Flights cancelled or delayed due to the Enav network failure: what are passengers' rights

Black Friday has arrived for air travel. But not because of the EasyJet pilots' and flight attendants' strike — rather, for a more structural cause. And above all, a more impactful one. The failure of Enav's transmission network — the agency responsible for civil aviation — is currently causing cancellations or delays for 50% of scheduled flights. So there are huge numbers of travelers who don't know whether or when they will be able to depart, and the fact that it's Friday — when many are heading home or leaving for a weekend away — certainly doesn't help. **Passengers' rights** The first thing to clarify is that a technical problem with the air traffic control agency's equipment is a typical extraordinary circumstance. In other words, airlines suffer this situation and cannot take any measures to remedy it. What does all this mean? That the passenger cannot claim any monetary compensation for delay or cancellation. These payments range from 250 to 600 euros depending on the route but, it's important to reiterate, not in this case. All other rights remain in place: a full refund of the ticket price if the flight doesn't depart and the passenger chooses not to travel, or the obligation to be rebooked on the first possible alternative flight, plus assistance at the airport. "In the event of a delay of more than 5 hours," recalls expert Maria Pisanò of the European Consumer Centre, "the passenger is entitled to abandon the trip and receive a full refund. In any case, for all the hours spent at the airport, the airlines remain obliged to assist their customers." **A new ruling in favor of travelers** Beyond today's events, Europe's judges just days ago delivered a ruling (C-108/2026) that will strip airlines of the power to do as they please when it comes to justifying a delay or cancellation. The ruling came from the General Court of the European Union, but was amended by the EU Court of Justice — "which has the power to do so when a ruling risks undermining the uniformity of community law," Pisanò points out. In essence, the text now provides that an airline cannot justify an extraordinary circumstance with a generic "air traffic restriction." "That is no longer enough," the lawyer explains, "because what is now decisive is the reason why the control agency made that decision, which is not necessarily a case of force majeure." To give an example, drawn precisely from the events that triggered the case: the flight had arrived one hour late due to bad weather, and instead of departing immediately it accumulated a further two hours of delay due to a technical problem with the aircraft. At that point, the agency gave priority to other slots. But for a specific reason, namely an responsibility of the airline. Thus, two of the three hours of delay were attributable solely to the airline. "This is a positive development for travelers," Pisanò comments, "also because when the Court interprets a ruling, it directly affects the regulation itself. From now on, everyone will have to comply with the new principle: it is no longer enough to invoke generic air traffic limitations, because the decision to move a flight may have causes that are anything but extraordinary."