;

boarding;

ramp operation;

equipment;

staffing;

security;

fuelling;

aircraft technical issue?

Step 3 — Identify the responsible entity

Was it:

airline;

airport;

ground handler;

another contractor?

Step 4 — Apply Regulation 261/2004

Does the passenger have Article 7 compensation?

Step 5 — Test Article 5(3)

Was the event:

not inherent in normal airline activity;

beyond the airline's actual control;

unavoidable despite reasonable measures?

Step 6 — Apply causation

Was the ground event actually the determining cause of the qualifying delay?

Step 7 — Examine additional damages

Could Montreal Convention or national civil law provide additional recovery?

Step 8 — Determine recourse

Can the airline recover its loss from the ground handler under the handling contract?

56. Conclusion

Airport ground-handling delay liability in Europe requires separating passenger protection from ultimate allocation of loss between aviation businesses.

The most important modern authority is Touristic Aviation Services, C-405/23, where the CJEU recognized that a shortage of airport personnel responsible for baggage loading may constitute an extraordinary circumstance under Regulation 261/2004. (Infocuria)

But this does not create a blanket exemption for all ground-handling delays. The court must consider the nature and origin of the event, the airline's actual control, reasonable measures and causation.

The central civil-law formula is:

Ground-handling event → contractual/tortious responsibility → causation → passenger delay → Regulation 261 rights → Article 5(3) defence if applicable → airline-ground-handler recourse.

The most important distinction to remember is:

“The ground handler caused the delay” does not automatically mean “the airline owes no passenger compensation.”

Conversely, passenger compensation liability does not necessarily mean that the airline must ultimately bear the economic loss; the airline may have a separate contractual or tort claim against the ground handler.