Pesková — bird strike IS extraordinary, technical fault NOT

The Pesková ruling (ECJ C-315/15, 4 May 2017) is a key nuance on Wallentin-Hermann: not everything that isn't a technical fault automatically counts as extraordinary. The Court sharpens the burden-of-proof line.

The case. Mrs Pesková booked a flight from Burgas (Bulgaria) to Ostrava (Czech Republic). During landing of a prior flight, the aircraft hit a bird — damage to the landing gear. Inspection + repair took time, her flight was delayed >5 hours.

What did the ECJ decide?

1. Bird strike is an extraordinary circumstance. It falls outside normal carrier activity and outside carrier control.
2. BUT — the carrier must show all reasonable measures. Meaning: evidence that inspection + repair were performed as fast as possible, that a reserve aircraft (if available) was considered, and that the damage scope was proportionate to the delay.
3. A second inspection by an external expert is not required if the first inspection was adequate.

Practical. Airline cites "bird strike"? Not automatic refusal — demand written substantiation of: (1) time of strike, (2) inspection duration, (3) whether reserve aircraft was available. Without substantiation: push the claim. Burden of proof lies with the carrier, not you.

Broader line. Pesková fits the "what-is-external" case law: weather (Eyjafjallajökull McDonagh C-12/11) qualifies, technical faults (Wallentin-Hermann C-549/07) do not, in-house strike (Krüsemann C-195/17) does not, bird strike (Pesková) does — provided measures shown.