THE BOTTOM LINE
- Proactive cancellations are not a free pass: Airlines cannot use potential operational issues on a future flight (like a curfew violation) as a valid reason to cancel a current flight and avoid paying compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004.
- ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ defence has a high bar: This ruling reinforces that internal scheduling, crew rotation, and aircraft positioning are considered normal business operations. The court classifies decisions based on these factors as internal and controllable, not “extraordinary.”
- Financial risk remains with the carrier: Choosing to cancel one flight to protect the schedule of another is a commercial decision. The financial consequences of this choice, including passenger compensation and ticket refunds, must be borne by the airline.
THE DETAILS
In a recent case, the District Court of Noord-Holland provided a crucial clarification on the limits of the “extraordinary circumstances” defence for airlines. The case involved passengers on an EasyJet flight from Amsterdam to Copenhagen that was cancelled by the carrier. The airline argued it was not liable for compensation because the cancellation was a necessary consequence of knock-on delays from earlier flights. These delays meant the return flight from Copenhagen back to Amsterdam was at risk of violating Schiphol Airport’s strict night curfew. To avoid the curfew violation on the later flight, the airline cancelled the passengers’ outbound flight.
The court unequivocally rejected this line of reasoning. The central point of the judgment was that the potential curfew violation applied only to the subsequent return flight, not the passengers’ scheduled flight. The court determined that the decision to cancel the Amsterdam-Copenhagen flight was not due to an unavoidable external event, but rather an “internal, operational” choice made by the airline. The carrier prioritized its own scheduling and the positioning of its crew and aircraft for the following day’s operations.
This decision underscores a key principle of EU passenger rights: airlines are expected to manage the inherent risks of their complex operations. While delays caused by air traffic control on previous flights can be a factor, the subsequent decision to cancel a different, unaffected flight to solve a logistical problem is considered within the airline’s control. The court viewed it as a business choice—perhaps a sound one from a network management perspective, but one that does not relieve the airline of its legal obligations to the passengers on the cancelled flight. As a result, the airline was ordered to pay both the legally mandated compensation and a full refund of the ticket costs.
SOURCE
Source: District Court of Noord-Holland
