WizzAir Hungary (Air transport - Airport charges - Concept of 'airport user' - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-680/24 (12 February 2026)

Judgment This request for a preliminary ruling concerns 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 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11). The request has been made in proceedings between WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft. ('WizzAir'), an air carrier which has its headquarters in Budapest (Hungary), and Prezes Urzędu Lotnictwa Cywilnego (President of the Civil Aviation Authority, Poland; 'the President of the 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 (Poland) ('Chopin Airport'). Legal context European Union law According to recitals 2 and 11 to 13 of Directive 2009/12: '(2) It is necessary to establish a common framework regulating the essential features of airport charges and the way they are set, as in the absence of such a framework, basic requirements in the relationship between airport managing bodies and airport users may not be met. … … (11) Airport charges should be non-discriminatory. A compulsory procedure for regular consultation between airport managing bodies and airport users should be put in place with the possibility for either party to have recourse to an independent supervisory authority whenever a decision on airport charges or the modification of the charging system is contested by airport users. (12) In order to ensure impartial decisions and the proper and effective application of this Directive, an independent supervisory authority should be established in every Member State. The authority should be in possession of all the necessary resources in terms of staffing, expertise, and financial means for the performance of its tasks. (13) It is vital for airport users to obtain from the airport managing body, on a regular basis, information on how and on what basis airport charges are calculated. Such transparency would provide air carriers with an insight into the costs incurred by the airport and the productivity of an airport's investments. To allow an airport managing body to properly assess the requirements with regard to future investments, the airport users should be required to share all their operational forecasts, development projects and specific demands and suggestions with the airport managing body on a timely basis.' Article 2 of that directive, entitled 'Definitions', provides: 'For the purposes of this Directive: … 2. “airport managing body” means a body which, in conjunction with other activities or not as the case may be, has as its objective under national laws, regulations or contracts the administration and management of the airport or airport network infrastructures and the coordination and control of the activities of the different operators present in the airports or airport network concerned; 3. “airport user” means any natural or legal person responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail and/or freight by air to or from the airport concerned; …' Under Article 3 of that directive, entitled 'Non-discrimination': 'Member States shall ensure that airport charges do not discriminate among airport users, in accordance with [EU] law. This does not prevent the modulation of airport charges for issues of public and general interest, including environmental issues. The criteria used for such a modulation shall be relevant, objective and transparent.' Article 6 of that directive, entitled 'Consultation and remedy', provides: '1. Member States shall ensure that a compulsory procedure for regular consultation between the airport managing body and airport users or the representatives or associations of airport users is established with respect to the operation of the system of airport charges, the level of airport charges and, as appropriate, the quality of service provided. Such consultation shall take place at least once a year, unless agreed otherwise in the latest consultation. … Member States shall retain the right to request more frequent consultations. 2. Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, changes to the system or the level of airport charges are made in agreement between the airport managing body and the airport users. To that end, the airport managing body shall submit any proposal to modify the system or the level of airport charges to the airport users, together with the reasons for the proposed changes, no later than four months before they enter into force, unless there are exceptional circumstances which need to be justified to airport users. The airport managing body shall hold consultations on the proposed changes with the airport users and take their views into account before a decision is taken. The airport managing body shall normally publish its decision or recommendation no later than two months before its entry into force. The airport managing body shall justify its decision with regard to the views of the airport users in the event that no agreement on the proposed changes is reached between the airport managing body and the airport users. 3. Member States shall ensure that in the event of a disagreement over a decision on airport charges taken by the airport managing body, either party may seek the intervention of the independent supervisory authority referred to in Article 11 which shall examine the justifications for the modification of the system or the level of airport charges. 4. A modification of the system or the level of airport charges decided upon by the airport managing body shall, if brought before the independent supervisory authority, not take effect until that authority has examined the matter. The independent supervisory authority shall, within four weeks of the matter being brought before it, take an interim decision on the entry into force of the modification of airport charges, unless the final decision can be taken within the same deadline. 