When a flight from, to or within Poland is delayed or cancelled by an air-traffic-control (ATC) strike or a government order on safety grounds, your right to compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 almost always runs into a wall. An ATC strike is the textbook example of an extraordinary circumstance: the airline does not employ air traffic controllers, cannot end the strike and cannot overrule the authority that grounded the flight. So the fixed compensation of €250 to €600 normally falls away. What does not fall away is the airline's duty of care — meals, drinks, communications and a hotel for an overnight wait — and the right to a refund or re-routing under Article 8. In Poland the supervising authority is the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the ULC (Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego), the lawsuit goes to the Sąd Rejonowy, and you have ten years to act under Article 118 of the Polish Civil Code. Polish version of this guide: strajk kontroli ruchu lotniczego — odszkodowanie .
What counts as an ATC delay and a safety-reason delay
ATC stands for Air Traffic Control — the authority or service provider that runs the airspace. In Poland that is PAŻP (Polska Agencja Żeglugi Powietrznej); over France it is DSNA, over Germany DFS, and the network coordinator across the whole continent is Eurocontrol. When the airspace is congested, when weather forces wider spacing between aircraft, or when controllers walk out, ATC can hold departures on the ground or stretch en-route times. That is an ATC delay. The decision is taken by ATC or the relevant aviation authority — never by the airline.
A delay or cancellation imposed by an authority on safety grounds follows the same logic. If a security alert closes Warsaw Chopin for two hours, if a NOTAM shuts a sector along your route, or if the airport's fire-cover drops below the regulatory minimum, those decisions sit outside the airline. The carrier has to comply; it cannot trade safety for punctuality.
For both situations, the key feature is the same: an outside actor caused the disruption. That is precisely what EU 261 calls an extraordinary circumstance, and it is why the fixed cash compensation is normally blocked.
Why an ATC strike usually blocks fixed compensation
Under EU 261 the airline does not owe the fixed compensation when the disruption flows from extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The recital is short on examples, so the line has been drawn by the Court of Justice over twenty years of case law.
A strike by air traffic controllers fits the test almost too neatly. The airline does not negotiate the controllers' pay deals, does not run the air-navigation service, cannot call off the strike and cannot fly through closed airspace. Compared with the test the Court set out in Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) — where the disruption must be not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier's activity and beyond its actual control — an external strike meets both limbs cleanly.
That is also why a defence of "ATC strike" is one of the few extraordinary-circumstance defences airlines tend to win in court. Polish Sądy Rejonowe regularly accept it when the carrier produces the underlying paperwork: the Eurocontrol slot message, the published NOTAM, the union announcement and the rotation log showing the specific flight was caught by the strike window.
So the practical bottom line is: for a genuine ATC strike, the €250 / €400 / €600 fixed compensation does not apply. We will see in the next section that this is not the end of the story — and that "genuine" is doing serious work in that sentence.
The decisive line: ATC strike vs the airline's own crew
This is the point that decides almost every confused case. The word strike says nothing on its own — what matters is whose staff is striking. The contrast is unusually clean.
| Who is striking | Whose employees | Compensation under EU 261 |
|---|---|---|
| Air traffic controllers | An aviation authority / ANSP (e.g. PAŻP, DSNA, DFS) | Normally no — extraordinary circumstance |
| Airport security or ground handlers | The airport operator or a subcontractor | Normally no — beyond the carrier's control |
| Subcontractor staff (catering, fuel, cleaning) | A third-party supplier | Case by case — depends on the facts |
| The airline's own pilots | The airline itself | Usually yes — not extraordinary |
| The airline's own cabin crew | The airline itself | Usually yes — not extraordinary |
The Court of Justice put the logic in writing in Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17, 2018). The case concerned a wildcat strike — TUIfly cabin crew calling in sick en masse after a restructuring announcement. The airline argued extraordinary circumstance. The Court refused: a labour conflict rooted in the airline's own management decisions belongs to normal operations and lies inside the carrier's control. By the same logic an external ATC strike, which the airline does not provoke and cannot resolve, is on the opposite side of the line.
If a Polish carrier writes "the disruption was caused by a strike, therefore no compensation" without naming whose strike it was, the rejection has skipped the assessment EU law requires. That is the moment to push back. We cover the full crew-strike scenario in our companion piece on strike flight compensation .
