This paper analyses the specific defence to liability for delay available to carriers, comparing its features under the Montreal Convention (MC99) and EU Regulation 261/2004 (Regulation 261). The relationship between these legal instruments has never been an easy one, whereas recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the socalled ‘extraordinary circumstances defence’ invites to explore similarities and differences between the international and the European approaches. The scope of application of the defence is clearer in Regulation 261 than in MC99. The former will only affect cancellations and delays – not cases of denied boarding, and its impact remains limited to the lump-sum compensation set out in Article 7 of Regulation 261. In turn, MC99 covers delays, but it is uncertain whether it also encompasses cancellations and situations of denied boarding – particularly when the passengers concerned are provided alternate transportation. Moreover, the defence laid down in MC99 applies to damage occasioned by delay, but the definition of ‘damage’ is left to domestic law. This situation gives rise to diverging decisions by national courts. Regarding the conceptualization of the defence, the wording of the relevant provisions might lead to think that both instruments share a regime of liability for presumed culpability. However, the extraordinary circumstances defence is much more complex. As a consequence, there is no alignment between MC99 and Regulation 261, although points of convergence are highlighted.
Read full abstract