EU Court: Airline Compensation Air Traffic Control Not Automatic Defense

• The EU's top court ruled that airlines cannot automatically deny compensation for delays by simply blaming air traffic control instructions.
• Airlines must prove the *underlying cause* of any air traffic restriction was outside their normal operations and control to claim "exceptional circumstances."
• The ruling clarified that if an exceptional event causes part of a delay, its duration must be deducted from the total delay when assessing compensation eligibility.
• This decision overturns a previous General Court ruling that made it easier for airlines to avoid compensation based on traffic restrictions.
• The judgment aims to ensure existing EU passenger rights are applied correctly and consistently, placing a higher burden of proof on airlines.

Instead, airlines must demonstrate that the fundamental reason behind the traffic restriction was outside their normal operational scope and beyond their direct control.

The European Union's highest judicial body, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), has issued a significant ruling clarifying when airlines can avoid paying compensation for flight delays attributed to air traffic control (ATC) restrictions. The court determined that carriers cannot simply cite instructions from air traffic controllers as an automatic defense against compensation claims. Instead, airlines must demonstrate that the fundamental reason behind the traffic restriction was outside their normal operational scope and beyond their direct control. This decision marks a crucial development in the interpretation of EU passenger rights Regulation 261/2004, particularly concerning airline exceptional circumstances ATC claims.

The ruling stems from a referral by a Warsaw court, which sought guidance on applying EU law in a case involving LOT Polish Airlines delay compensation. The CJEU emphasized that adherence to air traffic control directives is an inherent and everyday aspect of airline operations. Consequently, merely following such instructions does not qualify as an "exceptional circumstance" that would exempt an airline from its obligation to compensate passengers for significant delays.

The Court of Justice of the European Union's decision directly challenges a previous stance taken by the General Court in January, which had allowed airlines to rely on traffic restrictions as a defense regardless of their underlying cause, provided the airline had not contributed to the decision. The CJEU found this approach made it excessively easy for airlines to evade their compensation responsibilities. While severe weather conditions remain a potential valid defense, as they are genuinely beyond an airline's control, the court underscored that the burden of proof lies with the carrier to establish the extraordinary nature of the event.

In the specific case prompting the referral, a passenger was scheduled to fly from Izmir, Turkey, to Warsaw on July 25, 2023. The flight ultimately arrived three hours and seven minutes late, just seven minutes beyond the threshold for potential compensation under EU law, which typically grants passengers between 250 and 600 euros for delays exceeding three hours. The delay was attributed to two distinct factors: initial weather restrictions over Hungary and Romania, which delayed an earlier connecting flight from Katowice, Poland, to Izmir by 72 minutes, followed by a technical fault that required two hours and eight minutes for repairs.

The CJEU's ruling also provided critical guidance on how to calculate delays when multiple factors contribute to the overall disruption, particularly when some of these factors might qualify as exceptional. The court affirmed that if an exceptional event, such as severe weather, is proven to have caused a specific portion of the delay, the duration attributable to that event must be subtracted from the total delay when determining a passenger's eligibility for compensation. This means that even if a flight arrives more than three hours late, the airline might still avoid payment if a qualifying exceptional circumstance accounts for enough of that delay to bring the remaining, non-exceptional delay below the three-hour threshold.

Krzysztof Moczulski, a spokesperson for LOT Polish Airlines, highlighted the significance of this calculation method, noting that deducting the delay caused by qualifying exceptional events could potentially exempt the airline from paying compensation in the Izmir-Warsaw case. The court also confirmed that a problem on an earlier flight could excuse a subsequent delay, provided the airline can establish a direct and undeniable link between the two incidents. Furthermore, airlines are still required to demonstrate that they took all reasonable measures to prevent or mitigate the disruption, even when an exceptional circumstance is involved.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union is anticipated to have a substantial impact on airline liability and EU passenger rights, particularly regarding air traffic control delay airline liability. Piotr Gad, an advocate representing DelayFix, a company that pursues passenger claims, lauded the ruling as a significant victory for travelers. He noted that traffic restrictions have become one of the most frequently cited reasons by airlines to deny compensation, surpassing even issues like bird strikes. Gad expressed hope that the CJEU's decision would put an end to this practice, forcing airlines to be more transparent and accountable.

Claudia Bischof, an aviation law specialist at Lindbergh Legal, offered a nuanced perspective, suggesting the ruling primarily ensures the correct and consistent application of existing exemptions rather than broadly expanding passenger rights. She cautioned that it does not guarantee compensation for every traffic-related delay. Nevertheless, the ruling places a higher burden on airlines to provide robust evidence for their "exceptional circumstances" claims, particularly when attributing delays to air traffic control, thereby strengthening the position of passengers seeking fair compensation.

This ruling significantly narrows the 'exceptional circumstances' defense for airlines regarding air traffic control delays, requiring them to prove the underlying cause of the restriction was outside their control and normal operations. Lawyers advising airlines must ensure clients have robust evidence for such claims, while those representing passengers can more effectively challenge blanket denials based solely on ATC instructions.

Source: Original reporting via Associated Press and Courthouse News.