Selection of EU Case Law Affecting the Aviation Industry
Provided by Sergi Giménez with Augusta Abogados
We review only three judgments in this third installment of the year 2025, but all of them have a profound impact on the issues addressed. The “Seraing” judgment analyses the conformity with Community law of an award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Although unrelated to the aeronautical and space field, the doctrine established by the EU court is applicable to all kinds of arbitral awards and is the subject of intense academic debate at the time of writing. If we take into account that arbitration clauses are quite common in our industry, we will understand that it deserves to be taken into account. On the other hand, in June the Supreme Court declared the partial nullity of RD 517/2024, which regulates UAS in Spain. This partial nullity affected the obligation to register in the Register of Unmanned Aircraft, under the Ministry of the Interior.
Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 1 Aug. 2025, C-600/23 (ECLI: EU:C:2025:617) “Royal Football Club Seraing”: Obligation on Member States to provide for remedies necessary to ensure effective judicial protection in areas covered by EU law — Arbitration between individuals Award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirmed by a decision of a court of a third State – Review effectiveness of the conformity of that arbitral award with the principles and provisions of public policy of the European Union: The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding the conferral of res judicata on an award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport ( CAS), in the territory of a Member State, in the relations between the parties to the dispute in the context of which that award was made, where that dispute relates to the practice of a sport as an economic activity in the territory of the European Union and the conformity of that award with the principles and provisions forming part of the public policy of the Union has not been reviewed previously, in an effective manner, by a court of that Member State which has the power to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling; that award is accorded probative value, as a result of that force of res judicata, in the territory of the same Member State, in the relations between the parties to that dispute and third parties
Court of Justice of the European Union, Third Chamber, Judgment of 10 July 2025, C-783/2023 (ECLI: EU:C:2025:547) “Liège Airport Security”: Civil aviation security. Competent authority. Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 concerning common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 must be interpreted as not precluding an authority other than the ‘competent authority’ designated pursuant to that provision from being responsible for checking whether a legal person of Private law and its employees, who carry out security tasks at a national airport, comply with the obligations arising from national legislation governing the exercise of private security activities.
Supreme Court, Contentious Chamber, Section 4, Judgment no. 783/2025 of 19 June 2025, Rec. 574/2024 (ECLI:ES:TS:2025:2941: Establishes doctrine.
Upholds in part the contentious-administrative appeal filed by the procedural representation of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRONE PILOTS against Royal Decree 517/2024, of 4 June, which develops the legal regime for the civil use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and amends various regulatory rules on the control of the import of certain products with respect to the applicable rules on product safety; civil air demonstrations; firefighting and search and rescue and airworthiness requirements and licences for other aeronautical activities; civil aircraft registration; electromagnetic compatibility of electrical and electronic equipment; Air Regulations and Common Operating Provisions for Air Navigation Services and Procedures; and notification of civil aviation events. Section 3 of Chapter VI is declared null and void, and the claim is dismissed as to the remainder: “The creation of the “Registry of Unmanned Aircraft under the Ministry of the Interior” and which is regulated in Section 3 of Chapter VI has more importance. It is a Registry whose purpose of creation is not new: it was provided for in the draft of what was the aforementioned Royal Decree 1036/2017, but it was abandoned after the essential observation made by the Council of State in its opinion 840/2017: it understood that registration was an obligation that “cannot be done by means of a rule of regulatory rank if it does not find an express enabling legal basis” and that coverage was not given by the Article 25, second paragraph, of Organic Law 4/2015, of 30 March, on the protection of public safety, specifically by reason of the concept of “light aircraft”. However, it is now reintroduced at the suggestion of the Ministry of the Interior and already has the protection of the Council of State, which has changed its criteria in its opinion 327/2023. Certainly the plaintiff does not make special reasoning on this point in the application, she simply alleges that it is a substantial innovation without it having been able to be alleged in the hearing and public information process; but, in addition, it seeks the nullity of that regulation as a substantive ground and thus requests that we declare the nullity of Section 3 of Chapter VI, Articles 53 to 58. The Chamber chooses to move its judgment and take it, not to whether it is covered by the aforementioned organic law, but to the fact that the creation of such a Registry was introduced after the phase of allegations and public information. And it is certainly a substantial novelty, not without controversy as we have seen, about which nothing has been alleged in these proceedings and which implies registration obligations whose infringement, moreover, has a specific sanctioning provision apart from that provided for in the tenth additional provision and which is the subject of a specific ground of challenge. A novelty of such relevance, with the controversy that precedes it, is, as we say, “substantial”, so it had to undergo a new public information and hearing procedure, especially when there was time to do so without delaying the approval of the royal decree. For this reason, the claim is upheld on this point, although the effects of the estimate must be limited to what is essential and do not reach the whole of Royal Decree 517/2024, but only Section 3 of Chapter VI.”