On 12 February 2026, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑408/24, Republik Österreich v Austrian Airlines AG, on the interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and of Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004. The request has been made in proceedings between the Republik Österreich (Republic of Austria) and Austrian Airlines AG (“Austrian Airlines”) concerning compensation for the material damage suffered by that airline as a result of the cancellation of flights caused by the failure of the Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network server  (AFTN) managed by Austro Control, a limited liability company whose sole shareholder is the Republic of Austria.

Austrian Airlines uses the air traffic services provided by Austro Control for its flights to and from the Vienna-Schwechat airport, in return for payment of the charges laid down for those services. On 28 August 2016, a technical failure of the AFTN server led to a significant decrease in landing and take-off rates at that airport, causing Austrian Airlines a damage amounting to almost EUR 373.140. Taking the view that Austro Control was responsible for the failure of the AFTN server for having failed to put in place, as a preventive measure, the technical and personnel measures necessary for the proper functioning of that server, Austrian Airlines brought an action for damages against the Republic of Austria, which was dismissed at first instance.

By contrast, the appeal court concluded that the provisions of EU law relating to air navigation also protect the economic interests of air carriers as airspace users. The Republic of Austria, therefore, brought an action before the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austian Supreme Court; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant EU legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to ask to the Court of Justice whether Article 2(4) of Regulation No 549/2004 and Article 8 of Regulation No 550/2004, read in conjunction with the provisions of Regulation No 550/2004 relating to the provision of air navigation services and the charging schemes for those services, must be interpreted as meaning that all of those provisions are also intended to protect airspace users from the material damage caused by a culpable failure by the air traffic service provider to comply with its obligations under those provisions.

According to the Court, Regulations No 549/2004 and No 550/2004 require air traffic service providers to meet adequately the needs of airspace users, while guaranteeing the safety, continuity, sustainability, effectiveness and cost efficiency of their services, on the understanding that the latter are necessary for the activities of those users, who bear the economic cost thereof. The Regulations, therefore, are capable of conferring on users rights which may be affected by the closure of the airspace.