THE BOTTOM LINE
- Burden of Proof is High: Airlines cannot simply cite a prior delay as the cause for a subsequent flight cancellation. They must concretely prove that the cancellation was an unavoidable consequence and that all reasonable measures were taken.
- Operational Constraints Must Be Detailed: Citing airport restrictions, such as night curfews, as an excuse requires specific evidence. A general reference is insufficient to discharge liability for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004.
- Cascading Liability Risk: Failing to properly justify operational decisions can turn a single disruption into a series of compensable events. The financial risk multiplies if the chain of causation between an extraordinary circumstance and a cancellation is not robustly documented.
THE DETAILS
In a recent ruling, the District Court of North Holland provided a sharp reminder to airlines about the high evidentiary standard required to avoid paying compensation for cancelled flights. The case involved passengers on an Easyjet flight from Amsterdam to Prague that was cancelled. The airline denied compensation, arguing the cancellation was due to extraordinary circumstances – specifically, a knock-on effect from a 2.5-hour delay on a previous flight from Nice, which itself was caused by a French air traffic control strike. Easyjet claimed this initial delay meant the aircraft’s full rotation (Amsterdam-Prague-Amsterdam) would violate Schiphol Airport’s night-time curfew on its return leg.
The court dismantled the airline’s defense with straightforward logic. It pointed out that the flight in question—the outbound leg to Prague—was scheduled to depart in the afternoon. Even with the full knock-on delay from the previous flight, its departure would not have breached the airport’s night curfew. The airline’s argument hinged on the potential breach by the return flight from Prague later that evening. The court found this insufficient justification for cancelling the initial flight.
Crucially, the judgment underscores that the burden of proof lies squarely with the carrier. The court held that Easyjet failed on two key points. First, it did not adequately explain why cancelling the outbound flight was the only viable option, rather than simply accepting a delay. Second, the airline provided no specific details about Schiphol’s night-time regime or why it would have been impossible to land the return flight after the curfew began. Without this specific evidence, the court could not conclude that the airline had no influence over the cancellation. The defense failed, and the airline was ordered to pay full compensation.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland (District Court of North Holland)
