On 12 February 2026, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑680/24, WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft. v Prezes Urzędu Lotnictwa Cywilnego, the interpretation of point 3 of Article 2, Article 6(2), point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5), the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) and Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12/EC. The request has been made in proceedings between WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft. (“WizzAir”) and Prezes Urzędu Lotnictwa Cywilnego (President of the Civil Aviation Authority, CAA) concerning the lawfulness of a decision by which the latter rejected WizzAir’s application to be admitted as a party to the procedure for modifying the level or the structure of the airport charges concerning Warsaw Chopin Airport.

On 31 July 2019, the President of the CAA received a request for approval to modify the airport charges tariff concerning Chopin airport submitted by its managing body, Polskie Porty Lotnicze S.A. (“PPL”). By decision of 31 October 2019, the President of the CAA approved certain changes to that tariff and rejected others, refusing to admit WizzAir to the procedure for modifying the airport charges tariff since it did not meet the conditions required by the applicable national legislation. WizzAir, therefore, brought an action against that decision before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Regional Administrative Court of Warsaw; the “referring court’), which annulled it on account of a procedural defect. Consequently, PPL and the President of the CAA brought an appeal on a point of law before the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court), which set aside the judgment under appeal referring the case back to the referring court which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice two questions for a preliminary ruling.

By the second question, the referring court asked whether point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of “airport user”, which it defines, precludes national legislation under which, for the purpose of modifying the system or the level of airport charges in accordance with Article 6(2) of that directive, the airport managing body is required to consult only with those “that regularly use the airport”, as defined by that national legislation.

According to the Court all airport users, as defined in a broad manner in point 3, Article 2 of Directive 2009/12 must, in accordance with Article 6(2) thereof, be consulted regarding proposals from the airport managing body to modify the system or the level of airport charges, so that, wherever possible, those changes are made in agreement between those users and the managing body. Allowing a managing body to consult only with the larger air carriers, indeed, risks favouring the latter in the structure of the airport charges and may constitute an obstacle for new entrants and undermine undistorted competition between air carriers.

By the first question, instead, the referring court asked whether Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12, read in conjunction with Article 11(1), point 3 of Article 2, Article 6(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the independent supervisory authority determines or approves, on the basis of a proposal from the airport managing body, modifications of the system or the level of airport charges in the context of a mandatory procedure under national law, that authority is required to consult with “airport users” as defined in point 3 of Article 2 thereof.

According to the Court, in receiving, in the context of a mandatory procedure under national law, a request for approval to modify the level or the structure of airport charges, which is submitted by the airport managing body, the independent supervisory authority is required to consult with every airport user, for the purposes of point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12, that was not consulted by that body regarding those modifications, in infringement of Article 6(2) of that directive. The fact that, in the context of the procedure under the applicable national law, such a request is submitted to the independent supervisory authority acting as the body with exclusive jurisdiction to modify the level or the structure of the airport charges in question and not as an appellate body is indeed irrelevant.