No 261-compensation for a 16-hour delay
The air carrier bears the burden of proof when a passenger makes a claim for compensation in accordance with regulation 261, and the burden of proof may be difficult to lift. In a case before the District Court of Kolding, the air carrier presented both internal and external documentation and therefore they did not have to pay compensation even though it was a 16-hour delay.
In this specific case, two passengers had booked a trip from Beograd to Billund via Frankfurt. The plane arrived with a delay in Frankfurt due to a delay on its previous flight. The delay meant that the passengers did not catch their following flight to Billund and had to be rebooked to another flight to Billund via Copenhagen. Therefore, they arrived in Billund with a 16-hour delay and, due to this, the passengers made a claim for compensation in accordance with regulation 261. The air carrier denied their claim, as the delay was a result of extraordinary circumstances.
Internal appendices and printout from flight stats were sufficient
The air carrier used their internal logs to prove that the flights to and from Frankfurt were delayed due to a delay in the previous flight as well as weather conditions and ATC-restrictions. Due to an external printout from flightstats.com the air carrier was also able to prove that there were many delays in Frankfurt that day. Of the 299 flights, only 12 flights were not delayed or cancelled.
In their verdict, the District Court of Kolding emphasized that two conditions must be met if an air carrier is to be exempt from their duty to pay compensation. Firstly, the cancellation or delay must be a result of extraordinary circumstances. Secondly, the air carrier must prove that the extraordinary circumstances would have caused a delay even if all reasonable precautions had been taken. The court specified that unusual weather conditions, according to preambulatory clause 14 in regulation 261, may constitute extraordinary circumstances.
Based on the air carrier’s documentation, which showed a significant amount of cancelled and delayed flights due to the weather conditions and ATC-restrictions, it was found that this was a case of extraordinary circumstances. Compared to the second condition, the court concluded that the extraordinary circumstances were beyond the control of the air carrier, and that the delay therefore could not have been avoided, no matter the precautions the air carrier might have taken.
The air carrier does not control its own departures
In the assessment, the court also emphasized that the air carrier cannot handle and control its own departures from Frankfurt – this is the Air Traffic Control’s responsibility. Furthermore, the court also emphasized that the unusual weather conditions affected almost all departures from Frankfurt that day. By rebooking the passengers to another flight via Copenhagen, the air carrier took all necessary and possible precautions. On that basis, the court concluded that the passengers did not have a right to receive compensation from the air carrier for the delayed flight.
IUNO’s opinion
16 hours is quite a long delay on an inter-European flight. Nevertheless, the air carrier was acquitted. This is because the court put emphasis on the fact that most of the other flights from Frankfurt were also delayed, and that there was an ATC-restriction. The combination of the two conditions (weather and ATC restrictions) was beyond the air carrier’s control. The air carrier’s proof that the other flights were affected by the conditions became essential. Furthermore, the court did not make specific requirements regarding the rebooking. IUNO recommends, in light of the judgement, that air carriers in a similar situation ensure both internal and external documentation to lift the burden of proof, to the extent possible
[District Court of Kolding in case BS-499/2019-KOL of the 2 December 2019]
In this specific case, two passengers had booked a trip from Beograd to Billund via Frankfurt. The plane arrived with a delay in Frankfurt due to a delay on its previous flight. The delay meant that the passengers did not catch their following flight to Billund and had to be rebooked to another flight to Billund via Copenhagen. Therefore, they arrived in Billund with a 16-hour delay and, due to this, the passengers made a claim for compensation in accordance with regulation 261. The air carrier denied their claim, as the delay was a result of extraordinary circumstances.
Internal appendices and printout from flight stats were sufficient
The air carrier used their internal logs to prove that the flights to and from Frankfurt were delayed due to a delay in the previous flight as well as weather conditions and ATC-restrictions. Due to an external printout from flightstats.com the air carrier was also able to prove that there were many delays in Frankfurt that day. Of the 299 flights, only 12 flights were not delayed or cancelled.
In their verdict, the District Court of Kolding emphasized that two conditions must be met if an air carrier is to be exempt from their duty to pay compensation. Firstly, the cancellation or delay must be a result of extraordinary circumstances. Secondly, the air carrier must prove that the extraordinary circumstances would have caused a delay even if all reasonable precautions had been taken. The court specified that unusual weather conditions, according to preambulatory clause 14 in regulation 261, may constitute extraordinary circumstances.
Based on the air carrier’s documentation, which showed a significant amount of cancelled and delayed flights due to the weather conditions and ATC-restrictions, it was found that this was a case of extraordinary circumstances. Compared to the second condition, the court concluded that the extraordinary circumstances were beyond the control of the air carrier, and that the delay therefore could not have been avoided, no matter the precautions the air carrier might have taken.
