When are strikes at the airport an extraordinary circumstance?
In two new decisions, the District Court of Copenhagen has ruled on delays due to external strikes. According to Regulation 261, the air carrier must prove that the strike is beyond their actual control, is not part of the normal course of activity and that all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize the delay have been taken. Both decisions from the District Court of Copenhagen showed that an external strike is usually considered an extraordinary circumstance.
The first case concerns a strike among the baggage handling staff at Copenhagen Airport, which delayed a flight by 1 hour and 18 minutes. This meant that the passengers did not reach their connecting flight and therefore arrived at the final destination with a delay of 5 hours and 46 minutes. The air carrier had no relation to the company responsible for baggage handling at the airport, and therefore did not in advance know the background of the strike or how long it would last. By the time the air carrier was informed of the strike, boarding of the aircraft had already begun and there was therefore no time to take any steps that could possibly have reduced the delay.
In the second case, a catering company went on strike, and therefore the air carrier distributed food vouchers to the passengers so they could provide themselves with food and drinks for the 13-hour flight. As all air carriers did the same that day, there was no more food in the terminal at the time of departure of the aircraft. The air carrier assessed that the only reasonable course of action was to have a layover in Stockholm to pick up supplies. The plane therefore arrived at its final destination with a delay of 4 hours and 35 minutes.
External strikes constituted extraordinary circumstances
The District Court of Copenhagen found that both strikes constituted extraordinary circumstances. In the first case, the Court emphasized that the strike among the baggage handling personnel had not been announced in advance, that the airline had started boarding when the strike was announced, and that the strike concerned personnel unrelated to the air carrier. Thus, the court found that the airline could not have acted differently to avoid or minimize the delay. In the second case, the District Court of Copenhagen in its decision emphasized that the strike had not been announced in advance and that the airline had taken all reasonable precautions by issuing food vouchers. Therefore, the court ruled that this was an extraordinary circumstance beyond the actual control of the airline.
IUNO’s opinion
A strike by a subcontractor, as in these two cases, is referred to as an external strike. As is clear from the two decisions, that type of strike is, in principle, an extraordinary circumstance because it is beyond the control and usual activity of the air carriers. IUNO recommends that air carriers in the event of external strikes ensure that they have taken all reasonable precautions to avoid or minimize the delay. The courts will always consider all the circumstances of a particular case. However, as the two decisions show, the courts will take into account, at what point the airline becomes aware of the strike.
[District Court of Copenhagen in case BS-11579/2019-KBH of 31 March 2020 and District Court of Copenhagen in case BS-18429/2019-KBH of 24 April 2020]
The first case concerns a strike among the baggage handling staff at Copenhagen Airport, which delayed a flight by 1 hour and 18 minutes. This meant that the passengers did not reach their connecting flight and therefore arrived at the final destination with a delay of 5 hours and 46 minutes. The air carrier had no relation to the company responsible for baggage handling at the airport, and therefore did not in advance know the background of the strike or how long it would last. By the time the air carrier was informed of the strike, boarding of the aircraft had already begun and there was therefore no time to take any steps that could possibly have reduced the delay.
In the second case, a catering company went on strike, and therefore the air carrier distributed food vouchers to the passengers so they could provide themselves with food and drinks for the 13-hour flight. As all air carriers did the same that day, there was no more food in the terminal at the time of departure of the aircraft. The air carrier assessed that the only reasonable course of action was to have a layover in Stockholm to pick up supplies. The plane therefore arrived at its final destination with a delay of 4 hours and 35 minutes.
External strikes constituted extraordinary circumstances
The District Court of Copenhagen found that both strikes constituted extraordinary circumstances. In the first case, the Court emphasized that the strike among the baggage handling personnel had not been announced in advance, that the airline had started boarding when the strike was announced, and that the strike concerned personnel unrelated to the air carrier. Thus, the court found that the airline could not have acted differently to avoid or minimize the delay. In the second case, the District Court of Copenhagen in its decision emphasized that the strike had not been announced in advance and that the airline had taken all reasonable precautions by issuing food vouchers. Therefore, the court ruled that this was an extraordinary circumstance beyond the actual control of the airline.
IUNO’s opinion
A strike by a subcontractor, as in these two cases, is referred to as an external strike. As is clear from the two decisions, that type of strike is, in principle, an extraordinary circumstance because it is beyond the control and usual activity of the air carriers. IUNO recommends that air carriers in the event of external strikes ensure that they have taken all reasonable precautions to avoid or minimize the delay. The courts will always consider all the circumstances of a particular case. However, as the two decisions show, the courts will take into account, at what point the airline becomes aware of the strike.
[District Court of Copenhagen in case BS-11579/2019-KBH of 31 March 2020 and District Court of Copenhagen in case BS-18429/2019-KBH of 24 April 2020]
Similar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Junior legal advisor
Albert
Berg Giese
Legal assistant
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Senior legal advisor
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor
Anna
Ferguson Bille-Biggart
Junior legal assistant
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal manager (leave of absence)
Anna
Laura Brohl Larsen
Junior legal assistant
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Senior legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Senior legal advisor
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal advisor
Aurora
Maria Thunes Truyen
Associate
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Sofie Urup Malmstrøm
Legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Legal advisor
Clara
Caballero Stephensen
Junior legal advisor
Ea
Tingkær Hesselfeldt
Legal assistant
Ellen
Priess-Hansen
Senior legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Senior legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal advisor
Emilie
Mehl Bagger
Junior legal assistant
Feline
Honoré Jepsen
Legal assistant
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Senior legal assistant
Freja
Pedersen
Junior legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Associate
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant
Holger
Koch-Klarskov
Legal advisor
Ian
Englev Jensen
Legal assistant
Ida
Marie Skovgaard Rubæk
Senior legal manager
Isabella
Fjording
Junior legal assistant
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Senior legal assistant
Johanne
Alberte Liljeborg
Junior legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Julia
Wolfe
Legal advisor
Kaisa
Maria Falkenberg Lending
Junior legal advisor
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Senior legal advisor
Karl Emil
Tang Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Senior legal manager
Kateryna
Buriak
Legal advisor
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Luna
Bennesen
Legal assistant
Marie
Møller Christensen
Junior legal advisor
Mathias
Bech Linaa
Senior legal advisor
Mathias
Rex Brohus
Junior legal assistant
Mathilde
Bjørn Bjerring
Junior legal assistant
Mathilde
Stenderup
Junior legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Merle
Frisendahl Fog
Junior legal assistant
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Legal advisor
Nikita
Brinck Søberg
Senior legal assistant
Nourchaine
Sellami
Legal advisor
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal advisor
Selma
Agopian
Senior Associate, EU-advokat
Selma
Klinker Brodersen
Legal advisor
Silja
Brünnich Fogh von Deden
Legal assistant
Silje
Moen Knutsen
Legal advisor
Stine
Bank Olstrøm
Senior legal assistant
Ulrikke
Sejersbøl Christiansen
Junior legal advisor
Victoria
Mai Gregaard Handberg
Legal advisor