"ATC reasons" — when the explanation does not stand up
Airlines reach for the phrase "due to ATC reasons" more often than the underlying data supports. Eurocontrol's annual reports show that roughly 25 to 35 per cent of European delays are coded as ATC-related, but at the level of an individual flight the cause is often muddier than the airline's first-line response suggests. A handful of patterns recur in RPP files and Sąd Rejonowy judgments.
The timing does not match. The airline writes "linked to ATC disruption earlier in the week", but no NOTAM, no union announcement and no Eurocontrol slot message places the disruption inside your departure window. The carrier is trying to extend an extraordinary-circumstance shield over a delay that has a different cause.
The route was not affected. A French ATC strike grounds traffic over French airspace. A Warsaw → Lisbon flight that does not enter French airspace — re-routed via Spain or Italy — is not caught by it. If a carrier cites the French strike without explaining why your specific rotation was hit, the defence is incomplete.
The technical fault was real. A maintenance backlog gets relabelled as "ATC". Under Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) a technical defect inherent in the normal exercise of the activity is not extraordinary, so the carrier has every reason to prefer the ATC label. Demand the engineering log.
A wildcat strike is hidden behind "operational reasons". Cabin crew or pilots call in sick in numbers, the carrier writes "operational" or even "ATC", and the rejection comes back inside a week. Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018) is the answer.
The burden of proof is on the carrier in every one of these scenarios. Ask for the specific document — NOTAM number, Eurocontrol code, union announcement, engineering log — and a specific narrative linking it to your flight. Polish Sądy Rejonowe have repeatedly thrown out blanket "ATC" defences for which no paper trail exists.
The duty of care never switches off
Here is the part most passengers miss when they hear "no compensation". Even when the fixed €250–€600 is blocked, you are entitled to be looked after while you wait. That is the duty of care under Article 9 EU 261, and an ATC strike does not switch it off.
The duty of care applies in every strike, of every type. While you wait for re-routing the carrier must offer, free of charge:
- meals and drinks in reasonable quantity, in proportion to the waiting time;
- two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or emails — the legal text is dated but the principle is "stay in touch";
- a hotel if you have to wait overnight, plus transport between airport and hotel.
The Court of Justice spelled out the limits explicitly in McDonagh (C-12/11, 2013) — the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic-ash case. The Court held that the duty of care under Article 9 has no time limit and no financial cap, even when the disruption flows from the most exceptional circumstance imaginable. So a carrier that hides behind "force majeure" to leave passengers on the airport floor during an ATC strike is in clear breach.
If the airline does not deliver on the spot — and during a major ATC strike, queues at the service desk often make on-the-spot delivery impossible — buy reasonable meals and book a reasonable hotel yourself, and keep every receipt. Polish courts apply a "reasonable cost" standard: a sit-down dinner at the airport restaurant is fine; the lobster menu at the Hilton is not. There is more in our companion piece on the right to care, meals and a hotel .
Refund or re-routing — the choice stays yours
One more right survives an ATC strike intact: the choice between a refund and re-routing.
Under Article 8 EU 261, when a flight is cancelled (or when a delay runs past five hours and you give up on travelling), you choose between:
- Refund of the ticket price for the unused parts of the journey, payable within seven days in cash or by bank transfer, plus a free return flight to the first point of departure if a connection has become pointless; or
- Re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at the earliest opportunity or at a later date of your choosing, subject to seat availability.
The choice is yours, not the airline's. A carrier that quietly issues a voucher in place of a cash refund is in breach of Article 8, regardless of who caused the disruption. A carrier that re-routes you 48 hours later by car and bus when a seat was available on the next day's flight is in breach too.
And the choice is independent of the extraordinary-circumstance question. The Article 8 rights apply equally whether your delay is down to a crew strike, an ATC strike, weather or a security alert. Confirm in writing whichever option you take, so the airline cannot later claim you accepted something else.
How to take an ATC-strike claim forward in Poland
If your case has a duty-of-care element that the airline ignored, or if you suspect "ATC" was the wrong label, the procedure in Poland runs along a three-step path.
Step 1 — Written demand to the airline. A short letter or email, citing EU Regulation 261/2004: Article 5 (cancellation) or Article 6 (delay), Article 8 (refund and re-routing) and Article 9 (right to care). Set a 14-day deadline. Include booking reference, flight number, date, distance, the receipts for any meals or hotel you paid for, and the calculated amount in euros. Polish carriers (LOT, Enter Air) accept Polish; foreign carriers (Ryanair, Wizz Air, easyJet, Lufthansa) accept English. Costs zero.