5. A Member State may decide not to apply paragraphs 3 and 4 in relation to changes to the level or the structure of the airport charges at those airports for which: (a) there is a mandatory procedure under national law whereby airport charges, or their maximum level, shall be determined or approved by the independent supervisory authority; … … The procedures, conditions and criteria applied for the purpose of this paragraph by the Member State shall be relevant, objective, non-discriminatory and transparent.' Article 7 of Directive 2009/12, entitled 'Transparency', provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof: '1. Member States shall ensure that the airport managing body provides each airport user, or the representatives or associations of airport users, every time consultations referred to in Article 6(1) are to be held with information on the components serving as a basis for determining the system or the level of all charges levied at each airport by the airport managing body. … … 2. Member States shall ensure that airport users submit information to the airport managing body before every consultation, as provided for in Article 6(1), concerning in particular: (a) forecasts as regards traffic; (b) forecasts as to the composition and envisaged use of their fleet; (c) their development projects at the airport concerned; and (d) their requirements at the airport concerned.' Article 11 of that directive, entitled 'Independent supervisory authority', states, in paragraphs 1 and 7 thereof: '1. Member States shall nominate or establish an independent authority as their national independent supervisory authority in order to ensure the correct application of the measures taken to comply with this Directive and to assume, at least, the tasks assigned under Article 6. … … 7. When undertaking an investigation into the justification for the modification of the system or the level of airport charges as set out in Article 6, the independent supervisory authority shall have access to necessary information from the parties concerned and shall be required to consult the parties concerned in order to reach its decision. Without prejudice to Article 6(4), it shall issue a final decision as soon as possible, and in any case within four months of the matter being brought before it. … The decisions of the independent supervisory authority shall have binding effect, without prejudice to parliamentary or judicial review, as applicable in the Member States.' Polish law Article 77(1) and (2) of the ustawa – Prawo lotnicze (Aviation Law) of 3 July 2002, in its consolidated version (Dz. U. of 2019, item 1580; 'the Air Transport Law'), provides: '1. The managing body of a public airport shall, prior to the introduction or modification of airport charges, develop a draft airport charges tariff stipulating the levels of standard charges, additional charges and discounts on those charges, together with the rules for calculating charges and granting discounts, and shall, regarding the draft airport charges tariff, consult with air carriers that regularly use the airport in question or the entities representing them, including, in particular, the committee of air carriers operating at the airport in question or associations of air carriers. The airport managing body may also consult other entities that use the facilities, equipment or services referred to in Article 75(1). The consultations shall concern the level and structure of airport charges, the rules for calculating those charges, and the granting of discounts on those charges. 2. An air carrier that regularly uses an airport, as referred to in paragraph 1 above, is an air carrier that meets one of the following conditions: (1) it has carried out scheduled air transportation to or from the airport in question in the scheduling season during which the consultations are conducted, or carried out such activity in the previous scheduling season and notified the managing body of the public airport of its intention to perform scheduled air transportation in a scheduling season equivalent to the one in which it carried out that activity; (2) it has made at least 10 non-scheduled flights in either the scheduling season prior to the one during which the consultations are conducted, or in the season during which the consultations are conducted, and continues to carry out air transport from that airport during the consultation period.' Article 77d of that law provides: '1. The managing body of a public airport … shall, following the consultations referred to in Article 77(1), submit to the President of the [CAA] for approval, at least three months prior to the planned date of its entry into force, the airport charges tariff and the justification for it. 2. In cases justified by exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances, the President of the [CAA] may, in response to a request from the managing body of a public airport, accompanied by a justification explaining those circumstances, accept a reduction of the time limit envisaged in paragraph 1. However, the time limit for submitting the airport charges tariff for the approval of the President of the [CAA] may not be less than two months prior to the planned date of its entry into force. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 apply mutatis mutandis to the modification of specific provisions of the airport charges tariff. …' The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling On 31 July 2019, the President of the CAA, an independent supervisory authority for the purposes of Article 11(1) of Directive 2009/12, received a request for approval to modify the airport charges tariff concerning Chopin airport, submitted by Polskie Porty Lotnicze S. A. ('PPL'), the managing body of that airport within the meaning of point 2 of Article 2 of that directive. That request was accompanied by documents constituting evidence of consultation, at a meeting held on 15 May 2019, with 65 air carriers classified as air carriers 'that regularly use' Chopin airport within the meaning of Article 77(1) and (2) of the Air Transport Law. On 18 July 2019, WizzAir, which is a user of Chopin Airport for the purposes of point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12, applied to the President of the CAA to be admitted as a party to the procedure for modifying the airport charges tariff in respect of Chopin Airport. By decision of 31 October 2019 ('the decision at issue') the President of the CAA approved certain changes to that tariff and rejected others. Having taken the view that WizzAir did not meet the conditions required by the applicable national legislation, it refused to admit it to the procedure in question and notified that decision only to PPL. WizzAir brought an action against that decision before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Regional Administrative Court, Warsaw, Poland), which is the referring court. Before that court, the President of the CAA contended that that action was inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded, on the ground that WizzAir had no legal interest in the approval of the modifications of the airport charges in question. By judgment of 19 August 2020, that court annulled the decision at issue on account of a procedural defect, on the ground that it was based on evidence which had been translated into Polish only in part. PPL and the President of the CAA brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment. By judgment of 24 April 2024, the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland) set aside the judgment under appeal and referred the case back to the