The Bottom Line
- Higher Burden of Proof: Airlines cannot simply cite “extraordinary circumstances” like bad weather or air traffic control issues to avoid liability. They must provide concrete evidence of all reasonable measures taken to mitigate the delay, including detailed operational justifications.
- Operational Scrutiny: Arranging a replacement aircraft may not be a sufficient defense. Courts will scrutinize the timeline of its deployment, expecting airlines to explain precisely why delays occurred, especially at their home base where more resources are presumed to be available.
- Clarity on Interest Payments: In a small win for carriers, the court clarified that statutory interest on compensation is not due from the date of the flight. Instead, it accrues only after the airline receives a formal payment demand and fails to pay within a reasonable period.
The Details
This case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal involved a flight delay from Amsterdam to Dubai. The airline argued it was not liable for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 because the delay was caused by “extraordinary circumstances.” Specifically, severe weather and resulting capacity restrictions at its Dubai hub forced the inbound aircraft to divert, causing a knock-on delay for the flight out of Amsterdam. While the initial cause was external, the court’s focus shifted to the airline’s subsequent actions and whether it did everything reasonably possible to prevent a significant delay for its passengers.
The core of the court’s decision rested on the “all reasonable measures” test. The airline’s defense failed because it could not adequately justify the timeline for deploying a replacement aircraft. The court noted that bad weather procedures had ended more than four hours before the replacement plane eventually departed. The airline’s simple assertion that an earlier departure “was not possible” was deemed insufficient. The ruling underscores a critical principle: the burden of proof lies entirely with the airline. Courts expect detailed operational evidence—not just broad excuses—to demonstrate that every practical step was taken to minimize disruption. The failure to produce such evidence, which is exclusively within the airline’s control, will be held against the carrier.
In a significant clarification for both claimants and airlines, the court also addressed the calculation of interest on compensation payments. The lower court had ordered interest to be paid from the date of the delayed flight. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this, aligning the process with standard Dutch commercial law. It ruled that the obligation to pay interest only begins once the airline is formally in default—that is, after it has received a formal demand for payment and has failed to comply within a reasonable timeframe. For businesses, this ruling provides welcome certainty, confirming that liability for interest only kicks in after a clear opportunity to settle the primary claim has passed.
Source
Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Amsterdam Court of Appeal)
