Order — ECLI:EU:T:2026:140
Date: 2026-02-13
Language of the case: German

Translation T-852/25 – 1 
Case T-852/25 
Reference for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
27 November 2025 
Referring court: 
Amtsgericht Königs Wusterhausen (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 November 2025 
Applicant: 
Flightright GmbH 
Defendant: 
Ryanair DAC 
  
[…] 
Amtsgericht Königs Wusterhausen 
(Local Court, Königs Wusterhausen) 
Order 
In the case 
Flightright GmbH, […] Berlin 
- applicant - 
[…] 
v 
Ryanair DAC, […] Dublin, Ireland 
- defendant - 
[…] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 10. 11. 2025 – CASE T-852/25 
 
2  
the Amtsgericht Königs Wusterhausen […] made the following order on 
10 November 2025: 
The proceedings are stayed pending a decision of the Court of Justice in 
accordance with Paragraph 148 of the ZPO and the following questions are 
referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267(2) TFEU: 
1. Is there always an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of 
Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 in the case where the flight cancellation 
or the delay equivalent to a cancellation is attributable to a change to the slot 
allocation made by the competent air traffic control authority? 
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: 
Is it always sufficient, for a finding that there is an extraordinary 
circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004, that the change of 
slot allocation is attributable to a reduction in flight capacity by the 
competent air traffic control authority, for which the air traffic control 
authority signals an IATA Delay Code 81 (‘81 (AT) Air Traffic Flow 
Management (ATFM) due to ATC EN-ROUTE DEMAND/CAPACITY, 
Standard demand/capacity problems’) or IATA Delay Code 84 (‘84 (AW): 
ATC restriction due to weather at destination’)? 
3. If Question 2 is answered in the negative: 
Is it always sufficient, for a finding that there is an extraordinary 
circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, that the change 
of slot allocation is attributable to a reduction in flight capacity by the 
competent air traffic control authority, for which the air traffic control 
authority signals an IATA Delay Code 81 (‘81 (AT) Air Traffic Flow 
Management (ATFM) due to ATC EN-ROUTE DEMAND/CAPACITY, 
Standard demand/capacity problems’) or IATA Delay Code 84 (‘84 (AW): 
ATC restriction due to weather at destination’) and furthermore specifies 
that those capacity constraints are weather-related? 
Grounds: 
The proceedings must be stayed and referred to the Court of Justice for a 
preliminary ruling. 
The applicant is seeking compensation from the defendant pursuant to Article 7(1) 
of Regulation 261/2004. The defendant has objected on the grounds that there is 
an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 
261/2004. The defendant claims that the flight was regulated by Eurocontrol under 
IATA Delay Code 81 […]. To date, case-law is divided on whether that is a 
relevant argument. The referring court is currently dealing with over a thousand 
cases on that issue. 
FLIGHTRIGHT 
 
3 
The majority view in German case-law, which refers to the judgement of the 
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) of 13 November 2013, case no. X 
ZR 115/12, Juris paragraph 14, is that a change of slot allocation by air traffic 
control, which is based on reasons other than the airline in question not being 
ready to take off on time, is always an extraordinary circumstance, as it is an 
external factor over which the airline has no influence. 
According to another view, which is held by most of the judges of the 
Amtsgericht (Local Court) and by Austrian case-law, a slot allocation assigned by 
air traffic control due to capacity constraints resulting from general airspace 
congestion (IATA Delay Code 81, for which no further specification is provided) 
does not, in any event, constitute an extraordinary circumstance if it falls within 
the scope of the airline’s usual operations. It is therefore irrelevant that the air 
carrier has no influence over slot allocations (see, for example, [Landesgericht 
Korneuburg], decision of 26 May 2020 – 22 R 67/20p – RRa 2023, 42 (43)). 
That issue is also relevant to the resolution of the dispute. The applicant has also 
claimed, in the alternative, that the defendant has not taken all measures available 
to it. In that regard, the defendant submitted that it had exhausted all possibilities 
for rebooking – including that of booking with other airlines. The question as to 
whether that fulfils the requirements of Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 must, 
however, be determined on a case-by-case basis and can therefore be assessed 
only after an extraordinary circumstance has been established. 
[…] 
[…] [Information on the legal remedies available] 
[…] 
[…] [Signatures and certification note]