ECJ Overturns General Court for the First Time Over Air Traffic Delays

Have you got a question?

For the first time in its history, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) has set aside a decision of the General Court. In Case C‑108/26 RX, the ECJ held that the General Court’s interpretation jeopardized the unity and coherence of EU law.

The ruling goes to the heart of passenger compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004: can an airline treat an air traffic management decision as an “extraordinary circumstance”? The ECJ’s answer has direct consequences for airlines, passengers and anyone handling EU261 claims.

Key takeaways

The ECJ has set aside a General Court judgment for the first time, in Case C‑108/26 RX.
An air traffic management decision cannot automatically be classified as an “extraordinary circumstance”.
What matters is the underlying event that gave rise to the decision, assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The problem: when does an ATM decision excuse a delay?

Under Regulation 261/2004, airlines may avoid paying compensation to passengers where a disruption is caused by “extraordinary circumstances”. Air traffic management decisions are a regular feature of flight operations, and airlines have relied on them to defend compensation claims.

The central question was therefore whether such a decision is, in itself, an extraordinary circumstance, or whether courts must look at the reason behind it.

Background: the General Court’s judgment

The review concerned the General Court’s judgment of 21 January 2026 in D (Air Traffic Management Decision), Case T‑134/25. The General Court had held that an air traffic management decision, irrespective of the reasons on which it is based:

does not form part of the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activities; and
is, as a rule, beyond the carrier’s actual control, unless the carrier contributed to its adoption.

In the General Court’s view, what is decisive is the decision itself, not the circumstances giving rise to it, because the decision affects the operation of the scheduled flight from the outside. It therefore concluded that such a decision may constitute an “extraordinary circumstance”, even where the decision itself did not directly result in a delay of three hours or more.

The Court of Justice’s ruling

Why the Court of Justice intervened

The Court of Justice decided to review the judgment because it considered that the General Court’s interpretation posed a serious risk to the unity and consistency of EU law. In its judgment delivered today, it confirmed that those concerns were well-founded: the General Court’s approach was incompatible with the established principles governing the concept of extraordinary circumstances. The General Court’s judgment was therefore set aside to the extent that it was subject to review.

What the Court of Justice decided

Most importantly, the Court of Justice clarified that an air traffic management decision cannot automatically be classified as an “extraordinary circumstance”. Air carriers are inevitably and regularly confronted with such decisions in the ordinary course of their operations.

Instead, the assessment must focus on the event that gave rise to the air traffic management decision. That underlying event must be identified and assessed on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether, by its nature or origin, it:

is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activities of the air carrier concerned; and
lies beyond that carrier’s actual control.

What this means in practice

For airlines: pointing to an air traffic management decision is no longer enough on its own. The defence will turn on the underlying event that led to the decision, and whether that event meets the test set by the Court of Justice.

For passengers and claim handlers: compensation claims rejected solely on the basis of an air traffic management decision may deserve a closer look in light of this ruling.

Conclusion

This judgment is likely to have significant implications for how “extraordinary circumstances” are interpreted under Regulation 261/2004. By shifting the focus from the air traffic management decision to the event behind it, the Court of Justice may narrow the circumstances in which airlines can rely on such decisions to avoid paying compensation to passengers. It is also a landmark procedurally: the first time the Court of Justice has set aside a judgment of the General Court.

How we can help

Oracle Law Global’s aviation team advises on passenger rights and EU261 disputes. If you would like to understand what this ruling means for your business and policies, please contact us at aviation@oraclelawglobal.com to speak with our team.

Note: the full text of the judgment has not yet been published. We will update this analysis once it is available.