The Bottom Line
- A Dutch court has ruled that the combination of Air Traffic Control (ATC) delays and a mandatory airport night curfew can constitute extraordinary circumstances, exempting an airline from paying standard EU261 compensation for a flight cancellation.
- This case highlights a crucial distinction: while the right to financial compensation can be nullified by such external events, the airline’s duty of care (e.g., providing hotel accommodation) may still apply, particularly if unchallenged.
- For businesses, this decision reinforces that operational constraints imposed by third-party authorities can serve as a valid legal defense against liability, provided the company can demonstrate it took all other reasonable measures.
The Details
This case involved a group of passengers whose EasyJet flight from Venice to Amsterdam was cancelled. Citing their rights under EU Regulation 261/2004, they sought the standard €250 compensation per person, plus reimbursement for hotel expenses. EasyJet denied the compensation claim, arguing the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond its control. The District Court of Noord-Holland was asked to decide whether the airline’s defense was valid.
The court sided with the airline on the core issue of compensation, accepting its chain-of-events argument. The airline successfully demonstrated that the aircraft’s prior flights had been delayed due to decisions made by Air Traffic Control—a classic example of an external factor. This initial delay had a knock-on effect, pushing the scheduled arrival time at Amsterdam-Schiphol into the airport’s mandatory night curfew period. The court determined that both ATC directives and airport curfews are events that are not inherent in an airline’s normal operations and are outside its effective control. The combination of these two factors, therefore, constituted an extraordinary circumstance.
Crucially, the court also found that the airline had fulfilled its obligation to take all reasonable measures to avoid the disruption. It noted that mobilizing a standby aircraft would have caused even greater delays and that rebooking the passengers on a different flight was a reasonable alternative. However, in a key split decision, the court ordered the airline to reimburse the passengers for their hotel costs. This was because the airline had not specifically disputed this part of the claim. This underscores that even when an extraordinary circumstance absolves an airline of the duty to pay compensation, the separate duty of care to passengers often remains intact.
Source
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland
