Background
A passenger’s flight from Izmir to Warsaw arrived more than three hours late. The same aircraft’s preceding flight had been delayed by an air traffic management measure restricting Hungarian and Romanian airspace because of adverse weather. After the aircraft reached Izmir, a technical fault required another two hours and eight minutes of repairs.
The passenger assigned her compensation claim to D S.A., which sought EUR 400 from the operating carrier, P S.A., under Regulation No 261/2004. A Polish district court asked whether an air traffic management decision could constitute an “extraordinary circumstance,” including when it affected an earlier flight in the aircraft’s rotation and did not by itself produce a three-hour delay.
The General Court held that such a decision could qualify regardless of its reason if it was beyond the carrier’s actual control. On review, the Court of Justice examined whether that interpretation adversely affected the unity or consistency of EU law.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Justice held that air traffic management decisions are inherent in the normal operation of an air carrier because carriers encounter them routinely. Such a decision therefore cannot, by itself and regardless of its basis, constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Courts must instead examine the event that prompted the decision and determine case by case whether that event was not inherent in the carrier’s normal activity and was beyond its actual control.
The Court concluded that the General Court’s broader approach weakened passenger protection and adversely affected the unity and consistency of EU law. It set aside the General Court’s judgment as to the first two referred questions and substituted its own answers. The adverse weather underlying the measure could qualify as extraordinary if the national court verifies that it was severe enough to prevent safe operation according to the original schedule.
An event may qualify as extraordinary even if it caused less than three hours of the total delay. Its contribution is deducted from the overall arrival delay when deciding whether compensation is due. A carrier may also rely on an extraordinary event affecting an earlier flight operated with the same aircraft, provided there is a direct causal link to the later flight’s delay or cancellation.
Key Takeaways
- An air traffic management decision is not itself an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3); the reason underlying the decision must satisfy the two-part extraordinary-circumstances test.
- An extraordinary event need not independently cause a delay of at least three hours; the delay attributable to it is deducted when assessing compensation.
- An event affecting a preceding flight in the same aircraft rotation may be invoked if it directly caused the subsequent delay or cancellation.
Why It Matters
The judgment prevents airlines from avoiding compensation merely by pointing to an air traffic control decision. They must prove that the underlying cause was both outside the normal exercise of their activity and beyond their actual control, while also satisfying the regulation’s reasonable-measures requirement.
The ruling also clarifies how national courts should allocate delay where extraordinary and ordinary causes combine, and confirms that qualifying disruption may carry over between flights operated by the same aircraft when a direct causal link exists.