High Court Rules: Airline Did Not Cause ATC Slot Restrictions – District Court Decision Overturned

In a decision dated December 13, 2024, the Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret) overturned the District Court's (Byretten) ruling, concluding that delays caused by air traffic control (ATC) slot restrictions qualify as "extraordinary circumstances" and that these restrictions were not imposed by the airline itself. This case represents an important clarification in aviation law regarding the interpretation of EU Regulation 261/2004 on passenger rights.

District Court Ruling and Its Basis

The District Court had initially ruled in favor of the claim management company (hereinafter “CMC”), finding that the airline had failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the ATC slot allocations were unrelated to its own operations.

In its ruling, the District Court emphasized: 

"The court finds that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the delay, which was accumulated during the aircraft's earlier rotations on the same day, was caused by bad weather conditions or extraordinary capacity challenges in the airspace, and consequently, altered slot times. Furthermore, the court has placed weight on the absence of specific information about the reasons behind the altered slot times for the aircraft in question, including whether the altered slot times were caused by extraordinary circumstances, such as unusual weather conditions, or by factors beyond [the airline's] control."

This interpretation overlooked the fundamental function of ATC slots, which essentially are tools employed by air traffic management to regulate air traffic flow under various conditions, such as weather disruptions, airspace capacity issues, or a lack of ATC controllers.

High Court Overturns the Ruling

The High Court, however, reached a different conclusion. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, including documentation from Eurocontrol and an ATC-Slot History report, the High Court determined that the delay was a direct result of ATC restrictions.

The airline argued in its defence that ATC slot allocations are solely administered by air traffic management authorities and are not determined or influenced by airlines. The High Court corrected the District Court's misinterpretation on this point.

The High Court found: "It is established that the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances in the form of ATC restrictions, which could not have been avoided, even if all reasonable precautions had been taken."

Additionally, the High Court dismissed the CMC’s argument that the airline could have avoided the delay by deploying a replacement aircraft. The court concluded that the airline had taken all reasonable measures to mitigate the delay and had minimized its impact by operating the flight at the earliest possible opportunity.

Clarifying the Nature of ATC Slot Restrictions

The ruling provides a broader clarification of ATC slot restrictions and their role in aviation operations. The High Court has affirmed what should have been clear from the outset: ATC slots are tools used by air traffic management and are entirely outside the control of airlines. Therefore, it is inappropriate to hold airlines liable for delays resulting from such restrictions. Such a perception is in line with Regulation 261/2004 consideration 15:

(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

Implications for the Aviation Industry

The decision is expected to influence the resolution of similar disputes under EU Regulation 261/2004. It underscores the importance of distinguishing between operational issues controlled by airlines and external circumstances governed by traffic management.

For further details about the case or its implications, please contact Partner/Attorney-at-law Henning Romme-Mølby, who represented the airline in High Court.