The Bottom Line
- Airlines cannot automatically use an Air Traffic Control (ATC) decision as a valid excuse for a delay if their own operational failings contributed to the situation.
- The burden of proof is high: an airline must demonstrate that an external event, like an ATC slot restriction, would have caused the delay regardless of its own on-time performance.
- This ruling underscores that minor internal failures, such as late crew, can legally invalidate the “extraordinary circumstances” defense for much larger, subsequent delays, leading to full passenger compensation liability.
The Details
This case revolved around a classic “domino effect” delay. Passengers claimed compensation after arriving at their final destination more than three hours late. The airline defended the claim by pointing to an “extraordinary circumstance” – a one-hour departure delay imposed by Air Traffic Control (ATC) on the aircraft’s preceding flight. However, the court’s scrutiny revealed that this was not the whole story. Before the ATC instruction was issued, the same flight had already been delayed by 23 minutes because the pilots were not on time. This initial, internal failure set the stage for the larger, externally-caused delay.
The legal question was whether the ATC-imposed delay could be legally separated from the airline’s initial operational fault. Under EU Regulation 261/2004, airlines are exempt from paying compensation if a delay is caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The airline argued that an ATC capacity decision is a textbook example of such a circumstance, as it is entirely outside the carrier’s control. The passengers, however, argued that the airline only received the punishingly late departure slot from ATC because its own crew delay caused it to miss its original, scheduled window.
The Dutch court ultimately sided with the passengers, reinforcing a crucial principle for all operators: the burden of proof lies squarely with the airline. The carrier failed to provide evidence showing that the flight would have been subjected to the same significant ATC delay even if it had been ready for an on-time departure. Without proof that the ATC decision was an independent event completely unrelated to the preceding crew tardiness, the airline could not successfully argue it had no influence over the situation. The court concluded that the initial operational failure was inextricably linked to the subsequent ATC delay, nullifying the “extraordinary circumstances” defense and making the airline liable for compensation.
Source
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland
