A bird strike is one of the few causes where the airline's first answer is genuinely close to correct — and that is exactly what makes it dangerous for passengers. The standard line is that a collision between an aircraft and a bird counts as an extraordinary circumstance under EU Regulation 261/2004, which means no fixed cash compensation. As a starting point that is right, and the EU Court of Justice settled it in the Pešková case. But that same ruling said something a second time, and it is the part most Polish passengers never hear: if a large share of the delay came not from the bird itself but from the airline's own inspection, paperwork or organisational slack afterwards, that part may still be claimable — EUR 250, EUR 400 or EUR 600 depending on distance (roughly PLN 1,100, PLN 1,750 or PLN 2,700 at current NBP rates). For a broader walk-through of when EU 261 applies, see our guide on whether you are eligible for flight compensation .
This page also exists in Polish as the polska wersja przewodnika o uderzeniu ptaka — the legal substance is identical, only the language differs.
The main rule: a bird strike is extraordinary
An airline does not control the wildlife around Warsaw Chopin, Kraków-Balice, Gdańsk or Modlin. A gull striking the nose of a 737 on rotation, a flock crossing the approach path at Wrocław, ingestion into an engine on climb-out at Katowice — these are events outside the carrier's commercial control and outside the bounds of normal aircraft operation. If a collision of that kind is the genuine cause of a delay of three hours or more at arrival, or of a cancellation, Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 gives the carrier an exemption from the fixed compensation. The EU Court of Justice confirmed this directly in Pešková (C-315/15, 2017): a collision between an aircraft and a bird, and the damage it causes, is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity and lies beyond its actual control.
So far so familiar — and so far the carrier is on solid ground. The problem starts when the airline acts as if the Pešková judgment stops there. It does not, and Polish passengers who accept the first rejection email without reading further are often leaving money on the table.
What the Pešková ruling actually said — both parts
The Pešková case was about exactly the scenario this page covers: a flight delayed after a bird collision. The Court looked at two questions and answered both, and it is the second answer that defines the real shape of your case.
The first question was whether a bird strike is an extraordinary circumstance. Answer: yes. As above, the collision and the resulting damage do not form part of the carrier's normal operations, so the exemption in Article 5(3) is in play.
The second question was whether that alone is enough to release the airline from paying. Answer: no. The Court was just as clear that the carrier must also show it took all reasonable measures to avoid or limit the delay that followed the collision. The fact that the bird itself was extraordinary does not absolve the carrier of responsibility for how it handled the situation in the hours afterwards. And the burden of proving both halves rests on the airline — a point the CJEU had already settled in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) as the general standard for any extraordinary-circumstance defence.
That two-step structure is what creates the opening for claims that look hopeless on first reading.
The two-part assessment that decides your case
Picture the delay in two slices. Most rejection letters pretend there is only one. There are two.
- The necessary inspection time. After a bird strike the aircraft must be inspected before it may fly again. That is a hard safety requirement under EU operational rules, and the time it takes is a direct consequence of the extraordinary event itself. That slice is normally not claimable.
- The extra time. If, on top of the inspection, the delay then dragged on because the carrier had no engineers on stand, was waiting for a part to be released, had no spare aircraft in the rotation, had no contingency plan at that airport, or simply moved slowly through the paperwork — that slice is about the carrier's own organisation. And the carrier could have avoided it.
If the total delay at arrival passes three hours and a meaningful share of it sits in the second slice, the compensation question is open again, despite the bird strike. The Pešková ruling exists specifically to stop airlines bundling the second slice into the first and calling the whole thing "extraordinary". The CJEU has been consistent on the underlying logic across its case law — including in Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018), where the Court reinforced that events tied to the carrier's own organisational sphere cannot be hidden behind the Article 5(3) shield.
In practice, three quick questions tell you where you stand:
- How long was the actual inspection? A standard post-strike inspection at a base airport is usually a matter of hours, not half a day. If your delay was twelve hours but the inspection itself took three, the other nine need a different explanation.
- Was the carrier waiting for resources it should have had? Engineers, parts, a tow tug, a slot — these are operational inputs the carrier is supposed to plan for at any airport it serves.
- Was a sub-charter or spare aircraft realistic? At a major hub like Warsaw Chopin, the question of whether the carrier could have re-organised its schedule is not theoretical. The CJEU expects airlines to consider reasonable alternatives, not just sit and wait.
If any of this matches your case, the "bird strike, computer says no" reply is not the end of the story.
The duty of care does not disappear
Even when the bird strike genuinely does release the airline from cash compensation, one obligation remains the same: the duty of care under Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004. While you wait, the airline must offer meals and drinks in reasonable proportion to the wait, two free phone calls or emails, and — for a delay that spills overnight — hotel accommodation plus transport between the airport and the hotel. The CJEU confirmed in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) that this duty applies even in extreme extraordinary-circumstance scenarios; if it survives a volcanic eruption, it certainly survives a single bird strike. Read more in your right to meals and a hotel during a flight delay .
If the airline failed to offer meals and you bought your own food, kept receipts, and a hotel room out of pocket because no airline-funded accommodation was provided, you can claim those costs back as reimbursement — separately from any EU 261 fixed-sum question.
How to assess your case in Poland
- Accept the main rule for the collision. The strike itself is extraordinary — by itself it gives no compensation. There is no point fighting that part.
