ECJ: Air Traffic Management Decisions Do Not Automatically Constitute Extraordinary Circumstances

In its judgment of 8 October 2026 (C-108/26 RX), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that decisions taken by Air Traffic Management (ATM) do not automatically constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The ECJ thereby overturned the judgment of the General Court of the European Union delivered in January 2026.

Background: The General Court’s Judgment of January 2026

As previously reported in our Aviation News article of 22 January 2026, the General Court had held that ATM decisions may, in principle, constitute extraordinary circumstances, provided that they were genuinely beyond the airline’s control. According to the General Court, the specific reasons underlying an ATM decision were not decisive.

ECJ Tightens the Requirements

The ECJ has now rejected this approach. The fact that an ATM decision is beyond an airline’s control is not, in itself, sufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances. Instead, the requirements of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

From an airline’s perspective, this decision is disappointing. Airlines have no influence over the allocation of departure slots by ATM authorities and do not necessarily have access to the reasons underlying such decisions. While the allocation of a delayed departure slot can usually be documented, proving the circumstances that led to the decision often presents considerable practical difficulties.

Implications for Austrian Case Law

The Regional Court of Korneuburg (Landesgericht Korneuburg) has long taken the position that the circumstances underlying an ATM decision are relevant when assessing whether it constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. Accordingly, the mere allocation of a delayed departure slot is not sufficient.

The General Court’s judgment of January 2026 was at odds with this established Austrian case law. With its latest judgment, the ECJ has now confirmed the approach taken by the Regional Court of Korneuburg.

The hope raised by the General Court’s judgment for a clearer and more practical legal framework for airlines has therefore not materialised. Airlines will continue to be required to prove the circumstances underlying decisions taken entirely outside their control, even though they often have no full insight into the reasons behind those decisions.

Don’t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about passenger claims in Austria.