Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:163
Date: 2026-03-05
Language of the case: Greek

Summary C-149/25 – 1 
Case C-149/25 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
19 February 2025 
Referring court: 
Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 January 2025 
Applicants: 
I Fly Aeroporikes Ypiresies Anonymi Etaireia (I Fly SA) 
Cycladesair Aviation GmbH 
Greenair Aviation GmbH (GreenAir) 
Defendant: 
Archi Politikis Aeroporias (A.P.A.) 
Interveners: 
Fraport Perifereiaka Aerodromia tis Elladas A Anonymi Etaireia 
Fraport Perifereiaka Aerodromia tis Elladas B Anonymi Etaireia 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Application for the annulment of a decision of the Director of Archi Politikis 
Aeroporias (‘APA’) (Civil Aviation Authority; ‘CAA’) excluding from the 
allocation of slots at ‘coordinated’ or ‘schedules facilitated’ airports flights 
‘operating entirely under Visual Flights [Flight] Rules (VFR)’. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-149/25 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation No 95/93 – 
Allocation of slots at Union airports – Whether Regulation No 95/93 gives 
Member States the power to lay down detailed provisions on its application) 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must the provisions of Regulation No 95/93, as amended (in particular 
Articles 2(a), (g) and (i), 3, 4, 8, 10 and 14(1) thereof) – read in the light of, first, 
Article 15(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 (which enshrines the right of 
Community air carriers to operate intra-Community air services) and, second, 
Articles 16 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union – be interpreted as exclusively and exhaustively laying down the terms and 
conditions for the allocation of slots at airports designated as ‘coordinated’, 
thereby precluding national regulatory provisions which 
- on the one hand, exclude from the allocation of slots the category of air 
carriers operating flights entirely under Visual Flight Rules (‘VFR’); 
- on the other hand, extend the application of the slot allocation system to 
airports designated as ‘schedules facilitated’? 
2. Or, by contrast, must the abovementioned provisions of Regulation 
No 95/93 – interpreted, in particular, in the light of recital 5 of Regulation 
No 793/2004 (according to which ‘specific activities’ may not be subject to slot 
allocation rules where those are not necessary) and Article 19(1) of Regulation 
No 1008/2008 (according to which ‘national’ slot allocation rules may also be 
adopted) – be interpreted as giving Member States the power to lay down detailed 
provisions on the application of that regulation 
- on the one hand, by prohibiting the allocation of slots to the category of air 
carriers operating flights entirely under VFR; 
- on the other hand, by extending the slot allocation system to airports 
designated as schedules facilitated? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Articles 16 and 52 (1) 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the 
allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14, p. 1), as amended by 
Regulation No 793/2004 (OJ 2004 L 138, p. 50): first and second recitals, 
Article 2, Article 3(5) and (7), Articles 4 and 5, Article 6(1), Article 8(1) to (3) 
and (5), Article 10(1) and (6), Article 14(1) 
I FLY AND OTHERS 
 
3 
Regulation (EC) No 793/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
21 April 2004 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules 
for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 2004 L 138, p. 50): recitals 5, 
8, 9 and 15 
Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the 
Community (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3), as amended by Regulation No 2020/696 (OJ 
2020 L 165, p. 1): Article 1(1), Article 2, Article 3(1), Article 15, Article 19(1) 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down 
common rules on air traffic flow management (OJ 2010 L 80, p. 10): Articles 1, 3, 
5, 6, 9 and 10 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012 
laying down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding 
services and procedures in air navigation and amending Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 1035/2011 and Regulations (EC) No 1265/2007, (EC) No 1794/2006, 
(EC) No 730/2006, (EC) No 1033/2006 and (EU) No 255/2010 (OJ 2012 L 281, 
p. 1): recital 1, Articles 1 and 2, Annex, Section 5 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2011, Danske 
Svineproducenter, C-316/10, EU:C:2011:863; of 25 October 2012, Ketelä, 
C-592/11, EU:C:2012:673; of 2 June 2016, Commission v Portugal, C-205/14, 
EU:C:2016:393; of 12 April 2018, Commission v Denmark, C-541/16, 
EU:C:2018:251; and of 25 November 2021, Finanzamt Österreich (Family 
benefits for development aid workers), C-372/20, EU:C:2021:962 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Nomos 4757/2020, Systasi, leitourgia kai armodiotites Archis Politikis 
Aeroporias, rythmisi zitimaton YPA (FEK A’ 240/1.12.2020) (Law 
No 4757/2020, Establishment, operation and powers of the Civil Aviation 
Authority, regulation of CAA matters) (Government Gazette A’ 240/ /1.12.2020): 
Articles 3 and 4 
Decision 28893/30.10.2023 of the Director of the Civil Aviation Authority 
(CAA), entitled ‘Provision laying down national rules on the allocation of slots at 
Greek airports’ (FEK B’ 6288/30.10.2023), as amended by Decision 
9329/12.3.2024 (FEK B’ 1784/19.3.2024) (‘the contested decision’): 
Article 2 (Operation of flights at coordinated or schedules facilitated airports) 
1. It is not permitted to operate a flight to or from coordinated airports or 
schedules facilitated airports without an approved slot (depending on the airport 
category). That prohibition includes flights by general aviation/business aviation 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-149/25 
 
4  
aircraft and air taxi flights within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, as 
amended. 
2. The following types of flight shall be excluded from the provisions of 
paragraph 1 of this article: (a) flights operated entirely under Visual Flight Rules 
(VFR), (b) flights diverted to an alternative airport for technical or meteorological 
reasons, (c) flights for humanitarian purposes, (d) search and rescue flights, (e) 
healthcare flights, (f) State flights and (g) military flights.  
For some of those types of flight, the exemptions may be lifted and they may be 
made subject to restrictions in cases where the smooth operational functioning of 
the airport concerned is affected. In such cases, changes to the accepted 
exemptions shall be introduced by means of local rules, following an impact 
assessment, after consultation with the stakeholders and approval by the relevant 
Coordination Board. 
[…] 
6. In order to operate ad hoc flights, interested parties must, in addition to the 
above, consult AIP (Aeronautical Information Publications) Greece and the 
corresponding NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) at coordinated and schedules 
facilitated airports, as well as the local rules applicable (e.g. PPR – Prior 
Permission Required, PNR – Prior Notice Required or other relevant 
requirement). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The first applicant is an airline which has obtained a licence to operate 
commercial flights and is therefore covered by the concept of ‘Community air 
carrier’. The second applicant, which established a branch in Greece for the 
purpose of implementing a business plan consisting in the operation of domestic 
commercial flights on a permanent basis, and the third applicant, which is the sole 
shareholder of the second applicant, are working together with the first applicant 
in the context of that business plan. 
2 The contested decision was adopted on 30 October 2023 and entered into force on 
1 November 2023. 
3 On 3 November 2023, the Director of the Ethnikos Organismos Syntonismou 
Ptiseon (National Flights Coordination Agency), who is the coordinator referred 
to in Article 4 of Regulation No 95/93, informed the first applicant that its 
previous requests for slot allocation at various coordinated airports could not be 
granted.  
4 The coordinator based that refusal on the fact that, pursuant to Article 2(2)(a) of 
the contested decision, flights operated entirely under VFR are exempted from the 
obligation to allocate slots. Visual flight rules are a set of technical rules under 
I FLY AND OTHERS 
 
5 
which a pilot may operate an aircraft on the basis of the visual observation of the 
ground, without relying on instruments. VFR contrast with instrument flight rules 
(IFR), which are applicable to aircraft equipped with the appropriate navigation 
instruments and equipment. 
5 The applicants submit that they have been adversely affected by the contested 
decision, since the three aircraft they use are required in principle to follow the 
VFR. 
6 On 28 December 2023, the applicants therefore brought an action before the 
referring court seeking the annulment of the contested decision. 
7 In the main proceedings, two companies to which the Greek State has entrusted 
the management and operation of certain regional airports intervened in support of 
the defendant.  
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 The applicants claim that Article 2(2)(a) of the contested decision is unlawful 
because it is contrary to: (a) Article 2(g) of Regulation No 95/1993, which 
provides that only ‘State’ flights, ‘emergency’ flights and ‘humanitarian flights’, 
that is to say, exceptional flights made on an occasional basis, are excluded from 
the allocation of slots at coordinated airports, making no mention of VFR flights, 
and (b) Article 8(1) of that regulation, from which it is apparent that the allocation 
of slots is solely dependent on the status of the ‘applicant carrier’ as a licence 
holder and has no connection with the type of aircraft or its flight rules (whether 
IFR or VFR). 
9 The applicants add that the economically viable commercial operation of an intra-
Community air route requires the timely planning of scheduled passenger flights, 
together with the announcement of timetables and the offering of tickets to the 
public. That planning can be carried out only if slots are allocated to the air carrier 
in good time, that is to say, before the start of each ‘scheduling period’ (winter or 
summer season: see the definition in Article 2(d) of Regulation No 95/93). 
However, the existing possibility for an air carrier to apply to the managing body 
of a coordinated or schedules facilitated airport for the use of its infrastructure 
only 14 days before the date of the planned flight, as the defendant maintains, 
cannot be regarded as a ‘planned’ commercial passenger flight. 
10 On the one hand, a period of 14 days prior to the operation of a flight is clearly not 
sufficient to plan the operation of scheduled flights. On the other hand, and in 
particular, it is ultimately uncertain whether the airport managing body will grant 
the air carrier’s request in view of the traffic conditions and the adequacy of the 
infrastructure at the airport on the day and at the time of the flight requested, and 
in view of the slots. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-149/25 
 
6  
11 The defendant argues, by contrast, that the exception at issue is justified because 
the inclusion of VFR flights in the slot allocation system of a coordinated or 
schedules facilitated airport would disrupt the smooth operation of that airport and 
the operation of IFR flights with slots. That is because VFR flights, operated on 
the basis of the pilot’s visual contact with the ground, run an increased risk of 
delay or cancellation due to adverse weather or visibility conditions. Any delays 
or cancellations of VFR flights would have a negative impact on the operation of 
IFR flights, making it impossible for air carriers to meet their scheduled flight 
times.  
12 In addition, the defendant stresses that, in any event, VFR flights may be operated 
through the submission of a request by the air carrier to the managing body of the 
coordinated airport for the use of its infrastructure 14 days before the date of the 
planned flight, since that period of time allows for a reliable forecast of the 
weather conditions. 
13 Furthermore, in the defendant’s view, Article 8(5) of Regulation No 95/93 
provides a sufficient basis for the possibility of adopting ‘national’ slot allocation 
rules at Greek airports. That provision, which concerns the possibility of ‘local 
guidelines’ being adopted by the national authorities, makes it possible, in the 
defendant’s view, for additional rules to be introduced in order to ease problems at 
airports with capacity issues. 
14 As regards, in particular, the possibility of exempting flights entirely operated 
under VFR rules from slot allocation, the defendant refers to recital 5 of 
Regulation No 793/2004, which states that ‘specific activities such as helicopter 
operations should not be subject to slot allocation rules where these are not 
necessary’. According to the defendant, that leads to the conclusion that Member 
States may provide for an exclusion from the scope of Regulation No 95/93 
concerning the allocation of slots to air carriers operating aircraft entirely under 
VFR (as is the case for helicopters). 
15 The intervening companies, in their capacity as managing bodies of airports 
designated as ‘coordinated’ or ‘schedules facilitated’, maintain, like the defendant, 
that the allocation of slots to VFR flights would make it difficult to properly plan 
and manage operations at the airports for which they are responsible. 
16 In addition, they submit that Article 2(g) and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 95/93, 
read in the light, first, of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008, according to 
which the exercise of transport rights is to be subject, as regards the allocation of 
slots, not only to published ‘community’ operational rules, but also to ‘national’ 
operational rules, and, second, of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 95/93, concerning 
the possibility for national authorities to approve ‘local guidelines’, and, third, of 
Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Regulation No 255/2010 laying down common 
rules on air traffic flow management – which, in the interveners’ view, seek to 
establish a link between airspace management and the management of access by 
aircraft to coordinated airports – must be interpreted as meaning that the Member 
I FLY AND OTHERS 
 
7 
States enjoy a margin of discretion and are not obliged to provide for the 
allocation of slots to air carriers operating VFR flights at coordinated airports. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
17 The referring court observes, first of all, that, although the provisions of 
Regulation No 95/93 provide that the allocation of slots is to apply only to carriers 
operating flights at airports designated as ‘coordinated’, Article 2(1) of the 
contested decision extends the obligation to obtain slots also to air carriers 
operating flights at ‘schedules facilitated’ airports. The question therefore arises as 
to whether the national authority could legitimately extend the application of the 
Regulation No 95/93 system to ‘schedules facilitated’ airports.  
18 The referring court points out that, although the provisions of regulations as a rule 
produce direct effects in national legal systems without it being necessary for the 
national authorities to adopt implementing measures, it may nonetheless be 
necessary for Member States to adopt implementing measures to implement them, 
even if they are not expressly authorised to do so. 
19 In that regard, according to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, Member 
States may adopt rules for the application of a regulation if they do not obstruct its 
direct applicability and do not conceal its Community nature, and if they specify 
that a discretion granted to them by that regulation is being exercised, provided 
that they adhere to the parameters laid down in it. 
20 In the present case, the preamble to the contested decision refers to national 
enabling provisions which do not, however, concern the allocation of slots at 
Greek airports. Moreover, the preamble merely refers to Regulation No 95/93 as a 
whole, without citing specific provisions of that regulation. There is no recital in 
the contested decision to the effect that the adoption by that decision of ‘national’ 
rules on slot allocation constitutes an exercise of a discretion granted by the 
provisions of Regulation No 95/93. 
21 In the light of the foregoing, the referring court considers that the fact that 
Regulation No 95/93 is limited to regulating slot allocation to air carriers which 
operate flights only to airports designated as ‘coordinated’, and not to ‘schedules 
facilitated’ airports, does not support the conclusion that it falls within the 
discretion of the Member States to extend the rules on slot allocation to schedules 
facilitated airports. The allocation of slots without which, in principle, it is not 
possible to fly to an airport to which such a system applies constitutes, pursuant to 
Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008, a limitation on the right to operate an 
intra-Community air service, which is expressly enshrined in Article 15(1) of that 
regulation. 
22 An interpretation of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 in the light of 
Articles 16 and 52(1) of the Charter therefore leads to the conclusion that the 
scope of the slot allocation rules must be defined restrictively. That is what 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-149/25 
 
8  
Regulation No 95/93 did, first, by limiting the application of the slot allocation 
system solely to airports designated as ‘coordinated’ and, second, by imposing 
extremely strict conditions on the competent national authorities in order for that 
designation to be given to an airport and by requiring the designation to be lifted 
when those conditions cease to exist (Article 3(5) and (7)). 
23 It follows that Regulation No 95/93 does not give Member States any discretion to 
extend the scope of its slots allocation rules to ‘schedules facilitated’ airports. 
24 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that Article 2(1) of the contested 
decision was adopted unlawfully, since it is contrary to the combined provisions 
of Article 2(a), (g) and (i) and Articles 4, 8 and 14(1) of Regulation No 95/93, 
which restrict the application of the slot allocation system solely to airports 
designated as ‘coordinated’. 
25 As regards, next, the question of the exclusion, without exception, of flights 
operated entirely under VFR from the rule on the allocation of slots to air carriers 
operating flights to coordinated airports, the referring court notes that Regulation 
No 95/93 expressly recognises, in Article 2(g), which contains the definition of 
the concept of ‘coordinated airport’, that the rule on the allocation of slots to air 
carriers excludes flights whose common feature is their extraordinary and 
occasional nature. No provision of Regulation No 95/93 expressly states that 
flights operated under the technical VFR are excluded, nor is there any clause 
enabling Member States to implement such an exclusion. 
26 Further, Article 15(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 enshrines the right of 
Community air carriers to operate intra-Community air services. Article 19(1) of 
the regulation also acknowledges that such a right to operate is subject to certain 
restrictions imposed on the basis of rules concerning, inter alia, slot allocation, 
without, however, referring to the possibility of imposing restrictions on the basis 
of the technical rules governing the flight of aircraft used by Community air 
carriers. 
27 Nor does Regulation No 95/93 make an express distinction on the basis of 
technical flight rules. By contrast, it is apparent from Article 6(1) of Regulation 
No 95/93, which provides that ‘different types of traffic at the airport’ are to be 
taken into account in determining the coordination parameters, and from 
Article 8(7) of the same regulation, which provides that the coordinator is to 
endeavour, in addition to the planned slot allocation, to accommodate single slot 
requests ‘for any type of aviation, including general aviation’, that Regulation 
No 95/93 makes no distinction as regards the allocation of slots between aircraft 
operating VFR or IFR flights. 
28 Furthermore, the coordinator plays a central role in the system for allocating slots 
at coordinated airports described by Regulation No 95/93, being ‘the sole person 
responsible for the allocation of slots’ (Article 4(5)) and operating independently, 
I FLY AND OTHERS 
 
9 
neutrally, transparently and in a non-discriminatory manner (Article 4(2)(b) and 
(c)).  
29 As the Court of Justice has held, those three elements (neutrality, transparency and 
non-discrimination) form an integral part of the independent nature of the function 
of the coordinator, and any risk of the coordinator not carrying out its tasks in an 
independent manner must be precluded.  
30 Regulation No 95/93 expressly provides that the coordinator is to allocate slots ‘in 
accordance with the provisions of this Regulation’ (Article 4(5)), and, therefore, 
no possibility is given to national authorities to adopt their own (national) slot 
allocation rules, thereby limiting the independence of coordinators. That is 
apparent in particular from the provision in Article 8(5) of the regulation, which 
provides that the coordinator ‘shall also take into account’ additional rules 
adopted at international level, or even local guidelines approved by national 
bodies, provided that those rules and guidelines ‘do not affect the independent 
status of the coordinator’. 
31 The argument advanced by the defendant and the interveners that the inclusion of 
VFR flights in the slot allocation system of a coordinated airport would contribute 
to disrupting the operation of the airport, thus undermining the objectives of 
Regulation No 95/93, is not in itself capable of constituting the legal basis for the 
wholesale exclusion of VFR flights from the slot allocation system. It is only one 
of the parameters taken into account by the coordinator.  
32 Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93, the procedure for determining 
the slot allocation parameters is dynamic, individualised and based on multiple 
factors. It is updated frequently, carried out on an airport-by-airport basis (rather 
than for all coordinated airports simultaneously) and takes into account all the 
different possible variables, namely all relevant technical, operational and 
environmental constraints for each airport. 
33 In addition, it should be noted that Article 8(2) of Regulation No 95/93 allows for 
the retention of ‘historical rights’ where the air carrier has not used 20% of the 
slots allocated to it by the coordinator. In other words, the regulation accepts that a 
proportion of flights not exceeding 20%, whether operated under VFR or IFR, 
may not take place for any reason, such reasons including adverse weather 
conditions. 
34 In the light of the foregoing, the referring court concludes, in principle, that the 
allocation of slots at airports designated as ‘coordinated’ is systematically and 
exhaustively governed by the provisions of Regulation No 95/93, which do not 
exclude flights operated under VFR from its scope. The national authorities are 
therefore not free to adopt ‘national’ slot allocation measures, as that would 
undermine the direct application and binding nature of the regulation in all the 
legal orders of the Member States.  
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-149/25 
 
10  
35 In those circumstances, Article 2(2)(a) of the contested decision should be 
declared unlawful because it is contrary to Articles 2(a), (g) and (i), 3, 4, 8, 10 and 
14(1) of Regulation No 95/93. 
36 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the referring court considers that it 
is necessary to annul, first, Article 2(1) of the contested decision, in so far as it 
requires the allocation of slots as a precondition for operating a flight to and from 
national airports designated as ‘schedules facilitated’, and, second, Article 2(2)(a) 
of the contested decision, which provides for an exemption for the category of air 
carriers operating flights entirely under VFR for the allocation of slots at national 
airports designated as ‘coordinated’. 
37 However, the question of the possibility for Member States to adopt national 
measures implementing Regulation No 95/93 by adopting more specific 
provisions concerning the allocation of slots at coordinated airports or at 
schedules facilitated airports has not been specifically addressed in the case-law of 
the Court of Justice. Moreover, recital 5 of Regulation No 793/2004 states that 
‘specific activities’ (such as helicopter operations, which, however, operate flights 
only under VFR) should not be subject to slot allocation rules where those are not 
necessary. Lastly, Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 also provides for the 
possibility of adopting not only Community but also ‘national’ slot allocation 
rules. In view of the foregoing elements, the referring court considers that the 
conclusions reached above are not free from all reasonable doubt and that it is 
therefore necessary, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, to refer those questions for a 
preliminary ruling.