EU court finds airlines can’t dodge payouts just by blaming traffic control

Carriers must explain what caused a traffic restriction before refusing compensation for a delay, Europe's top court ruled. But the passenger behind the case could still miss out.(CN) — Airlines cannot refuse to compensate delayed travelers simply because air traffic controllers told them to wait, the EU’s top court ruled Thursday.The Court of Justice of the European Union examined whether LOT Polish Airlines could avoid paying 400 euros (about $448) plus interest for a delayed flight. DelayFix, a company that pursues passenger claims, sought the money after a passenger transferred her right to compensation.Under EU law, certain delays of more than three hours can garner passengers between 250-600 euros. A Warsaw court asked the EU judges how to apply the rules.Their answer was to look at why controllers held up the plane. To avoid paying, an airline had to show the underlying problem was outside both its normal operations and its control. Having no say in a controller’s decision was not enough, because following those instructions is an everyday part of flying.The judges overturned part of the General Court’s January ruling, which had allowed airlines to rely on a traffic restriction regardless of its cause, provided they had not contributed to the decision. That approach made it too easy to escape compensation, the higher court found.Severe weather remains a possible defense, the court said, since it’s totally out of airlines control.The court said the weather behind LOT’s delay appeared to qualify, though the Polish judge had to check the facts. LOT also had to show it took all reasonable steps to prevent or reduce the disruption.Claudia Bischof, a lawyer specializing in aviation law at Lindbergh Legal, welcomed the ruling but cautioned it did not guarantee compensation for every traffic-related delay.“The judgment is therefore less about expanding passenger rights than about ensuring that the existing exemption is applied correctly and consistently,” she said.For the passenger booked to fly from Izmir, Turkey, to Warsaw on July 25, 2023, the wait had two causes. Weather restrictions over Hungary and Romania first held up the plane’s earlier flight from Katowice, Poland, to Izmir. It arrived 72 minutes late. Then a technical fault took another two hours and eight minutes to repair.By the time she reached Warsaw, her flight was three hours and seven minutes late — just seven minutes over the threshold for compensation.That narrow margin could still save LOT from paying. The court said a qualifying exceptional event did not have to cause three hours of delay on its own. Krzysztof Moczulski, spokesperson for LOT Polish Airlines, emphasized how that affected the calculation: “The duration of that delay must be deducted from the total delay when determining whether a passenger is entitled to compensation.” He also stressed that airlines have to obey controllers.Subtracting the qualifying weather delay could leave this passenger short of the three-hour threshold. The court also confirmed that a problem on an earlier flight could excuse a later delay, but the airline had to prove a direct connection between them.Piotr Gad, an advocate specializing in aviation law and passenger rights who represented DelayFix, nevertheless hailed the ruling as an important victory for passenger rights. He said traffic restrictions have overtaken bird strikes among airlines’ most frequently used explanations for avoiding compensation. “I sincerely hope today’s judgment will put an end to this practice,” he said.The two EU courts became involved because the Warsaw judge needed help interpreting EU law. A 2024 reform had given the General Court responsibility for questions about passenger compensation. The higher court stepped in to prevent the January interpretation from undermining consistent rules across the bloc.Alexander Heger, a researcher in constitutional, European and aviation law at Goethe University Frankfurt’s Institute for Public Law, thought the court had explained that intervention too briefly. He also questioned its logic: Bad weather was familiar to airlines, too, and controllers’ restrictions could help show how severe it was. Under the ruling, he said, airlines would need to document why restrictions were imposed. “Pointing to the allocated slot and to its own readiness to depart is not enough,” he said.Sophie Haiden, a lawyer specializing in air passenger rights at her Vienna practice, questioned how courts would treat delays caused by too few controllers or crowded flight routes. She considered controller shortages potentially exceptional because airlines could not control them.“Consequently, the CJEU’s judgment does not provide comprehensive legal certainty but instead leaves room for differing interpretations and potentially divergent case law across Europe,” she said.The EU court has had the final word on the rules. The Warsaw court will have the final say on the 400 euros.Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads