In a judgment handed down on Thursday, 8 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that an air traffic management decision does not, in itself, constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ enabling an air carrier to avoid its obligation to compensate a passenger whose flight was delayed (Case C-108/26).
Based on a proposal by First Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, the CJEU decided to partially review a judgment that the General Court handed down last January (Case T-134/25) in which the court had found that a decision related to air traffic management may constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of the regulation (261/2004) governing assistance and compensation for air passengers in the event a flight is delayed or cancelled.
According to the General Court, such a decision is, in principle, beyond the air carrier’s actual control, regardless of the reasons for it, unless the air carrier contributed to that decision being taken. Also, it is the decision itself – and not the reason for it – that is the deciding factor insofar as it externally affects the flight’s operation.
This is the first time that the CJEU has set aside a judgment handed down by the General Court under the preliminary ruling procedure, finding that the interpretation adopted adversely affects the unity and consistency of EU law.
The European court is of the opinion that airlines face this type of air traffic management decision on a regular basis. In order to establish whether ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exist, it is therefore necessary, according to the CJEU, to investigate the event that led to the decision at issue being taken and to ascertain whether that event falls within the normal exercise of the airline’s activity or whether that event is beyond the airline’s actual control.
The court stresses that, as a result, it is not sufficient for an air carrier to cite the decision in question in order to be exempt from its obligation to pay compensation. It must demonstrate that the decision was taken due to a circumstance that was itself extraordinary in nature.
In this case, the air traffic management decision had been taken due to Hungarian and Romanian airspace restrictions that were imposed on account of adverse weather conditions. Such conditions may constitute extraordinary circumstances in cases where they are of such severity as to prevent the flight in question from being carried out safely and according to the originally planned schedule. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that was indeed the case.
See the judgment of the Court of Justice: https://aeur.eu/f/nu0 (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)