The Bottom Line
- Airlines are not liable for delays caused by direct errors from Air Traffic Control (ATC), as these are considered “extraordinary circumstances” outside their operational control.
- A Dutch court has clarified that ATC is not an “agent” or subcontractor of an airline, meaning the carrier is not automatically responsible for its mistakes.
- Even when an extraordinary event occurs, airlines must still prove they took all reasonable steps to mitigate the delay. In this case, an overnight delay was deemed reasonable as no faster, available alternatives were proven to exist.
The Details
In a case closely watched by the aviation industry, the District Court of North Holland has provided a significant ruling on airline liability under EU Regulation 261/2004. The case involved an EasyJet flight from Amsterdam to Manchester that was severely delayed because Air Traffic Control had “mistakenly not seen or processed” the flight plan. The claims company AirHelp, representing the affected passengers, sued for compensation, arguing the incident fell within the airline’s operational risk.
The court decisively rejected this argument, siding with the airline. It held that an error by a national air traffic control body is a textbook example of an “extraordinary circumstance.” The judgment emphasized that such an event is not inherent to the normal activities of an air carrier. Crucially, the court distinguished ATC from other third-party service providers, stating it cannot be considered an “agent” or “auxiliary person” for whose actions the airline is responsible. This places ATC failures firmly outside the airline’s sphere of influence and risk.
While the “extraordinary circumstance” defense was successful, the court also examined the second critical requirement: whether the airline took all reasonable measures to mitigate the delay. The passengers ultimately arrived at their destination less than 24 hours late, which the court found to be a reasonable outcome given the circumstances. The judgment noted that AirHelp failed to prove that any of its suggested alternative flights had available seats. This highlights a key takeaway for claimants and their legal teams: merely pointing to other scheduled flights is insufficient, as evidence of actual availability is required to challenge an airline’s mitigation strategy.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