referring court, on the ground that that judgment did not provide a clear answer as to what evidence was necessary to assess the lawfulness of the decision at issue, or which specific evidence in the file had not been translated into Polish. Subsequent to that referral, the referring court found the following: – the procedure by which the President of the CAA, acting as an independent supervisory authority, determines or approves airport charges or their maximum level, as provided for in Articles 77 and 77d of the Air Transport Law, corresponds to the mandatory procedure under national law referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2009/12; – before submitting the request for approval of the modifications in question to the President of the CAA, PPL carried out the consultations envisaged in Article 6(2) of Directive 2009/12 and in Article 77(1) of the Air Transport Law, but only with 65 entities which met the criterion of regularly using Chopin Airport, for the purposes of Article 77(2) of the latter, whereas 137 entities which met that criterion, for the purposes of point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12, were operating at that airport in the year prior to the adoption of the decision at issue; – during the assessment of the modifications of the airport charges submitted by PPL, the President of the CAA did not consult with the 'parties concerned', for the purposes of Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12. The referring court asks, first, whether, where an independent supervisory authority determines or approves changes to the level or structure of airport charges in the context of the mandatory procedure under national law referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2009/12, that body is required to conduct the consultations provided for in Article 11(7) of that directive. That court is of the opinion that that question should be answered in the affirmative, even if point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2009/12 allows for Article 6(3) of that directive, which concerns the modifications of the system or the level of airport charges decided upon by the airport managing body and refers expressly to Article 11 of that directive, not to apply to the mandatory procedure under national law. In its view, the obligation to consult laid down in paragraph 7 of that Article 11 is intended, in particular, to ensure the transparency of that procedure and does not apply only to the situation provided for therein. Secondly, the referring court asks whether Article 6(2) of Directive 2009/12, read in conjunction with point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, precludes national legislation under which only 'air carriers that regularly use an airport', as defined in Article 77(2) of the Air Transport Law, and not every 'airport user', as defined in point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12, must be consulted when the airport managing body decides to modify the system or the level of airport charges. The referring court also supports an affirmative answer to that question, noting that no provision of Directive 2009/12 makes it possible to distinguish between airport users on the basis of how frequently they use the airport concerned, in contrast to the provisions of Article 77(2) of the Air Transport Law. In those circumstances, the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Regional Administrative Court, Warsaw) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: '(1) Must Article 11(7) of Directive [2009/12] be interpreted as meaning that the obligation arising therefrom for the independent supervisory authority to consult the parties concerned when undertaking an investigation into the justification for the modification of the system or the level of airport charges as set out in Article 6 of [that] directive does not apply to a case where that authority applies the mandatory procedure under national law as referred to in [point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5)] of [that] directive, under which procedure airport charges, or their maximum level, are determined or approved by the independent supervisory authority, having regard to the requirement of transparency of the national procedure under the second sentence of Article 6(5) of [that] directive? (2) Is [a] provision of national law under which the airport managing body, when introducing modifications to the system or the level of airport charges, must consult only the air carriers that regularly use the airport in question or the entities representing them, including in particular the committee of air carriers operating at the airport in question or associations of air carriers, and not airport users within the meaning of Article 2(3) of [Directive 2009/12], that is to say, any natural or legal persons responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail and/or freight by air to or from the airport concerned, compatible with Article 6(2) of [that] directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(3) thereof?' Consideration of the questions referred The second question By its second question, which it is appropriate to examine first, the referring court asks, in essence, 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. In the first place, the concept of 'airport user' is defined in point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12 as 'any natural or legal person responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail and/or freight by air to or from the airport concerned'. As a concept defined by EU law that makes no reference to the law of the Member States, it must be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 April 2025, Galte , C‑63/24, EU:C:2025:292 , paragraph 28). It must be noted that the use, in the wording of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, of the expression 'any natural or legal person responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail and/or freight by air to or from the airport concerned' demonstrates the intention of the EU legislature to include, without restriction, all such persons in that concept. Those persons must, accordingly, all be consulted regarding changes to the system or the level of airport charges referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 2009/12. In the second place, that literal interpretation of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive is confirmed by a contextual interpretation of that provision. First, the principle of non-discrimination guaranteed in Article 3 of Directive 2009/12, read in conjunction with recital 11 thereof, precludes an interpretation of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive according to which it is possible to exclude certain