The Bottom Line
- A severe weather event like a hurricane is a valid “extraordinary circumstance” under EU passenger rights law, exempting airlines from paying mandatory compensation for flight cancellations.
- Robust documentation is key for a successful defense. The court sided with the airline because it provided sufficient proof that the dangerous weather directly and unavoidably forced a schedule change.
- The “all reasonable measures” test remains critical. Even when facing a force majeure event, an airline must still demonstrate it did everything practically possible to minimize disruption for passengers.
The Details
This case centered on a passenger’s claim for €600 in compensation from Air France under EU Regulation 261/2004. Her flight from St. Maarten to Paris was canceled in October 2023, and she was rebooked onto a flight a day later. The airline refused to pay compensation, arguing that the cancellation was a direct result of Hurricane Tammy, which was active in the region at the time. The airline contended this qualified as an “extraordinary circumstance,” releasing it from its obligation to pay.
The District Court of North Holland agreed with the airline, providing a clear precedent for what constitutes an unavoidable external event. The court ruled that a hurricane is not inherent to the normal day-to-day operations of an airline and is entirely beyond its control. In its reasoning, the court made a crucial point on business priorities: safety must always take precedence over punctuality. Forcing an airline to operate under such dangerous conditions to avoid compensation claims would create a perverse incentive that compromises passenger safety.
The court’s analysis did not stop at the existence of the hurricane. It also assessed the second prong of the legal test: whether the airline took “all reasonable measures” to mitigate the disruption. An extraordinary circumstance alone is not a complete defense if the airline’s response is inadequate. In this instance, the court found that Air France had met this obligation by keeping the delay as limited as possible given the severe conditions. The passenger failed to provide any specific evidence that the airline could have reasonably done more, solidifying the court’s decision to reject the compensation claim.
Source
District Court of North Holland
