Flight delay compensation under EU law got a firmer footing on 8 October 2026, when the Court of Justice ruled in Case C-108/26 that an air traffic management decision does not, on its own, count as an extraordinary circumstance. Airlines therefore cannot point to the decision alone to avoid paying delayed passengers under Regulation 261/2004. The judgment corrects a line of reasoning the General Court set out in January.

The case reached Luxembourg through an unusual door. The General Court gave its judgment in Case T-134/25 on 21 January 2026, after a reference from the District Court for the City of Warsaw. It held that air traffic management decisions are not inherent in a carrier’s normal activity, that they lie beyond the carrier’s actual control if it did not contribute to them, and that they can qualify as extraordinary circumstances whatever the length or reason of the delay, which would have narrowed flight delay compensation for many travellers.

The First Advocate General proposed a review on 20 February 2026, and on 12 March 2026 the Court’s Reviewing Chamber agreed to examine whether that judgment threatened the unity or consistency of EU law. Review under Article 256(3) TFEU and Article 62 of the Court’s Statute is rare, and it signals concern at the top of the system. The chamber pointed to the earlier McDonagh and Airhelp rulings as the benchmark for flight delay compensation disputes.

The Court now says an airline cannot simply cite an air traffic decision to escape payment. It must show that the decision was caused by an event that was itself extraordinary. National courts must then examine the underlying event and decide whether it falls within the airline’s normal activity or lies beyond its actual control.

The facts show how this works. The delay followed air traffic decisions linked to Hungarian and Romanian airspace restrictions caused by adverse weather. The Court said such weather can be extraordinary if it is severe enough to stop the flight operating safely and on schedule, but it left the national court to decide whether that was so. The ruling therefore keeps the burden on the airline to prove its case when passengers claim flight delay compensation.

For passengers, the result protects the flight delay compensation that Regulation 261/2004 promises after long delays. Airlines have long argued that decisions by air traffic controllers lie outside their influence. The Court’s answer does not close that argument entirely, yet it forces carriers to explain what happened upstream instead of relying on a label.

Airlines, claims agencies and national judges will now test how far the ruling reaches. Air traffic management decisions often follow weather, strikes or congestion, and each cause may fit the extraordinary circumstances test differently. Expect national courts to ask airlines for evidence about the event behind the decision, not just the decision itself.

The takeaway for travellers is simple. Flight delay compensation does not disappear because a controller reorganised traffic, and the airline must still show that an extraordinary event lay behind it. Passengers with delayed flights should keep records of delay times and ask carriers to explain the cause.