Air Traffic Control Decisions and EU261 Compensation – When Is the Carrier Exempt from Liability?

On 21 January 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment clarifying the liability of air carriers for flight delays under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (EU261). The ruling explains when an air traffic control decision may qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” exempting the carrier from the obligation to pay compensation. The judgment is of practical importance for passengers, airlines and entities pursuing passenger claims.

Air Traffic Control Decisions as “Extraordinary Circumstances” within the Meaning of EU261

The case concerned a flight delayed as a result of a decision by air traffic control authorities which, due to bad weather conditions and airspace restrictions, assigned a later departure time (a so-called slot). Combined with a subsequent technical fault, passengers arrived at their destination more than three hours late. 

The Court of Justice of the European Union recalled that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No. 261/2004, the carrier is not required to pay compensation if it proves that the delay was caused by “extraordinary circumstances” which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

The CJEU confirmed that an air traffic control decision may constitute an extraordinary circumstance, even if it does not in itself cause a delay of more than three hours. The key issue is whether the decision was beyond the carrier’s effective control and whether the carrier did not contribute to its adoption.

Not the Cause of the Delay, but the Legal Nature of the Air Traffic Control Decision

It is important to distinguish between the cause of the decision, for example bad weather, and its legal nature. The court pointed out that air traffic management is not within the competence of the airline. If the decision is external and binding, and the carrier had no influence on it, it may exempt the carrier from liability.

At the same time, the national court should examine whether there is a direct causal link between that decision and the delay of a specific flight, including in a situation of so-called rotation, where the extraordinary circumstance concerns an earlier flight operated by the same aircraft.

Implications of the CJEU Judgment for Passengers and Air Carriers under EU261

The judgment strengthens the arguments of carriers in disputes concerning delays caused by decisions of air traffic management authorities, but does not mean automatic exemption from liability. Each case requires a detailed analysis, including an assessment of the organization of the route network and the actual influence of the carrier on the course of events.

For passengers, this means that the mere information about bad weather conditions does not determine the lack of entitlement to compensation. For airlines, it means the need to precisely document the operational circumstances and demonstrate the lack of influence on the decision of the control authorities.

How to assess whether an air traffic control decision exempts a carrier from liability under EU261?

The CJEU judgment does not result in an automatic release of the carrier from liability. Each case requires an individual assessment of the causal link, the legal nature of the air traffic control decision, and the carrier’s operational organisation.

If you require support in evaluating the merits of a claim or in defending against a compensation request under EU261, please contact our team.