McDonagh ruling: care obligation has no time limit, even in volcanic ash

The Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd ruling (CJEU, 31 January 2013, C-12/11) is the pivotal decision that clearly distinguishes the two regimes of Regulation (EC) 261: flat-rate compensation (excusable in extraordinary circumstances) and care obligation (never excusable, with no time limit).

The facts: the Eyjafjallajökull eruption (2010)

In April 2010, the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted. The ash cloud closed much of European airspace for several days. It was the largest peacetime aviation disruption.

Mrs Denise McDonagh was stranded in Ireland, her Ryanair flight cancelled. For 7 days, she claimed meals and accommodation from Ryanair. Ryanair refused, arguing the event constituted extraordinary circumstances and the airline was not obliged to provide care indefinitely.

Mrs McDonagh sought judgment from the Irish courts, which referred a preliminary question to the CJEU.

The decision: care has NO LIMIT

The Court answers without ambiguity in several points.

1. Distinction between compensation (Art. 7) and care (Art. 9)

The Court recalls that EC 261 contains two distinct regimes:

• Article 7: flat-rate compensation for cancellation/3h+ delay → excusable in extraordinary circumstances (Art. 5(3))
• Article 9: care obligation (meals, drinks, hotel, transport, communications) → never excusable, due in all cases

2. No time limit to the care obligation

At paragraph 33, the Court is unambiguous:

"The obligation on the air carrier to provide care to a passenger is neither temporally nor financially limited by Regulation No 261/2004 and continues to fall on the carrier as long as it is required, for whatever reason, to provide that service to the passenger."

Concretely: if the cancellation lasts 7 days, the airline must cover 7 days of hotel + meals + transport.

3. The airline cannot claim exemption on this point

Article 5(3) of the Regulation allows exemption from flat-rate compensation in extraordinary circumstances. But this exemption does NOT extend to the care obligation, which remains in full force.

What is the scope of the care obligation?

Article 9 of the Regulation details the care:

• Meals and refreshments proportionate to the waiting time (in practice: a hot meal every 4-6h)
• Hotel accommodation when one or more nights' stay becomes necessary
• Transport between airport and hotel
• Two free communications (telephone, telex, fax, email)

Usual thresholds (indicative):

What to do if the airline refuses care

Typical case: chaotic airport, Ryanair counter closed, PA announcement "please make your own arrangements". You have 2 options:

Option 1 — Wait for promised care

If the airline organises hotel/meals via a partner (e.g. meal card, hotel voucher), this is the easiest.

Option 2 — Pay and reimburse (recommended on refusal)

1. Pay for meals yourself (reasonable, not caviar), pay for hotel, pay for taxi
2. Keep ALL receipts (invoices, bills, tickets)
3. Send the airline a reimbursement claim citing: "Under the McDonagh ruling (CJEU, C-12/11), the care obligation of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 has no time limit and admits no exemption. I claim full reimbursement of the attached expenses."
4. If refused, recourse before the competent court

The "reasonable" standard

The Court specifies (paragraph 51) that the costs claimed must be necessary, appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. The airline does not have to pay €800/night at a 5-star hotel, but must pay a decent hotel near the airport.

Acceptable practical standard:

• Hotel: €80-150/night depending on city
• Meals: €15-30/meal
• Transport: reasonable taxis or shuttles

Summary

To recover unreimbursed care expenses, contact us via WhatsApp.

Related articles

• Full CJEU case law on EC 261
• Wallentin-Hermann ruling
• Pešková ruling: bird strike
• Extraordinary circumstances overview