A flight was scheduled to fly from Helsinki to Boa Vista, Cape Verde, on 27 January 2024. Due to severe visibility restrictions caused by dust at the destination airport, the air carrier decided at 17:00 UTC on 26 January 2024 to postpone the flight to 28 January 2024.
The district court initially awarded compensation to the passengers, finding that extraordinary circumstances had not been sufficiently proven. The Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion.
The Svea Court of Appeal found it documented that visibility at Boa Vista had been below the minimum required for landing in the days before the flight. Weather reports also showed that these conditions were expected to continue on 27 January.
The Court also accepted that the decision to postpone was objectively justified. Given the airport’s limited opening hours, the 8.5-hour flight time, the timing of updated weather reports and operational constraints relating to slots and capacity, it was not reasonable to wait longer before deciding to postpone the flight.
The Court therefore held that the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3). It also found that the carrier had taken all reasonable measures, including considering rerouting options, which were either unavailable or operationally unsuitable. As a result, no compensation was due.
iuno’s opinion
This judgment confirms that operational decisions taken in advance, based on reliable weather forecasts, may fall within the defense of extraordinary circumstances.
It reflects operational reality. Carriers cannot be expected to wait until the last possible moment to postpone a flight, when doing so would create disproportionate operational risks.
The judgment is therefore helpful in cases involving proactive operational decisions based on forecast weather conditions, particularly where airport infrastructure, slot constraints and flight time make a wait-and-see approach unrealistic.
For carriers operating to weather-sensitive destinations with limited infrastructure, the ruling strengthens the legal basis for early decisions taken on safety and feasibility grounds.
If you would like to discuss the implications of this judgment for Nordic EU261 litigation, our Aviation team is ready to help.
[Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt), judgment of 28 January 2026, case no. FT 3731-25.]