air carriers from the whole group of those that transport passengers, mail and/or freight to or from the airport concerned, on the basis of discriminatory criteria established at the national level. Accordingly, all airport users, as defined in a broad manner in point 3, Article 2 of that directive, 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 airport managing body. Secondly, limiting consultation regarding changes to the system or the level of airport charges and, consequently, restricting access to information concerning those changes to a more limited group of airport users, on the basis of discriminatory criteria, may also infringe the principle of transparency guaranteed in Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/12, read in conjunction with recital 13 thereof. That Article 7(1) requires the airport managing body to provide 'each airport user', every time such consultations are to be held, with information on the components serving as a basis for determining the system or the level of all charges levied at each airport by that body. As the Court has stated, the principles of transparency and non-discrimination are closely linked, since compliance with the former allows airport users to identify infringements of the latter (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2019, Deutsche Lufthansa , C‑379/18, EU:C:2019:1000 , paragraph 49). Thirdly, as Ireland states in its written observations, allowing an airport managing body to consult only with the larger air carriers risks favouring those air carriers in the structure of the airport charges and may constitute an obstacle for new entrants and undermine undistorted competition between air carriers. Fourthly, it is apparent from Article 7(2) of Directive 2009/12 that the sole condition which an 'airport user', for the purpose of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, must satisfy in order to be consulted by the airport managing body, in accordance with Article 6(2) of that directive, is, as the Polish Government noted in its written observations, compliance with the obligation, which also stems from the principle of transparency, to submit to that body, before every consultation, information concerning, in particular, forecasts relating to traffic and the composition and envisaged use of its fleet as well as its development projects and its requirements at the airport concerned. In the third place, that contextual interpretation of point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12 is also supported by the objective of that directive, as set out in particular in recital 2 thereof, namely to establish a common framework regulating the essential features of airport charges and the way they are set, and basic requirements in the relationship between airport managing bodies and airport users, in such a way as to prevent those bodies from finding themselves in a privileged position in relation to those airport users from which a risk of abuse would result (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 May 2011, Luxembourg v Parliament and Council , C‑176/09, EU:C:2011:290 , paragraph 66). That objective would be undermined if point 3 of Article 2 of that directive were interpreted as meaning that the national legislature may exclude from the concept of 'airport user' any natural or legal persons responsible for the carriage of passengers, mail and/or freight by air to or from the airport concerned. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that 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 changing 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. The first question By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, 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. It is apparent from Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12 that, when, as an appellate body, an independent supervisory authority undertakes an investigation, in the context of the procedure provided for in Article 6(1) to (4) of that directive, into the justification for the modification of the system or the level of airport charges, which has been decided upon by an airport managing body without agreement between that body and the airport users, within the meaning of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, that authority must have access to necessary information from, inter alia, those airport users and is required to consult with those users in order to adopt a final decision with binding effect as soon as possible, and in any case, within four months of the matter being brought before it. The airport users are 'parties concerned' within the meaning of Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12, and may, in that capacity, rely, in court, on rights arising from Articles 3, 4 and 7 of that directive which also impose obligations on the airport managing body (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2019, Deutsche Lufthansa , C‑379/18, EU:C:2019:1000 , paragraph 58). The referring court's doubts as to the applicability of Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12 in the context of the mandatory procedure under national law as referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5) of that directive, stem from the reference made to that Article 11 by Article 6(3) of that directive. Indeed, as the referring court states, that Article 6(3) is not applicable to the mandatory procedure under national law on account of the choice made, in the present case, by the Polish legislature on the basis of point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2009/12. In accordance with the mandatory procedure under national law referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of that Article 6(5), it is for the independent supervisory authority, and not the airport managing body, to determine or approve, by means of a binding decision, airport charges, or their maximum level, and changes to the level or the structure of those charges. As WizzAir and the European Commission note in their written observations, Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12 applies to a procedure in which, in contrast to that mandatory procedure under national law, it is the airport managing body which determines or approves, in principle, the system of airport charges and the modification thereof. The independent supervisory authority intervenes only as an appellate body, in the event that airport users disagree with a decision of the airport managing body which modifies the system or the level of those charges, in order to examine, in the light of the arguments of the airport users, the justifications put forward by that body to explain that modification, as is provided for by Article 6(3) of Directive 2009/12 which refers to Article 11 of