News

Aviation: the procedure for establishing, and the calculation of, charges for the use of Vilnius Airport for the 2023–2025 period complied with the applicable legal requirements, both in terms of the procedure followed and the justification of the charges.

In its ruling of 8 April 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (SACL) dismissed the appeals lodged by Ryanair and Wizz Air. The Court held that the orders issued by the Director of Lithuanian Airports (LTOU) and the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration concerning the charges for the use of Vilnius Airport during the 2023–2025 period were lawful and well founded.

In exercising the powers delegated under the Law on Aviation to establish airport charges, the Director of LTOU informed the Vilnius Airport Users' Committee that consultations on the airport charges applicable for the 2023–2025 period were being initiated. By the contested order, the Director approved higher airport charges than those applicable during the previous period. Disagreeing with this decision, the Airport Users' Committee challenged it before the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration. After the Administration rejected the Committee's complaint, two of its members, Ryanair and Wizz Air, brought proceedings before the administrative courts.

The airlines argued that the procedure for approving the airport charges had been flawed because the Airport Users' Committee had not been provided with all relevant information. They also contended that the level of the charges had been based on excessively pessimistic forecasts and erroneous calculations.

In interpreting and applying Lithuanian law, the panel of judges also took into account the provisions of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, as well as the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interpreting that Directive.

In particular, the Court relied on the CJEU's judgment of 21 November 2019 in Deutsche Lufthansa (Case C-379/18) and referred to passages from the Advocate General's Opinion in that case, emphasising that the procedure for approving airport charges established by the Directive is based on the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, transparency and stakeholder participation.

Having examined the facts of the case in light of those principles, SACL found no violations. Although the Airport Users' Committee had not been provided with every piece of information, this circumstance had to be assessed in the overall context of the consultation process. The Court concluded that the consultations had been conducted properly, with a substantial amount of relevant information being disclosed and the Airport Users' Committee being meaningfully involved throughout the process.

With regard to the level of the airport charges, SACL held that the authority to determine the amount of airport charges rests with the airport operator's director. Having assessed the relevant economic data in accordance with the airport management strategy adopted by the airport's governing bodies, the director makes a decision that is essentially economic in nature. Judicial review of such decisions is therefore limited in scope.

The Court explained that, when reviewing the legality and reasonableness of airport charges, it may examine whether the charges were established in accordance with the applicable legal rules and principles and whether they are manifestly erroneous. In the present case, the increase in airport charges was justified by objective circumstances, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the broader economic and geopolitical situation in Lithuania and across Europe.

Having assessed the evidence and the parties' arguments, SACL found no grounds to conclude that LTOU had relied on inappropriate or excessively pessimistic forecasts or had miscalculated the charges applicable to the use of Vilnius Airport.

Administrative case No. eA-55-789/2026