THE BOTTOM LINE
- Domino Effect is a Valid Defense: An Air Traffic Control (ATC) restriction on a single flight can create a legally defensible “extraordinary circumstance” for cancelling subsequent flights operated by the same aircraft later that day.
- Documentation is Crucial: Airlines can successfully fend off compensation claims under EU Regulation 261/2004 if they can provide clear evidence tracing a cancellation back to an external event, like an ATC decision, that was outside their control.
- Airport Curfews Strengthen the Defense: When an initial delay makes it impossible to complete a flight before a mandatory airport night curfew, the airline is likely absolved from paying compensation, provided it has taken other reasonable measures like offering refunds.
THE DETAILS
This case before the District Court of Noord-Holland involved passengers seeking compensation from EasyJet for a cancelled flight from London to Amsterdam. Under EU Regulation 261/2004, airlines are typically liable for a fixed compensation amount for cancellations. However, an airline can avoid payment if it proves the cancellation was caused by “extraordinary circumstances” that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. In this case, the airline argued that these exact circumstances applied.
The court accepted the airline’s “domino effect” argument. The aircraft scheduled for the passengers’ flight was part of a multi-leg rotation that started earlier in the day. The first flight of this rotation was delayed by a direct order from Air Traffic Control. This initial delay had a cascading, or “knock-on,” effect on every subsequent flight that day. By the time the aircraft was scheduled for the final London-Amsterdam leg, the accumulated delay meant it would violate Amsterdam Schiphol Airport’s mandatory night curfew. The court agreed that the root cause—the ATC decision—was entirely outside the airline’s control and therefore qualified as an extraordinary circumstance.
Finally, the court assessed whether the airline had taken “all reasonable measures” to prevent the cancellation. The passengers suggested the airline could have requested an exception to the night curfew. However, the court was persuaded by the airline’s argument that such requests are typically denied when the delay originates from an earlier flight. Furthermore, arranging a replacement aircraft would have taken several hours and would not have resolved the curfew issue. By offering passengers refunds and covering expenses, the airline was deemed to have fulfilled its duty of care. The court dismissed the passengers’ claim, reinforcing that operational constraints caused by external factors can shield an airline from liability.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland
