The Bottom Line
- The burden of proof is key: Airlines cannot simply claim an airport’s night curfew is an “extraordinary circumstance” to avoid paying compensation. They must provide specific evidence explaining why landing was impossible.
- Delays from previous flights that lead to a potential curfew breach are generally considered an airline’s operational risk, not an unavoidable external event.
- Airlines must substantiate their defense. A generic reference to a “night regime” is insufficient, as courts require detailed explanations of the specific rules and why alternatives, like seeking an exemption, were not viable.
The Details
In a case with significant implications for airline operations and passenger rights, a Dutch court has ruled against EasyJet, finding that the threat of violating an airport’s night curfew does not automatically qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” justifying a flight cancellation. The case involved a flight from Venice to Amsterdam that was cancelled. The airline argued that knock-on delays from earlier flights meant the aircraft would arrive at Schiphol Airport after its night-time operating restrictions began, leaving them no choice but to cancel. EasyJet invoked this as an extraordinary circumstance under EU Regulation 261/2004 to deny passengers their standard compensation.
The legal framework under EU Regulation 261/2004 is clear: passengers are entitled to fixed compensation for cancelled flights unless the airline can prove the cancellation was caused by “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.” This typically includes events outside an airline’s control, such as severe weather, political instability, or unexpected air traffic control decisions. Airlines often argue that operational constraints imposed by third parties, like airport curfews, fall into this category. However, courts consistently place a high burden of proof on the carrier to demonstrate that the circumstance was truly unforeseeable and unavoidable.
The District Court of North Holland found EasyJet’s defense lacking in substance. The passengers had countered the airline’s claim by arguing that Schiphol’s night curfew is not an absolute ban on all landings. The court noted that the airline failed to provide any specific evidence to support its position. EasyJet did not explain the precise rules of the Schiphol curfew, nor did it demonstrate that it was genuinely impossible to operate the flight or obtain an exemption. Without this crucial evidence, the court concluded that the airline had not met its burden of proof. The potential curfew breach was a consequence of prior operational delays, which are considered inherent risks in an airline’s day-to-day business.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
