The Bottom Line
- Airlines cannot rely solely on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ like curfews to avoid compensation; they must also prove they took all reasonable measures to assist each passenger.
- Simply providing a link for self-service rebooking may not be enough to satisfy the legal requirement to offer alternative transport; proactive re-routing is a much stronger defense.
- Liability can be determined on a per-passenger basis. An airline’s failure to properly assist one group can lead to compensation claims, even if others on the same cancelled flight were successfully rebooked.
The Details
A recent ruling from the Netherlands highlights a critical nuance in airline liability for cancelled flights. The case involved an easyJet flight from Milan to Amsterdam, which was cancelled after a series of delays caused by air traffic control decisions. These delays meant the flight would violate Amsterdam’s night curfew. The airline argued these events constituted ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under EU Regulation 261/2004, which would typically exempt it from paying the standard compensation to affected passengers.
The court agreed that air traffic control instructions and airport curfews were indeed extraordinary circumstances beyond the airline’s control. However, the analysis did not stop there. The case ultimately hinged on the second part of the legal test: whether the airline took ‘all reasonable measures’ to mitigate the disruption. Here, the court’s decision split based on the evidence presented for different passengers. For one passenger and their child, the airline successfully proved it had proactively rebooked them onto a flight the very next day. The court found this to be a reasonable measure that minimized their delay, and consequently, their claim for compensation was dismissed.
In a crucial distinction, the airline’s defense failed for the other eleven passengers. For this group, the airline merely stated it had sent a link via email allowing them to rebook the flight themselves. The court deemed this insufficient evidence of having provided a reasonable alternative. Without proof that a concrete, viable travel solution was actively offered and available to these specific passengers, the court concluded that the airline had not fulfilled its obligation to take ‘all reasonable measures’. This failure meant that despite the valid claim of extraordinary circumstances, the airline was still liable for full compensation to this group.
Source
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland
