Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2026:35
Date: 2026-01-21
Language of the case: Polish
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Translation  T-134/25 – 1 
Case T-134/25 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
12 February 2025 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy dla miasta stołecznego Warszawy w Warszawie 
(Poland) 
Date of decision to refer: 
21 November 2024 
Applicant: 
D S.A. 
Defendant: 
P S.A. 
  
[…] 
ORDER 
21 November 2024 
The Sąd Rejonowy dla miasta stołecznego Warszawy w Warszawie I Wydział 
Cywilny (District Court, miasto stołeczne Warszawa, Warsaw, First Civil 
Division) […] 
having heard on 21 November 2024 in Warsaw, in closed session, the action 
brought by D, a public limited company established in W. 
against P, a public limited company in W. 
concerning payment 
makes the following order: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-134/25 
 
2  
(1) The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union 
(a) Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing 
common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the 
event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, 
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning 
that every air traffic management decision, irrespective of its duration, 
constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, even if it does not of itself 
cause a delay of at least three hours? 
(b) If not every air traffic management decision constitutes an 
extraordinary circumstance, should the national court examine what 
the basis for the air traffic management decision was, for example 
adverse weather conditions resulting in limited sector capacity on the 
route of the flight, and is it then entitled to assess whether or not it 
constituted an extraordinary circumstance? 
(c) If a passenger’s flight is delayed for more than three hours, including 
as a result of an air traffic management decision imposed on the flight 
immediately preceding the passenger’s flight, in view of limited sector 
capacity the route of the flight resulting from adverse weather 
conditions, does that air traffic management decision constitute an 
extraordinary circumstance? 
(d) In that situation, must the air traffic management decision concern 
directly the delayed flight or may it also concern an earlier flight in the 
rotation? 
GROUNDS 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
[…] 
Questions referred 
(1) Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common 
rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing 
Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that every air traffic 
management decision, irrespective of its duration, constitutes an 
extraordinary circumstance, even if it does not of itself cause a delay of at 
least three hours? 
D 
 
3 
(2) If not every air traffic management decision constitutes an extraordinary 
circumstance, should the national court examine what the basis for the air 
traffic management decision was, for example adverse weather conditions 
resulting in limited sector capacity on the route of the flight, and is it then 
entitled to assess whether or not it constituted an extraordinary 
circumstance? 
(3) If a passenger’s flight is delayed for more than three hours, including as a 
result of an air traffic management decision imposed on the flight 
immediately preceding the passenger’s flight, in view of limited sector 
capacity the route of the flight resulting from adverse weather conditions, 
does that air traffic management decision constitute an extraordinary 
circumstance? 
(4) In that situation, must the air traffic management decision concern directly 
the delayed flight or may it also concern an earlier flight in the rotation? 
Facts relevant to the question referred 
D, a public limited company in W., demanded payment from P, a public limited 
company in W., in the amount of EUR 400, plus statutory default interest, from 
17 August 2023 to the date of payment. 
A.B. was a passenger on flight LO 6110, from Izmir to Warsaw on 25 July 2023. 
The passenger arrived at her destination with a delay of more than three hours. 
Flight LO 6110 was scheduled to depart at 18.20 UTC at Izmir airport and arrive 
at 21.10 UTC in Warsaw. 
In actual fact, flight LO 6110 departed at 21.40 UTC and arrived the next day at 
00.17 UTC, thus with a delay of more than three hours. 
Passenger A.B.’s flight was preceded by flight LO 6111, which was operated by 
the same aircraft in  ‘rotation’. Flight LO 6111 was scheduled to take off from 
Katowice to Izmir at 14.55 UTC and land at 17:20 UTC. At 12.55 UTC and the 
carrier received a slot allocation message (SAM) from the air traffic control 
services, stating that flight LO 6111 had been allocated a take-off slot at 16.30 
UTC. The reason for that decision was the ATFM (Air Traffic Flow Management) 
regulations relating to restrictions in Hungarian and Romanian airspace due to 
adverse weather conditions. At 15.04 UTC, the carrier sent an REA message, 
signalling the readiness of the aircraft to operate the flight and requesting 
clearance for an earlier take-off. However, that did not result in the decision being 
altered and flight LO 6111 being granted an earlier departure time. Ultimately, 
flight LO 6111 departed at 16.02 UTC and arrived at 18.32 UTC.  
After landing in Izmir, a technical fault was found on the aircraft. It took 2 hours 
and 8 minutes to repair it. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-134/25 
 
4  
If the time resulting from ATFM restrictions imposed were deducted from the 
total delay, flight LO 6110 would have been delayed less than three hours. 
Under the transfer agreement concluded on 26 July 2023, the limited company D, 
established in [W.], acquired a right to flat-rate compensation from the passenger 
A.B. 
European Union law relevant to the answer 
Recital 14 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and 
assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or 
long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, 
p. 1): 
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers 
should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by 
extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all 
reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, 
occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions 
incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, 
unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of 
an operating air carrier. 
Recital 15: 
Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of 
an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a 
particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the 
cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all 
reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the 
delays or cancellations. 
Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and 
assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or 
long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, 
p. 1): 
An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in 
accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by 
extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all 
reasonable measures had been taken. 
Article 7: 
Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive 
compensation amounting to: 
D 
 
5 
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; 
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 
kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; 
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b). 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 (C-402/07, C-432/07, 
EU:C:2012:657) 
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 [establishing common rules 
on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights] must be interpreted as 
meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the 
purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers 
whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to 
compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on 
account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, 
that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the 
arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, 
however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that 
the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not 
have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely 
circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 May 2017 (C-315/15, EU:C:2017:342): 
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 
thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a delay to a 
flight equal to or in excess of three hours in arrival caused not only by 
extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided by 
measures appropriate to the situation and which were subject to all 
reasonable measures by the air carrier to avoid the consequences thereof, but 
also in other circumstances not in that category, the delay caused by the first 
event must be deducted from the total length of the delay in arrival of the 
flight concerned in order to assess whether compensation for the delay in 
arrival of that flight must be paid as provided for in Article 7 of that 
regulation. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2020 (C-74/19, EU:C:2020:460): 
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 [of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on 
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding 
and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) 
No 295/91], read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be 
interpreted as meaning that, in order to be exempted from its obligation to 
compensate passengers in the event of a long delay or cancellation of a 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-134/25 
 
6  
flight, an operating air carrier may rely on an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ 
which affected a previous flight which it operated using the same aircraft, 
provided that there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that 
circumstance and the delay or cancellation of the subsequent flight, which is 
for the national court to determine, having regard in particular to the 
conditions of operation of the aircraft in question by the operating air carrier 
concerned. 
National law and case-law relevant to the answer 
There are no relevant provisions of national law. 
Reasons why the court concerned is requesting a preliminary ruling 
The outcome of the case depends on the interpretation of the term ‘extraordinary 
circumstances’ referred to in Regulation No 261/2004. 
The central question to be addressed by the Court of Justice concerns the nature of 
air traffic management decisions and the circumstances in which they may 
deemed to be extraordinary circumstances. 
It should be recalled that air traffic requires close supervision and control in order 
to organise airspace and ensure safety. At airports, planes often take off and land 
in very short intervals, just a few minutes apart. Many airways are used very 
intensively. In addition, not only civilian but also military aircraft are in the air. 
Air traffic management therefore has to oversee all the aircraft in the airspace, 
which requires appropriate equipment and personnel. In that regard, air traffic 
management has to take account of many variables, some of which are beyond its 
control – weather, accidents, faults, emergency landings, staff illnesses, aircraft 
delays, hostilities, etc. For that reason, air traffic management across Europe and 
the rest of the world makes a great many decisions on an ongoing basis, which 
have a greater or lesser impact on air traffic. Often those decisions have to be 
modified, depending on the situation in the air. Carriers thus have reason to expect 
that air traffic management will give them certain commands and it is an everyday 
occurrence for them. Apparently, it can therefore be concluded that air traffic 
management decisions are commonplace and inextricably linked to air traffic, and 
thus do not in principle constitute extraordinary circumstances. 
On the other hand, the carrier is bound by the commands of the air traffic 
management and must strictly comply with them. A carrier to whom air traffic 
management has assigned a take-off time later than originally planned can only 
acknowledge it and wait for a possible change in the decision by the air traffic 
management. 
In the circumstances of this case, it is common ground that one of the reasons for 
the delay to the passenger’s flight LO 6110 was the restrictions imposed by air 
traffic management on flight LO 6111. Flight LO 6111 was scheduled to depart at 
14:55, but Air Traffic Flow Management restrictions were imposed on it by air 
D 
 
7 
traffic management, which set the take-off time at 16.30. Those restrictions arose 
from weather issues in the territory of Hungary and Romania. The carrier could 
only wait for a change in that decision and signal its readiness to fly. 
It follows from the judgment in C-74/19 that the carrier may rely on an 
extraordinary circumstance which occurred on the flight immediately preceding 
the delayed flight. 
It is therefore necessary to determine whether the air traffic management decision 
was extraordinary in nature. The key question is, above all, whether every air 
traffic management decision – regardless of the reason – constitutes an 
extraordinary circumstance. Recital 15 of the regulation expressly states that 
‘extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an 
air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular 
day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or 
more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken 
by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations’. It could 
therefore be argued that every air traffic management decision which causes a 
flight to be delayed or cancelled constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. 
However, another interpretation is possible, namely that an air traffic management 
decision is extraordinary only if the very reason for that decision constitutes an 
extraordinary circumstance, such as, for example, meteorological conditions 
incompatible with operation of the flight concerned. 
It is therefore necessary for the Court of Justice to rule whether or not every air 
traffic management decision constitutes an extraordinary circumstance and, if not, 
whether the national court is obliged to examine the reason for that decision and 
assess it against the criteria relating to ‘extraordinary circumstance’. 
The Court of Justice should also determine the interpretation to be placed on the 
phrase that the air traffic management decision regarding ‘a particular aircraft on 
a particular day gives rise to a long delay’. First, in the light of the judgment in 
Case C-74/19 must it be concluded that the air traffic management decision must 
concern the flight which was actually delayed (since recital 15 refers to a 
‘particular’ aircraft), or may it also concern flights earlier in the rotation, provided 
that ‘there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that circumstance and 
the delay’. In the present case, the air traffic management decision concerned a 
flight earlier in the rotation, and thus that issue is relevant to the outcome. Second, 
must the term ‘long delay’ be understood as exceeding three hours, that is to say 
in principle giving rise to an entitlement to compensation, or must that time be 
assessed on a case-by-case basis? 
[…]