EN
Aviation

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

logo
Legal news
calendar 4 May 2022
globus Denmark, Sweden, Norway

A group of Norwegian passengers made a claim for compensation following a delay of more than 12 hours. They had been delayed because of a strike among the Italian airport staff. The strike had been announced several days prior to the departure date. Nevertheless, the Oslo District Court rejected the passengers’ claim for compensation.

Six passengers were scheduled to fly from Bergen to Venice with a layover in Amsterdam in July 2019. But on the day of departure, the flight between Amsterdam and Venice was cancelled due to a strike that affected several Italian airports. The scale of the strike meant that there was a reduced capacity at the airports of Venice, Milan, Bologna and Verona where less than half of the planned flights were completed.

The air carrier rebooked the passengers, who now - instead of flying from Bergen via Amsterdam to Venice - had to fly from Bergen to Copenhagen, from there on to Frankfurt and then to Venice. The rebooking meant that the passengers arrived at their final destination 12 hours later than originally planned. On that basis, the passengers made a claim for compensation from the air carrier following the rules of Regulation 261/2004.

The claim was denied

Initially, the air carrier rejected the claim on the grounds that the delay was due to an extraordinary circumstance beyond the air carrier's control. The air carrier also insisted that the rebooking they had made was the best possible rebooking.

The passengers acknowledged that the delay was initially triggered by a third-party strike and was therefore beyond the air carrier's control. However, the passengers felt that the air carrier had not done enough to avoid or reduce the delay. The passengers believed that the air carrier had knowledge of the strike prior to the day of departure, as the strike was announced several days earlier. Therefore, the air carrier should have been able to find a better solution that did not entail a delay of 12 hours.

The court ruled in favour of the air carrier

The court's decision was in favour of the air carrier. The court ruled that the air carrier's rebooking had been the best option, given the situation. The court also noted that a strike by a third party is an event that is beyond the control of the air carriers and therefore relieves the air carrier of the obligation to pay compensation.

The fact that the actual strike had been announced several days earlier did not change the situation. In this connection, the court pointed out that in cases of a strike, emphasis must be placed on the fact that the development of collective negotiations is always uncertain and difficult to predict – notification of strike is therefore not necessarily of great value. In addition, the court also emphasized that air carriers are neither obligated to, nor in a position where they can participate in or influence a third-party labour dispute.

Finally, the court also pointed out that the air carrier not notifying the passengers of the risk of delay did not give the passengers a right to compensation.

IUNO’s opinion

The case is interesting for several reasons. The Norwegian court points out that air carriers are not obliged to cancel or reschedule their flights simply because they receive a notice of a possible third-party strike. The air carriers are entitled to maintain their original plans for as long as possible, since the nature of labour disputes makes it almost impossible to plan around them – it is not possible to say whether a strike notice actually results in a strike.

The case also shows that a rebooking, which entails an extra layover and a total of 12 hours delay, may well, under the circumstances, be considered to constitute a sufficient precaution.

IUNO recommends that air carriers ensure documentation of the decision-making process when rebooking, and that the passenger be involved in the choice of rebooking where possible.

[Oslo District Court judgement of 18 February 2018 in case 21-168885TVI-TOSL/06]

Six passengers were scheduled to fly from Bergen to Venice with a layover in Amsterdam in July 2019. But on the day of departure, the flight between Amsterdam and Venice was cancelled due to a strike that affected several Italian airports. The scale of the strike meant that there was a reduced capacity at the airports of Venice, Milan, Bologna and Verona where less than half of the planned flights were completed.

The air carrier rebooked the passengers, who now - instead of flying from Bergen via Amsterdam to Venice - had to fly from Bergen to Copenhagen, from there on to Frankfurt and then to Venice. The rebooking meant that the passengers arrived at their final destination 12 hours later than originally planned. On that basis, the passengers made a claim for compensation from the air carrier following the rules of Regulation 261/2004.

The claim was denied

Initially, the air carrier rejected the claim on the grounds that the delay was due to an extraordinary circumstance beyond the air carrier's control. The air carrier also insisted that the rebooking they had made was the best possible rebooking.

The passengers acknowledged that the delay was initially triggered by a third-party strike and was therefore beyond the air carrier's control. However, the passengers felt that the air carrier had not done enough to avoid or reduce the delay. The passengers believed that the air carrier had knowledge of the strike prior to the day of departure, as the strike was announced several days earlier. Therefore, the air carrier should have been able to find a better solution that did not entail a delay of 12 hours.

The court ruled in favour of the air carrier

The court's decision was in favour of the air carrier. The court ruled that the air carrier's rebooking had been the best option, given the situation. The court also noted that a strike by a third party is an event that is beyond the control of the air carriers and therefore relieves the air carrier of the obligation to pay compensation.

The fact that the actual strike had been announced several days earlier did not change the situation. In this connection, the court pointed out that in cases of a strike, emphasis must be placed on the fact that the development of collective negotiations is always uncertain and difficult to predict – notification of strike is therefore not necessarily of great value. In addition, the court also emphasized that air carriers are neither obligated to, nor in a position where they can participate in or influence a third-party labour dispute.

Finally, the court also pointed out that the air carrier not notifying the passengers of the risk of delay did not give the passengers a right to compensation.

IUNO’s opinion

The case is interesting for several reasons. The Norwegian court points out that air carriers are not obliged to cancel or reschedule their flights simply because they receive a notice of a possible third-party strike. The air carriers are entitled to maintain their original plans for as long as possible, since the nature of labour disputes makes it almost impossible to plan around them – it is not possible to say whether a strike notice actually results in a strike.

The case also shows that a rebooking, which entails an extra layover and a total of 12 hours delay, may well, under the circumstances, be considered to constitute a sufficient precaution.

IUNO recommends that air carriers ensure documentation of the decision-making process when rebooking, and that the passenger be involved in the choice of rebooking where possible.

[Oslo District Court judgement of 18 February 2018 in case 21-168885TVI-TOSL/06]

Receive our newsletter

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Similar

logo
Aviation

30 October 2024

Long delay on the horizon

logo
Aviation

9 October 2024

Staff shortages in baggage handling can be an extraordinary circumstance

logo
Aviation

18 September 2024

Guidelines for the Danish air passenger tax

logo
Aviation

18 September 2024

Denmark introduces new air passenger tax

logo
Aviation

12 June 2024

Strike in the sister company

logo
Aviation

22 May 2024

Sudden illness was an unusual circumstance

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal advisor

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Senior legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Junior legal advisor

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Aurora

Maria Thunes Truyen

Junior associate

Benedicte

Rodian

Senior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Chanel

Adzioski

Junior legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Junior legal advisor

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Junior legal advisor

Daniel

Bornhøft Nielsen

Junior legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Legal advisor

Emilia

Naledi Madonsela Mikkelsen

Junior legal assistant

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Legal advisor

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Junior legal advisor

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Senior legal advisor

Holger

Koch-Klarskov

Junior legal assistant

Ian

Englev Jensen

Junior legal assistant

Izabell

Celina Bastrup Lüthje

Senior legal assistant

Jacqueline

Lucia Chrillesen

Junior legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Julia

Wolfe

Legal advisor

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Legal assistant

Kateryna

Buriak

Legal advisor

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal advisor

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Junior legal advisor

Nanna

Damkjær

Junior legal assistant

Nourchaine

Sellami

Legal advisor

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal advisor

Silja

Brünnich Fogh von Deden

Junior legal assistant

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Senior legal assistant

Ulrikke

Sejersbøl Christiansen

Legal assistant

Victoria

Mai Gregaard Handberg

Junior legal assistant