THE BOTTOM LINE
- Third-Party Fault as a Shield: Operational restrictions imposed by essential partners, such as airport authorities capping passenger numbers, can qualify as “extraordinary circumstances” under EU air passenger rights law, potentially exempting airlines from paying compensation for flight cancellations.
- “Reasonable Measures” is Key: An airline using this defense must still prove it took all reasonable measures to mitigate disruption. This includes rebooking passengers on the best available alternative, even if it results in a significant delay.
- Burden of Proof: While passengers must demonstrate their initial claim, the burden shifts to the airline to convincingly prove both the existence of the extraordinary circumstance and that all reasonable measures were subsequently taken to limit the impact on travellers.
THE DETAILS
A recent ruling from the District Court of The Hague provides crucial insight for the aviation industry and businesses reliant on complex supply chains. The case involved two passengers whose TUI flight from Antalya to Amsterdam was cancelled. They were rebooked on a later flight, ultimately arriving over seven hours behind their original schedule, and subsequently sued for the standard €400 compensation per person under EU Regulation 261/2004. While the airline’s initial defense—that it had provided timely notice of the cancellation—failed on a technicality, its primary argument proved successful.
TUI’s core defense rested on the principle of “extraordinary circumstances.” The airline demonstrated that the cancellation was not a result of its own operational planning but was forced upon it by an external factor: Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport. Due to a persistent shortage of security personnel, the airport authority had imposed a strict cap on the number of passengers TUI was permitted to fly that day, forcing the airline to cancel the flight. The court accepted this argument, classifying the airport-imposed restriction as an event beyond the airline’s inherent operational control and, therefore, an extraordinary circumstance.
However, invoking this defense is not an automatic pass. An airline must also prove it took “all reasonable measures” to minimize the inconvenience for its passengers. The claimants, however, argued that TUI failed this second test. The court disagreed, finding that by proactively rebooking the passengers onto another flight on the same day, TUI had fulfilled its duty. Critically, there was no evidence presented to suggest a better or faster alternative flight path existed. The court concluded that TUI’s rebooking, while leading to a long delay, represented the most reasonable measure available under the restrictive circumstances, thereby exempting the airline from the obligation to pay compensation.
SOURCE: District Court of The Hague