Step 2 — Complaint to the RPP at the ULC. If the airline rejects the claim or stays silent for 30 days, file a free complaint with the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (Passenger Rights Ombudsman) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (Civil Aviation Authority) via the official ULC online form . The RPP issues a non-binding opinion within roughly 90 days. The opinion is non-binding but carries real weight: carriers that lose at the RPP often pay rather than risk a Sąd Rejonowy judgment that becomes public case law. Costs zero.
Step 3 — Lawsuit at the Sąd Rejonowy. If the RPP opinion does not unlock the money, sue in the simplified procedure (postępowanie uproszczone) at the Sąd Rejonowy with jurisdiction either over the airline's registered office or — under Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) — over the airport of departure or arrival. The court fee for claims up to PLN 2,000 is PLN 30; for higher amounts up to the €600 cap it is around PLN 100. Cases under €600 are normally handled on paper. You have ten years from the flight date — the Polish prescription period under Article 118 of the Kodeks cywilny, confirmed for EU 261 claims by Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013). Both the written demand and the RPP complaint can interrupt the running of the clock.
If you prefer to skip the paperwork, a passenger-rights service can take over for a commission — typically 20 to 35 per cent — only if the claim succeeds. If it fails, you pay nothing. The trade-off is part of the payout against not dealing with the airline, the RPP and the Sąd Rejonowy yourself. There is a fuller comparison in our guide on whether to claim yourself or use a service .
Check your ATC-strike claim free with AirHelp — no win, no fee
This is an affiliate link — if your claim succeeds we may receive a fee, without changing your payout. If you prefer to do everything yourself, the steps above are free.
When an ATC strike is part of a bigger story
An ATC strike rarely sits alone in the file. A handful of adjacent situations come up constantly, each with its own thresholds.
- Long delay rather than cancellation. If the flight was operated but arrived three hours or more late at the final destination, the cash rules from Sturgeon (joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) apply. The extraordinary-circumstance test still decides whether the €250–€600 is paid; for a pure ATC strike it usually is not.
- Missed connection. If the first leg was delayed by ATC and you missed a connecting flight on the same booking, EU law treats the whole journey as one transport unit. The distance for compensation purposes is the full route from original departure to final destination. See missed connection compensation .
- Cancellation announced after the strike ended. If the carrier announces a cancellation 48 hours after the ATC strike has finished and blames the strike, the chain of causation is broken. Without specific evidence the defence collapses and the fixed compensation is back on the table.
- The cause was actually technical. A maintenance backlog dressed up as "ATC" runs straight into Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) — a technical defect inherent in normal operations is not extraordinary and the carrier owes the full amount.
- Denied boarding linked to the strike. Some carriers respond to an ATC disruption by consolidating flights and bumping passengers. That is denied boarding under EU 261 and triggers fixed compensation regardless of the ATC label — see our denied boarding compensation guide .
In every variation the Polish procedure is identical: written demand, RPP complaint, Sąd Rejonowy.
Key takeaways
- A genuine ATC strike is normally an extraordinary circumstance under EU 261. The fixed compensation of €250 / €400 / €600 does not apply.
- The duty of care under Article 9 always applies regardless of cause — meals, drinks, communications, hotel — and has no time or financial cap (McDonagh, C-12/11, 2013).
- The refund-or-re-routing choice under Article 8 also survives unchanged; the choice belongs to the passenger.
- An airline cannot get away with a vague "ATC reasons" line. The burden of proof is on the carrier (Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, 2008), and Polish Sądy Rejonowe reject blanket defences without documentary support.
- A strike by the airline's own pilots or cabin crew is the opposite of an ATC strike: usually inside the carrier's control under Krüsemann (C-195/17, 2018) — full compensation due.
- The Polish escalation path is: written demand → Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the ULC → Sąd Rejonowy in the simplified procedure (postępowanie uproszczone). Jurisdiction can be the airline's seat or — per Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) — the airport of departure or arrival.
- The prescription period in Poland is ten years under Article 118 of the Kodeks cywilny, confirmed for EU 261 claims by Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013).
This is not legal advice
This page is based on EU Regulation 261/2004, published case law of the Court of Justice and guidance from the Polish Civil Aviation Authority (ULC). It is general consumer information, not legal advice for a specific dispute. For advice on your individual case, contact the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) in Warsaw — review is free and the procedure is in Polish — or a Polish lawyer specialising in air-passenger rights.
ATC strikes vary widely from week to week and from carrier to carrier, and the documentary trail behind the airline's defence varies even more. We date and update this page when the Court of Justice, EUR-Lex or the ULC publishes something new.