The Bottom Line
- Partial Excuses Are Not Enough: Airlines cannot simply blame “extraordinary circumstances” like Air Traffic Control for a portion of a delay. They must meticulously account for every minute and prove that the protected portion of the delay was the specific cause of the passenger’s missed connection.
- Evidence is Everything: A defense can collapse on a single missing detail. In this case, the airline’s failure to provide the airport’s official Minimum Connecting Time (MCT) proved fatal to its argument, as the court could not verify its claims.
- Increased Financial Risk: This ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of EU Regulation 261/2004, signaling to airlines and their counsel that incomplete operational data or a failure to meet the full burden of proof will result in liability for full compensation, even when legitimate external factors are at play.
The Details
The case involved six passengers traveling with Air France from Amsterdam to Havana via Paris. Their initial flight was delayed, causing them to miss their connection and arrive at their final destination more than three hours late. The passengers claimed their standard compensation of €600 each under EU Regulation 261/2004. Air France acknowledged the delay but argued it was caused by “extraordinary circumstances,” a defense that exempts airlines from paying compensation. The carrier presented evidence that the flight was part of a chain of flights impacted by knock-on delays originating from earlier Air Traffic Control (ATC) restrictions—a classic example of an external event beyond an airline’s control.
The Dutch court agreed with the airline, but only up to a point. After a detailed analysis of the flight logs, the judge determined that of the 90-minute delay upon arrival in Paris, a total of 61 minutes could be directly attributed to the ATC restrictions and their knock-on effects. However, the remaining 29 minutes of the delay were not sufficiently explained and were therefore considered part of the airline’s normal operational responsibility. This created a crucial legal question: If the “extraordinary” portion of the delay were removed, would the passengers have made their flight? Without the 61-minute extraordinary delay, they would have arrived with just 26 minutes to make their connection.
This is where the airline’s defense failed. The burden of proof was on Air France to demonstrate that even without its own operational delays, the extraordinary circumstances made the missed connection inevitable. To do this, it needed to show that a 26-minute transfer was impossible. The key piece of evidence required for this is the official Minimum Connecting Time (MCT) for the airport. Air France failed to provide this data. Without the MCT, the court had no objective benchmark to determine if the passengers could have made their connection. Because the airline did not fully discharge its burden of proof, the court rejected the “extraordinary circumstances” defense. The passengers were awarded full compensation.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