The air carrier does not control its own departures
In the assessment, the court also emphasized that the air carrier cannot handle and control its own departures from Frankfurt – this is the Air Traffic Control’s responsibility. Furthermore, the court also emphasized that the unusual weather conditions affected almost all departures from Frankfurt that day. By rebooking the passengers to another flight via Copenhagen, the air carrier took all necessary and possible precautions. On that basis, the court concluded that the passengers did not have a right to receive compensation from the air carrier for the delayed flight.
IUNO’s opinion
16 hours is quite a long delay on an inter-European flight. Nevertheless, the air carrier was acquitted. This is because the court put emphasis on the fact that most of the other flights from Frankfurt were also delayed, and that there was an ATC-restriction. The combination of the two conditions (weather and ATC restrictions) was beyond the air carrier’s control. The air carrier’s proof that the other flights were affected by the conditions became essential. Furthermore, the court did not make specific requirements regarding the rebooking. IUNO recommends, in light of the judgement, that air carriers in a similar situation ensure both internal and external documentation to lift the burden of proof, to the extent possible
[District Court of Kolding in case BS-499/2019-KOL of the 2 December 2019]
Similar
The team
![](/media/22673/siddende_2016.png)
Aage
Krogh
Partner![](/media/1973/siddende_sort.png)
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Legal assistant![](/media/29528/amalie_siddende_2023.png)
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Legal advisor![](/media/23704/amalie_siddende_2023.png)
Amalie
Sofie Sveen Kvam
Legal assistant![](/media/29532/amanda_siddende_2023.png)
Amanda
Jepsen Bregnhardt
Legal assistant![](/media/29499/andrea_siddende_2023.png)
Andrea
Brix Danielsen
Legal advisor![](/media/23097/anna_siddende_2023.png)
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor![](/media/25910/anna_siddende_2023.png)
Anna
Kreutzmann
Senior legal assistant![](/media/23359/anne_siddende_2023.png)
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Senior legal assistant![](/media/23052/anton_siddende_2023.png)
Anton
Winther Hansen
Legal advisor![](/media/29503/ashley_siddende_2023.png)
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal advisor![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Benedicte
Rodian
Senior legal assistant![](/media/17880/bror_siddende_2021.png)
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor![](/media/15171/chris_siddende_2020.png)
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor![](/media/29536/cille_siddende_2023.png)
Cille
Fahnø
Senior legal assistant![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Clara
Caballero Stephensen
Legal assistant![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Ellen
Priess-Hansen
Legal assistant![](/media/22203/elvira_siddende_2022.png)
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Senior legal advisor![](/media/29540/ema_siddende_2023.png)
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Junior legal advisor![](/media/29565/emma_siddende_2023.png)
Emma
Engvang Hansen
Legal assistant![](/media/17930/emma_siddende_2021.png)
Emma
Frøslev Larsen
Legal manager![](/media/20082/fransine_siddende_2022.png)
Fransine
Andersson
Legal advisor![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Frederikke
Kirkegaard Thalund
Legal assistant![](/media/23367/frederikke_siddende_2023.png)
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Senior legal assistant![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Frida
Aas Ahlquist
Legal assistant![](/media/21173/frida_siddende_2022.png)
Frida
Assarson
Legal advisor![](/media/25960/gustav_siddende_2023.png)
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant![](/media/30441/hanna_siddende_2024.png)
Hanna
Honerød Augestad
Junior legal advisor![](/media/23066/isabella_siddende_2023.png)
Isabella
Rocio Nielsen
Junior legal advisor![](/media/25970/johanne_siddende_2023.png)
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant![](/media/29625/kaisa_siddende_2023.png)
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Junior legal advisor![](/media/1973/siddende_sort.png)
Karl Emil
Tang Nielsen
Legal assistant![](/media/29629/karoline_siddende_2023.png)
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Legal manager![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Karoline
Nordved
Legal assistant![](/media/29637/laura_siddende_2023.png)
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor![](/media/1973/siddende_sort.png)
Mathias
Bech Linaa
Junior legal advisor![](/media/15730/maya_siddende_2020.png)
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor![](/media/22237/mie_siddende_2022.png)
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Legal manager![](/media/23526/rosa_siddende_2023.png)
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal advisor![](/media/24684/selma_siddende_2023.png)
Selma
Agopian
Senior EU associate![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Selma
Klinker Brodersen
Junior legal advisor![](/media/1978/siddende_pige.png)
Silje
Moen Knutsen
Junior legal advisor![](/media/29653/sille_siddende_2023.png)
Sille
Lyng Mejding
Legal advisor![](/media/26081/simone_siddende_2023.png)
Simone
Bjergskov Nielsen
Senior legal assistant![](/media/29657/sofija_siddende_2023.png)
Sofija
Cabrilo
Legal assistant![](/media/10370/sophia_siddende_2019.png)
Sophia
Maria Dahl-Jensen
Senior legal advisor![](/media/26084/stine_siddende_2023.png)