Proof is Paramount: Dutch Court Upholds Compensation Claim After Airline Fails to Document Alternative Flight Offer

THE BOTTOM LINE

• Saying Isn’t Proving: Companies must maintain clear, accessible records of communications offering customers their statutory choices (like rebooking or refunds). Merely claiming an offer was made is not a valid legal defense.
• Evidence is Decisive: Failing to substantiate claims of compliance can lead to courts upholding full compensation payments, turning a potentially defensible case into a costly loss. The burden of proof rests squarely on the business.
• Process, Not Just Policy: Having a system (like an online Flight Tracker) for customers is not enough. You must be able to prove that customers were effectively directed to and informed about that system at the critical moment.

THE DETAILS

This case serves as a sharp reminder for businesses operating under strict consumer protection regulations. The dispute began when an easyJet flight from Amsterdam to Nice was cancelled. The affected passengers sued for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004. After an initial default judgment was entered against it, the airline challenged the decision, arguing it had fulfilled its legal obligations. The core of its defense was that passengers were offered the choice between a refund or rebooking onto an alternative flight via the airline’s Flight Tracker tool.

The District Court of North Holland, however, was unconvinced. It dismissed the airline’s defense as a “mere, unsubstantiated assertion.” The court found that the airline provided no tangible evidence to support its claim. While the airline referenced its online tool, it failed to produce any documentation—not even a copy of an email—showing that these specific passengers were actually informed of this option and provided with a link. The absence of this basic evidence proved fatal to the airline’s argument.

The key legal takeaway is the critical importance of the burden of proof. The court clarified that it is the company’s responsibility to demonstrate that it has met its statutory duties. The fact that the passengers ultimately accepted a refund was irrelevant, as the airline could not prove it had properly offered them the alternative of re-routing in the first place. This ruling underscores that procedural compliance is not just about having the right policies in place; it’s about being able to prove, with documentation, that those procedures were followed in every individual case.

SOURCE

Source: District Court of North Holland