Introduction
On 8 October 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union, sitting as the Second Chamber, delivered a judgment in Case C-108/26 RX. The case arose as a review of an earlier judgment of the General Court of the European Union dated 21 January 2026, in Case T-134/25 (EU:T:2026:35), which itself concerned a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of, among other things, long flight delays. A central and frequently litigated provision of that regulation is Article 5(3), which exempts air carriers from their compensation obligations where a flight delay is caused by 'extraordinary circumstances' that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
The specific factual and legal question before the Court in this review concerned whether an air traffic management decision allocating delayed departure slots to aircraft as a consequence of adverse weather conditions falls within the concept of 'extraordinary circumstances' for the purposes of Article 5(3) of the regulation. The Court also addressed the broader concern that the General Court's earlier judgment had an adverse effect on the unity and consistency of EU law.
Background: the General Court judgment under review
The judgment subject to review was delivered by the General Court on 21 January 2026 in Case T-134/25 (EU:T:2026:35), identified in the Court of Justice's judgment under the description 'D (Air traffic management decision)'. That case reached the General Court by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling, placing the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 squarely before the EU judiciary.
The factual context involved an air traffic management decision that resulted in the allocation of delayed departure slots to flights. The delay in slot allocation was itself attributable to adverse weather conditions. The question was whether such a decision, sitting as it does between the underlying meteorological event and the actual flight delay experienced by passengers, could be characterised as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of the regulation.
The review procedure before the Court of Justice, designated by the suffix 'RX' in the case reference, is a mechanism available under EU procedural law to ensure that decisions of the General Court do not adversely affect the unity or consistency of EU law. The invocation of this procedure in Case C-108/26 RX signals that the Court of Justice identified a concern of that nature in the General Court's reasoning or conclusions.
The legal framework: Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is the foundational instrument of EU law governing passenger rights in civil aviation, including the right to compensation in cases of long flight delays. Article 5(3) of that regulation provides the principal defence available to air carriers against compensation claims, by reference to the concept of extraordinary circumstances.
As reflected in the subject matter of the judgment, the regulation draws a distinction between circumstances that are inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity and those that are genuinely extraordinary in nature. Adverse weather conditions have long been recognised in EU case law and regulatory practice as capable of constituting extraordinary circumstances. However, the present case raises a more nuanced question: whether an air traffic management decision that is itself a response to adverse weather conditions shares the same legal characterisation.
The involvement of an air traffic management decision introduces an intermediate step between the weather event and the passenger-facing delay. This intermediate step — a decision taken by air traffic control authorities to allocate delayed departure slots — is the specific element whose legal status the Court was called upon to clarify in the context of the extraordinary circumstances exemption.
The review procedure and the unity of EU law
The review mechanism reflected in the 'RX' designation of Case C-108/26 is a procedural safeguard within the EU judicial architecture. It allows the Court of Justice to examine judgments of the General Court where there is a risk that those judgments adversely affect the unity and consistency of EU law. The Court of Justice's judgment expressly identifies this concern as a basis for the review, noting the adverse effect on the unity and consistency of EU law as a relevant element of the case.
This framing is significant from an institutional perspective. It indicates that the question of how air traffic management decisions interact with the extraordinary circumstances exemption is not merely a matter of individual case resolution, but one with broader implications for the coherent and uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 across the European Union.
The review procedure thus serves a function analogous to that of a cassation or supervisory jurisdiction, ensuring that the General Court's interpretation of EU secondary legislation does not diverge from the standards and principles established by the Court of Justice. The outcome of such a review has authoritative effect on how the relevant legal concepts are to be understood and applied by national courts and tribunals throughout the member states.
Air traffic management decisions and extraordinary circumstances: the core legal question
The central legal question in Case C-108/26 RX is whether an air traffic management decision allocating delayed departure slots, taken in response to adverse weather conditions, itself constitutes an extraordinary circumstance for the purposes of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. This question has practical significance for both air carriers and passengers, as it determines the scope of the compensation exemption in a scenario that arises with some regularity in civil aviation operations.
From the perspective of air carriers, an air traffic management decision of this kind is typically beyond their operational control. The allocation of departure slots by air traffic control authorities is a regulatory and safety measure imposed externally on the carrier. The carrier cannot unilaterally override such a decision, and the resulting delay is therefore not attributable to any failure or choice on the carrier's part.
From the perspective of passengers, however, the concern is that a broad interpretation of extraordinary circumstances could allow carriers to rely on the intervention of air traffic management authorities as a shield against compensation obligations in circumstances where the underlying cause — adverse weather — might itself have been foreseeable or where the delay could have been mitigated. The balance between these competing interests is precisely what the Court of Justice was required to address in its review of the General Court's judgment.
Implications for the uniform application of passenger rights law
The judgment in Case C-108/26 RX carries implications that extend beyond the individual dispute from which the preliminary reference originated. Because the case was brought before the Court of Justice through the review procedure on grounds of adverse effect on the unity and consistency of EU law, the Court's ruling is intended to provide authoritative guidance on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the specific context of air traffic management decisions.
National courts and tribunals across the European Union that are called upon to adjudicate passenger compensation claims involving flight delays attributable to air traffic management decisions will need to take account of the principles established in this judgment. The ruling contributes to the body of EU case law that defines the boundaries of the extraordinary circumstances exemption and ensures that those boundaries are applied consistently across different member states and legal systems.
The involvement of adverse weather conditions as the underlying cause of the air traffic management decision adds a further layer of complexity. Weather-related delays are among the most common sources of disruption in civil aviation, and the legal treatment of decisions taken by air traffic control authorities in response to such conditions has direct consequences for the volume and outcome of passenger compensation claims across the EU.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-108/26 RX, delivered on 8 October 2026, addresses a legally significant question at the intersection of EU aviation passenger rights law and air traffic management practice. By reviewing the General Court's judgment of 21 January 2026 in Case T-134/25, the Court of Justice exercised its supervisory function to safeguard the unity and consistency of EU law in the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
The case focuses on whether an air traffic management decision allocating delayed departure slots due to adverse weather conditions qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance exempting air carriers from their obligation to compensate passengers for long flight delays. The resolution of this question has practical consequences for carriers, passengers, and national courts throughout the European Union.
Institutions, legal practitioners, and stakeholders operating in the field of EU aviation law should be attentive to the guidance provided by this judgment, as it forms part of the evolving body of authoritative case law governing the scope and application of passenger rights under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal notice
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications