Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” in air transport

The General Court of the European Union – Judgment in Case T- 134/25 of January 21, 2026 addresses several key issues related to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, particularly with regard to the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” and how to analyze complex delays in air transport.

Beyond the specific case, the ruling introduces a more technical view of how air transport actually works, attempting to balance passenger protection with the operational reality of airlines.

As we know, Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 ensures that passengers receive compensation when their flights are significantly disrupted, such as denied boarding, cancellations, or long delays. However, airlines may be exempt if they can prove that the cause was an “extraordinary circumstance,”understood as an event beyond their control that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may arise, in particular, in cases of political instability, weather conditions incompatible with the flight, safety risks, unexpected flight safety deficiencies, or strikes affecting the operations of an air carrier (provided that they are beyond its effective control and were not foreseeable).

This is stated in the GCEU ruling itself: “[…] the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No. 261/2004 must be interpreted strictly, and the cumulative requirements that must be met for events to be considered ‘extraordinary circumstances’ must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

Similarly, Article 5.3 of the aforementioned European Regulation states that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the cancellation is due to “extraordinary circumstances”that could not have been avoided, even if it had taken all reasonable measures within its power. This article has generated numerous legal disputes regarding the definition and scope of these alleged circumstances, which an airline may use to exonerate itself and which passengers generally do not have access to.

Now, the European Court recognizes in its ruling that certain decisions by air traffic control bodies may indeed constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” This means that delays caused by factors beyond the airline’s control, such as operational restrictions imposed by air traffic controllers, may exempt it from liability, provided that they are beyond its effective control and there is no negligence on the part of the carrier. Therefore, if a delay is due to the airline’s internal planning or failures, the exemption does not apply.

In situations where a flight is delayed for various reasons, the ruling allows for separating and analyzing which part is due to an extraordinary event. If a partial delay is due to a justified external cause, only the remainder may be considered when calculating compensation. The ruling accepts that delays caused by problems occurring on previous flights of the same aircraft may be considered “extraordinary circumstances,” provided there is a direct causal link with the final delay, thus allowing the entire context of the operation to be assessed.

This resolution has important implications in that it provides legal certainty by offering guidelines on how to assess specific cases. By defining such an ambiguous concept as “extraordinary circumstances,” the      GCEU ruling of January 21, 2026, represents a significant jurisprudential advance in establishing a more balanced and realistic framework for the relationship between airlines and passengers in the air transport sector.