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
![](/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)