EN
Aviation

Compensation for 15-hour flight delay denied

logo
Legal news
calendar 19 June 2019
globus Denmark

The City Court of Kolding in Denmark has recently passed a ruling that denied two passengers a compensation for a flight delay of almost 15 hours. IUNO review the reasoning behind the ruling and examine how carriers may guard themselves against unjustified claims.

Generally, Danish courts are very reluctant denying delayed passengers a compensation in cases regulated by EC Regulation 261/2004 on compensation and assistance to flight passengers. Nonetheless, the City Court of Kolding recently denied two passengers’ claim for compensation even though the passengers’ arrival was delayed by almost 15 hours.

Case overview

Two passengers were travelling from Lisbon to Frankfurt and onward to Billund in Denmark. The journey had a scheduled time of arrival in Billund at 9.40 PM the same day as the departure. However, the passengers’ flight from Lisbon was delayed. The delay was caused by the earlier rotation not being able to land in Lisbon due to a fire in the airport.

The flight from Lisbon did not depart at the scheduled time and therefore arrived at Frankfurt with a delay of 3 hours and 21 minutes. The delayed arrival caused the passengers to miss the flight to Billund.

The air carrier rebooked the passengers to another flight to Billund that arrived the following day at 1.25 PM. The passengers time of arrival was thus delayed by almost 15 hours.

EC Regulation 261/2004

The EU Court’s ruling in the Sturgeon-case clarified, that passengers whose time of arrival is delayed more than 3 hours, are entitled to compensation on the same terms as passengers whose flight is cancelled. The passengers in the present case were delayed for almost 15 hours and were therefore, initially, entitled to a compensation of 400 EUR per passenger.

Nonetheless, the EC Regulation prescribes, that air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation to delayed passengers if the air carrier can prove, that the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Therefore, in order to be exempt from liability, the air carrier had to prove

  1. that the fire in Lisbon constituted an extraordinary circumstance
  2. that the extraordinary circumstance could not have been avoided even if the air carrier had taken further measures to avoid it.

The passengers claimed that the air carrier, as a reasonable measure, was obliged to rebook the passengers to the first available flight to their destination. The air carrier challenged this and stated that the obligation to reroute the passengers as prescribed in article 8 is not necessarily a right to be rerouted to the first available departure. Furthermore, the air carrier stated that rerouting is not a part of the measures listed in article 5, as these measures are only relevant to the extraordinary circumstance itself.

The air carrier in this individual case, chose to present information to the court regarding the rerouting that had been made.

The presented documentation

As documentation for its claim the air carrier presented the flight’s flight log, the air carrier’s delay codes, an ATC-report from the German civil authority as well as information on different flights to Billund.

The flight’s flightlog showed two codes indicating, that the flight to Frankfurt was delayed due to the delay of the earlier rotation, that was prevented from landing due to ATC-restrictions. The ATC-report supported this by stating, that the earlier rotation and the flight in question were both affected by the restrictions.

The air carrier argued that the ATC-restrictions constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that the delay was caused by the restrictions. Furthermore, the air carrier stated, that the ATC-restrictions were beyond the control of the air carrier.

The information regarding the available flights to Billund was used to prove, that the air carrier had offered a reasonable rerouting to the passengers.

The court’s ruling

The City Court of Kolding found it sufficiently proved

  1. that the delayed arrival at Billund was due to ATC-restrictions
  2. that the ATC-restrictions were caused by the fire in the airport in Lisbon
  3. that the restrictions constituted an extraordinary circumstance
  4. that the air carrier could not have taken further measures to avoid the extraordinary circumstances
  5. and that the passengers would not have arrived earlier at their destination if they had been rebooked onto a different flight.

Based in its findings, the court ruled that the air carrier was not obliged to pay compensation to the passengers.

IUNO’s opinion

Air carriers should always make sure, that they have a practice that ensures, that relevant data are stored in case of a delay. This ensures that the air carrier has the relevant documentation on hand if the case goes to court.

IUNO’s recommendation is to always store the flight log and to collect an ATC-report or statement from the relevant authority. To ease the court’s understanding of the case, it is advisable to keep a simple and easily accessible overview of delay codes, that can be presented to the court.

Furthermore, air carriers should see to, that passengers are rebooked as according to EC Regulation 261/2004 article 8. The rebooking does not affect passengers’ right to compensation according to article 7, but if passengers are not offered a rerouting this could potentially make the air carrier liable for any losses the passengers may have suffered, if the passengers buy a new ticket with a faster time of arrival.

Generally, Danish courts are very reluctant denying delayed passengers a compensation in cases regulated by EC Regulation 261/2004 on compensation and assistance to flight passengers. Nonetheless, the City Court of Kolding recently denied two passengers’ claim for compensation even though the passengers’ arrival was delayed by almost 15 hours.

Case overview

Two passengers were travelling from Lisbon to Frankfurt and onward to Billund in Denmark. The journey had a scheduled time of arrival in Billund at 9.40 PM the same day as the departure. However, the passengers’ flight from Lisbon was delayed. The delay was caused by the earlier rotation not being able to land in Lisbon due to a fire in the airport.

The flight from Lisbon did not depart at the scheduled time and therefore arrived at Frankfurt with a delay of 3 hours and 21 minutes. The delayed arrival caused the passengers to miss the flight to Billund.