- Examine the time afterwards. How long did the aircraft sit, and why? Was it pure inspection, or was a large share of it waiting on engineers, parts, a tow or a slot that should have been planned for?
- Ask the airline for a written explanation. If you get a refusal, write back asking the carrier to set out, in detail, what happened after the collision and why the delay grew so long. Cite Pešková and the burden of proof. The carrier must explain itself — it is not for you to prove the negative.
- Escalate inside Poland. If a meaningful slice of the delay looks like it sits with the carrier's own handling, you can complain free of charge to the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) — Poland's official body for air passenger rights complaints. If RPP mediation does not resolve the case, the next step is a civil claim in the appropriate Sąd Rejonowy (district court). The good news for Polish passengers: under Article 118 of the Polish Civil Code the general limitation period is 10 years for claims arising before 9 July 2018 and 6 years for newer ones — far longer than the two- or three-year windows in some other EU states. The CJEU left the limitation period to national law in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013), and Poland's window is one of the most generous in the Union.
If you are unsure whether your case qualifies, start with our overview of whether you are eligible for flight compensation and our guide on going to court for flight compensation .
Going it alone or using a claims service
You can run a bird-strike claim yourself, all the way from the first letter to RPP and on to the Sąd Rejonowy. The procedure does not require a lawyer, and Polish district courts handle EU 261 cases routinely. If the airline plays a tactical game, however — multiple rounds of denial, vague references to "operational issues", late disclosure of the post-strike timeline — a specialised claims service can shoulder the work for a success-fee share. For a side-by-side, see our guide on doing it yourself versus using a service .
If you would rather hand the whole bird-strike claim to a no-win-no-fee team that already knows the Pešková arguments and deals with Polish carriers and LOT regularly:
Check your bird strike claim with AirHelp — no win, no fee
This is not legal advice
This page draws on the published EU regulation and CJEU rulings cited above; it has not been individually reviewed by a Polish aviation lawyer. For advice on the specific facts of your case, contact the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC), Poland's supervisory authority for air passenger rights, or a Polish advocate (adwokat) or legal counsel (radca prawny) experienced in EU 261 work.
Frequently asked questions
Do you get compensation for a flight delayed by a bird strike in Poland?
Not for the strike itself. The EU Court of Justice ruled in Pešková (C-315/15, 2017) that a bird collision is an extraordinary circumstance beyond the airline's control, so Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 normally exempts the carrier from the fixed EUR 250-600 payout for the collision itself. But the same ruling says the airline must also prove it took all reasonable measures to limit the knock-on delay. If a meaningful share of your final three-hour-plus delay sits in the carrier's own handling — slow inspection scheduling, missing engineers, no contingency plan — that share may still be claimable in Poland through the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) or the Sąd Rejonowy.
What exactly did the Pešková ruling decide?
In Pešková (C-315/15, 2017) the CJEU settled two things. First: a collision between an aircraft and a bird is an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004, because such collisions lie outside the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity and outside its actual control. Second: that alone is not enough to defeat a passenger's claim — the carrier must also show it took all reasonable measures to avoid or limit the resulting delay. The burden of proving both parts is on the airline, in line with the standard set by Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008).
Can I claim if the post-bird-strike inspection took unnecessarily long?
Possibly, yes. The time for a standard safety inspection after a bird strike is normally not claimable, because it is a direct consequence of the extraordinary event. But if the delay grew because the airline had no engineers on station, was waiting for clearance, had no spare aircraft to swap in or simply handled the case slowly, that extra time can be treated as something the carrier could have avoided. Pešková is explicit on this point, and the RPP at ULC is used to applying the two-slice analysis to Polish complaints.
Am I still entitled to meals and a hotel after a bird strike?
Yes. The duty of care under Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004 applies regardless of the cause of the delay. Even when a bird strike releases the airline from the fixed cash payout, it must still offer food and drink in reasonable proportion to the wait, two free phone calls or emails, and — for an overnight delay — hotel accommodation plus airport-to-hotel transport. The CJEU confirmed in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) that this duty survives even the most extreme extraordinary circumstances.
How long do Polish passengers have to claim after a bird strike?
A long time. Under Article 118 of the Polish Civil Code, EU 261 compensation claims fall under the general limitation period — 10 years for claims arising before 9 July 2018 and 6 years for newer ones. The CJEU left limitation periods to national law in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013), and Poland's window is one of the most generous in the EU. In practice, however, do not wait: evidence (boarding passes, airport notices, photos of the damage, witness contact details) gets harder to assemble as months pass.
Sources and further reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , in particular Articles 5(3), 7, 8 and 9
- CJEU — Pešková and Peška, Case C-315/15 (2017) — bird strike is an extraordinary circumstance, but airline must show reasonable measures
- CJEU — Wallentin-Hermann, Case C-549/07 (2008) — burden of proof rests with the carrier
- CJEU — Krüsemann, Case C-195/17 (2018) — events in the carrier's own organisational sphere are not extraordinary
- CJEU — McDonagh, Case C-12/11 (2013) — duty of care applies even in extraordinary circumstances
- CJEU — Cuadrench Moré, Case C-139/11 (2013) — national limitation periods govern EU 261 claims
- Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) — Poland's supervisory authority for air passenger rights
- Sąd Rejonowy — Polish district court with jurisdiction over EU 261 civil claims
Last reviewed: 2 June 2026.