that directive. However, contrary to what Ireland and PPL submit in their written observations, it in no way follows that, in the context of a mandatory procedure under national law as referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5) of that directive, the independent supervisory authority may be relieved of the obligation to consult with an 'airport user' within the meaning of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, in particular where that user claims before that authority to have been excluded in a discriminatory manner from the consultations provided for by Article 6 of that same directive. It is apparent, in the first place, from Article 11(1) of Directive 2009/12, read in the light of recital 12 thereof, that the independent supervisory authority must, at least, perform the tasks assigned under Article 6 of that directive in addition to ensuring the impartiality of decisions and the proper and effective application of that directive. Moreover, that authority is to ensure compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 3 of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2019, Deutsche Lufthansa , C‑379/18, EU:C:2019:1000 , paragraph 43). The responsibilities thus conferred on the independent supervisory authority cannot vary according to whether that authority is acting in the context of the procedure for approving or modifying airport charges provided for in Article 6(1) to (4) of Directive 2009/12, or in the context of the mandatory procedure under national law, referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5) of that directive. That provision empowers only the Member States to decide not to apply paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 6 to the latter procedure. In the second place, it is apparent from the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Directive 2009/12 that the mandatory national procedures envisaged in that paragraph and the conditions and criteria which apply to them must be 'relevant, objective, non-discriminatory and transparent'. More specifically, those national procedures must comply with Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/12 (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2019, Deutsche Lufthansa , C‑379/18, EU:C:2019:1000 , paragraph 45), which requires Member States to ensure that, first, a compulsory procedure for regular consultation between the airport managing body and airport users is established, in particular with respect to the operation of the system of airport charges, and, secondly, changes to the system or the level of those charges are made, wherever possible, in agreement between that body and the airport users. Consequently, Article 11(7) of Directive 2009/12, read in conjunction with Article 11(1), 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 receives, 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 to it by the airport managing body, that authority is required to consult with every airport user, for the purposes of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, that was not consulted by that body regarding those modifications, in infringement of Article 6(2) of that directive. In that regard, it is irrelevant 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. By means of the consultation that those provisions require it to conduct, the independent supervisory authority is able to review effectively the proper conduct and compliance of the prior consultation procedure carried out by the airport managing body as regards the basic requirements laid down by Directive 2009/12, namely non-discrimination, transparency and consultation with airport users, within the meaning of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, which apply fully to the mandatory procedure under national law for determining or approving airport charges, and to modifications of the level or the structure of those charges. In that respect, it must also be stated, as the Polish Government did in its written observations, that, in accordance with the principles of sound administration and proportionality, Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/12 must be interpreted as meaning that the independent supervisory authority is not required to conduct consultations for the purpose of approving, in accordance with the procedure under national law, changes to the level or the structure of airport charges which the airport managing body submits to it, if, for that purpose, that authority has access to necessary information from, inter alia, airport users, within the meaning of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive, and those users have been duly consulted by that body, in accordance with Article 6(2) of that directive, read in the light of the principles of non-discrimination and transparency. In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the decision at issue was adopted by the President of the CAA acting as an independent supervisory authority, within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Directive 2009/12, at the end of the mandatory procedure under national law which confers on him exclusive jurisdiction to modify the level or the structure of the airport charges on the basis of a proposal from the airport managing body. That body had consulted 65 'air carriers that regularly use' Chopin airport, within the meaning of Article 77(2) of the Air Transport Law, whereas, according to the information provided by the referring court, when that decision was adopted, 137 entities, including WizzAir, were identified as 'airport users', within the meaning of point 3 of Article 2 of that directive. Therefore, it may be the case that the decision at issue was adopted without prior consultation of WizzAir either by the airport managing body when drafting proposals for modifying the level or the structure of airport charges at Chopin airport to be submitted to the independent supervisory authority, or by that authority when approving those modifications, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that 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 the 'airport users', as defined in point 3 of Article 2 thereof, with which the airport managing body did not duly consult when drafting that proposal. Costs Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Point 3 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges 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. 2. 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 the 'airport users', as defined in point 3 of Article 2 thereof, with which the airport managing body did not duly consult when drafting that proposal. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Polish. © European Union The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII