ECJ Strengthens Airline Rights

Mar 12, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

In preliminary ruling proceedings, the European Court of Justice provided an interpretative response to the inquiry submitted by the Supreme Court.

The issue under consideration was whether EU air traffic control regulations are designed solely to promote public flight safety, or if they additionally safeguard the economic interests of airlines.

This case arises from a technical malfunction at the Austrian air traffic control organisation. As a consequence of the system failure, the airline was compelled to cancel flights, incurring a financial loss estimated at approximately EUR 373,000. Subsequently, the airline initiated legal proceedings against the Republic of Austria pursuant to the Public Liability Act. Under Austrian law, however, liability is contingent upon the breached standard being intended to safeguard the injured party.

The discussion centered on the Single European Sky regulations. These regulations mandate that air traffic control service providers deliver services that are safe, uninterrupted, efficient, and cost-effective.

The ECJ clarified that these regulations are not solely intended to serve the public interest. Although flight safety remains the principal objective, the regulations explicitly account for the interests of airspace users, including airlines. Given that airlines pay fees and their economic operations rely on the effective provision of air navigation services, there exists a specific legal relationship between the service provider and the user.

Referencing its earlier decision in the Skyes case, the Court affirmed that the pertinent provisions are intended to reduce economic losses arising from breaches of duty committed by the air navigation service provider.

It is evident that EU air navigation law safeguards both the safety of air traffic and the economic interests of airspace users. Nevertheless, it remains the responsibility of the national court to ascertain whether the Republic of Austria bears liability in this matter.

ECJ C-408/24 (12 February 2026)