The air carrier rebooked the passengers to another flight to Billund that arrived the following day at 1.25 PM. The passengers time of arrival was thus delayed by almost 15 hours.

EC Regulation 261/2004

The EU Court’s ruling in the Sturgeon-case clarified, that passengers whose time of arrival is delayed more than 3 hours, are entitled to compensation on the same terms as passengers whose flight is cancelled. The passengers in the present case were delayed for almost 15 hours and were therefore, initially, entitled to a compensation of 400 EUR per passenger.

Nonetheless, the EC Regulation prescribes, that air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation to delayed passengers if the air carrier can prove, that the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Therefore, in order to be exempt from liability, the air carrier had to prove

  1. that the fire in Lisbon constituted an extraordinary circumstance
  2. that the extraordinary circumstance could not have been avoided even if the air carrier had taken further measures to avoid it.

The passengers claimed that the air carrier, as a reasonable measure, was obliged to rebook the passengers to the first available flight to their destination. The air carrier challenged this and stated that the obligation to reroute the passengers as prescribed in article 8 is not necessarily a right to be rerouted to the first available departure. Furthermore, the air carrier stated that rerouting is not a part of the measures listed in article 5, as these measures are only relevant to the extraordinary circumstance itself.

The air carrier in this individual case, chose to present information to the court regarding the rerouting that had been made.

The presented documentation

As documentation for its claim the air carrier presented the flight’s flight log, the air carrier’s delay codes, an ATC-report from the German civil authority as well as information on different flights to Billund.

The flight’s flightlog showed two codes indicating, that the flight to Frankfurt was delayed due to the delay of the earlier rotation, that was prevented from landing due to ATC-restrictions. The ATC-report supported this by stating, that the earlier rotation and the flight in question were both affected by the restrictions.

The air carrier argued that the ATC-restrictions constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that the delay was caused by the restrictions. Furthermore, the air carrier stated, that the ATC-restrictions were beyond the control of the air carrier.

The information regarding the available flights to Billund was used to prove, that the air carrier had offered a reasonable rerouting to the passengers.

The court’s ruling

The City Court of Kolding found it sufficiently proved

  1. that the delayed arrival at Billund was due to ATC-restrictions
  2. that the ATC-restrictions were caused by the fire in the airport in Lisbon
  3. that the restrictions constituted an extraordinary circumstance
  4. that the air carrier could not have taken further measures to avoid the extraordinary circumstances
  5. and that the passengers would not have arrived earlier at their destination if they had been rebooked onto a different flight.

Based in its findings, the court ruled that the air carrier was not obliged to pay compensation to the passengers.

IUNO’s opinion

Air carriers should always make sure, that they have a practice that ensures, that relevant data are stored in case of a delay. This ensures that the air carrier has the relevant documentation on hand if the case goes to court.

IUNO’s recommendation is to always store the flight log and to collect an ATC-report or statement from the relevant authority. To ease the court’s understanding of the case, it is advisable to keep a simple and easily accessible overview of delay codes, that can be presented to the court.

Furthermore, air carriers should see to, that passengers are rebooked as according to EC Regulation 261/2004 article 8. The rebooking does not affect passengers’ right to compensation according to article 7, but if passengers are not offered a rerouting this could potentially make the air carrier liable for any losses the passengers may have suffered, if the passengers buy a new ticket with a faster time of arrival.

Receive our newsletter

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Sofie

Aurora Braut Bache

Managing associate

Similar

logo
Aviation

26 February 2024

Cancelled tickets resulted in denied boarding

logo
Aviation

16 February 2024

Automatic rebooking system recognised as a reasonable precaution

logo
Aviation

25 May 2022

Air carriers are not obligated to refund fees charged by ticket providers

logo
Aviation

4 May 2022

Despite several days' notice, a strike counted as an extraordinary circumstance

logo
Aviation

25 April 2022

Air Carrier not liable: No requirement to rebook to an earlier flight

logo
Aviation

25 August 2021

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Junior legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal assistant

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal assistant

Anna

Bonander

Senior legal assistant

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Poulsen

Senior legal advisor

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Senior legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal assistant

Benedicte

Rodian

Junior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Carl-Emil

Schumann Dinesen

Senior legal advisor

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Senior legal assistant

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Junior legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Junior legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Legal advisor (on leave)

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Senior legal assistant

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Senior legal assistant

Frederik

Dybro Mikkelsen

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Junior legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Senior legal assistant

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Junior legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Legal advisor

Gabrielle

Marie Rokkjær

Legal assistant

Gustav

Vestergaard

Legal assistant

Hanna

Honerød Augestad

Legal assistant

Ida

Ralfkiær Rask

Legal assistant

Isabella

Graae Norsker

Legal assistant

Isabella

Rocio Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Legal assistant

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Legal assistant

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Junior legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Junior legal assistant

Kathrine

Arntzen Lauvstad

Legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Liva

Tværmose Høegh

Senior legal assistant (on leave)

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal assistant

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal manager

Nikoline

Lanzky Otto

Legal assistant

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Senior legal assistant

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal assistant

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Legal assistant

Sille

Lyng Mejding

Legal assistant

Simone

Bjergskov Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Sofija

Cabrilo

Legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Legal assistant