Case Review of T-134/25 (LOT Polish Airlines)
Abstract
An order issued by the Air Traffic Controller may qualify as extraordinary circumstances if such order meets the requirements of the principle of extraordinary circumstances within the definitions from the precedents of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Though in the consideration, whether an order may constitute extraordinary circumstances. or not, it does not take the underlying reason of the issued order as part of the consideration. The order itself does not have to directly cause a delay of 3 hours. In the case where an order was only binding upon an earlier flight. But due to aircraft rotation prepared for the second flight to use the same aircraft after an earlier flight, which affects the awaiting flight to be delayed. Airlines may raise the defence of extraordinary circumstances if it can be proven that, an order issued by the Air Traffic Control that was binding upon the earlier flight has direct casual link to the delay of the subsequent flight to be exempted from an obligation to compensate passengers in delayed flight.
References
Case T-134/25 D S.A. v P S.A.,
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
Joined Cases C-402/07 and 432/07 Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst and Böck and Lepuschitz v Air France SA,
Sasha Garben, ‘Sky-high controversy and high-flying claims? The Sturgeon case law in light of judicial activism, euroscepticism and eurolegalism’,
Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10 Nelson and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and TUI Travel plc and Others v Civil Aviation Authority,
Case C-452/13 Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning,
Case C-654/19 FP Passenger Service v Austrian Airlines AG,
Case C-588/24 Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik AS v Myflyright GmbH,
Sturgeon v Condor,
Case C 12/11 Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd.,
Case C-549/07 Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia,
Case C-257/14 C. van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV,
Case C-294/10 Andrejs Eglītis and Edvards Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija,
Case C-159/18 André Moens v Ryanair Ltd.,
Case C-315/15 Marcela Pešková and Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.,
Case C-74/19 LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA,
Case C-28/20 Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System,
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The manuscripts published in the Journal of Transport and Maritime Law (JTML) is the copyright of the JTML.
Any article or opinion appeared in the JTML will solely be under the responsibility of the author The Institute of Transport and Maritime Law, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, and the editors of the JTML do not need to reach in agreement or hold any responsibility.