The Bottom Line
- A Solid Defense: This ruling confirms that airport night curfews, when combined with prior delays caused by Air Traffic Control (ATC), can constitute “extraordinary circumstances,” releasing airlines from paying EU261 compensation.
- The Domino Effect is Key: Airlines can successfully defend claims if they can prove a clear causal chain: an initial extraordinary event (like an ATC instruction) directly leads to a subsequent operational barrier (like a curfew), forcing a delay or cancellation.
- “Reasonable Measures” Standard: The court found that rebooking passengers on a subsequent flight was a sufficient “reasonable measure.” This reinforces that airlines are not expected to move heaven and earth, but must provide a practical alternative.
The Details
This case involved a claim from two passengers against EasyJet under the EU’s Regulation 261/2004. Their flight from Copenhagen to Amsterdam was delayed by more than three hours, which would typically entitle them to €250 in compensation each. The facts of the delay were not in dispute; instead, the case hinged on whether the airline had a legitimate reason to deny the payment.
The airline mounted a successful defense by arguing that the delay was the result of “extraordinary circumstances” entirely beyond its control. EasyJet provided evidence showing that earlier flights using the same aircraft were delayed due to binding decisions from Air Traffic Control. This initial disruption had a knock-on effect, pushing the departure time for the flight to Amsterdam so late that it would have violated the mandatory night-time curfew at Schiphol Airport. The flight was therefore postponed until the next day.
The District Court of Noord-Holland sided with the airline. The judge ruled that both ATC instructions and airport curfews are events that are not inherent to the normal activity of an air carrier and are outside its actual control. By demonstrating the direct link between the ATC-mandated delay and the unavoidable curfew breach, EasyJet successfully argued its case. Furthermore, the court found that by rebooking the passengers, the airline had taken all reasonable measures required under the regulation, thereby absolving it of the obligation to pay compensation.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
