EN 
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 11.4.2011 
SEC(2011) 428 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Accompanying document to the 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
on the operation and the results of Regula tion (EC) 261/2004 establishing common rules 
on compensation and assistance to passengers  in the event of denied boarding and of 
cancellation or long delay of flights 
   
{COM(2011) 174 final} 
EN  EN 1. Delay Quantitative Data 
Comparison for all delays1 
The data on which the graphics below are based have been provided by Eurocontrol. In order 
to analyse flight delay data in the light of  the relevant provisions  of Regulation 261/20042 (the 
Regulation), the data indicate the number of f lights experiencing long delays divided into 
short-haul flights (less than  1500km), medium-haul flights (m ore than 1500km but less than 
3500km) and long-haul flights (m ore than 3500km). This information is based on voluntary 
data provided by airlines and represents almost 18 million total flights (departing from, and arriving in, the EU) over the period observe d (2006-2009), which represents approximately 
60% of all flights during this time. Of these 18 million flights, 79,3% were less than 1500km, 
16,4% were between 1500-3500km, and 4,3% exceeded 3500km.   It should be noted that the information below presents delays by at least  2 hours, at least  3 
hours, at least 4 hours and at least  5 hours given their relevance in the light of the provisions 
of the Regulation. This means that figures for de lays of at least 2 hours will represent flights 
delayed by 2 hours or more, and will therefore include 3, 4 and 5 hour delays. Similarly, 
figures for delays of at leas t 3 hours will represent flight s delayed by 3 hour s or more, and 
will therefore include 4 and 5 hour delays. 
                                                
 
1 Source: Eurocontrol 
2 OJ L46/1 of 17.2.2004 
 
 General overview  
 Proportion of total flights de parting from EU airports that  experienced long delays at 
departure, 2006-2009     
00,20,40,60,811,21,41,6
2006 2007 2008 2009
YearProportion of total departing flights with long 
delays
(%)Delay > 2 hours
Delay > 3 hours
Delay > 5 hours
 
 
Proportion of total flights a rriving at EU airports that experienced long delays at 
departure, 2006-20093 
00,20,40,60,811,21,41,6
2006 2007 2008 2009
YearProportion of total arriving flights with 
longdelays
(%)Delay > 2 hours
Delay > 3 hours
Delay > 5 hours
 
 
                                                 
3 According to Article 3, the Regulation only applies to passengers departing from an airport located in a third 
country to an airport situated  in the territory of a Memb er State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received 
benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight 
concerned is a Community carrier. The figures presented in this graphic are an overestimate of the proportion of 
flights covered by the Regulation, since they include all delayed flights arriving at EU airports.  
 
 These graphs present a general overview of long delays, at depa rture, to all flights (short, 
medium and long-haul together) departing from the EU over th e period 2006-2009. They 
present data for departing flight s and arriving flights in relation to the time they are delayed. 
Further analysis in respect of the Regulation is carried out in the following sections (see 
below).  On average, less than 1,2% of flights potenti ally fall under the scope of the Regulation's 
measures on long delays (i.e. where flights ar e delayed by at least 2 hours). This figure 
includes two hour delays on short, medium and long- haul flights. Since th e right to care after 
two hours only applies to short- haul flights (it applies after 3 and 4 hours for medium and 
long-haul flights respectively), the proportion of total flights affected by the Regulation is 
therefore likely to be even less than 1,2%. 
 In some limited cases, passengers may be entitled to compensation for flights where arrival is delayed by 3 hours and when the delay is not du e to extraordinary circumstances. According 
to the data available, this only potentially affect s less than 0,5% of all flights (those which are 
delayed for more than 3 hours). In fact, this figure is an overes timate because it represents all 
delays, including those caused by extraordinary circumstances (in which case the obligation to 
offer compensation does not apply).   The proportion of flights affected by the Regul ation's obligation to offer reimbursement for 
long delays is, on average, less than 0,15%.   A comparison of these two graphs illustrates th at delays of at least 2, 3 and 5 hours are 
relatively similar for those flights departing from the EU as for those flights arriving in the EU (arrival data includes flights th at have departed from within the EU as well as flights that 
have departed from third countries). Delays of  at least 2, 3 and 5 hours all peaked in 2008, and 
fell slightly in 2009. Although this decrease may be due to a num ber of factors, it should be 
noted that 2009 witnessed a decrease in overall air traffic. This is likely to be one of the 
contributing factors to the reduction in delays.  Given the similarities in the data for departin g and arriving flights, and in order to avoid 
repetition, the graphics below are based on departing flights only. The graphs present long 
delays divided by the length of th e flight in relation to articles  7 (right to compensation), 8 
(right to reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket)  and 9 (right to care) of the Regulation. 
Regarding the right to compensation, it must be  noted that only a percentage of the total 
number of flights listed belo w actually lead  to the right to comp ensation, since all those 
flights whose delay was caused by extraordin ary circumstances are excluded from the 
application of article 7.  
 
 Short-haul flights (less than 1500km) experiencing long delays  
 
 
 Passengers are entitled to 
care after 2 hours, to 
compensation after 3 hours and reimbursement 
after 5 hours
 
 
        
Medium-haul flights (1500-3500km) experiencing long delays 
 
 
 Passengers are entitled to 
care and compensation 
after 3 hours and reimbursement after 5 
hours 
 
        
Long-haul flights (more than 3500km) experiencing long delays   
 
 
 
 
Passengers are entitled to compensation after 3 
hours, to care after 4 
hours and reimbursement after 5 hours
 
 
 
 00,20,40,60,811,21,41,6
2006 2007 2008 2009
YearProportion of departing flights less than 1500km 
that were delayed (%)Right to care
Right to compensation
(€250)
Right to reimbursement
00,20,40,60,811,21,41,6
2006 2007 2008 2009
YearProportion of departing flights between 1500-
3500km that were delayed (%)Right to care
Right to compensation
(€400)
Right to reimbursement
00,20,40,60,811,21,41,6
2006 2007 2008 2009
YearProportion of departing flights more than 
3500km that were delayed (%)Right to care 
Right to compensation
(€600)
Right to reimbursement
 
 These graphs illustrate the rights of passengers  experiencing long delays  on flights departing 
from the EU, separated by the distance of flights in order to assess the information in the context of the Regulation.   From given data, the provisions of the Regula tion regarding long delays  may apply to less 
than 1% of the short and mid-haul flights and 1.5% of long-haul flights . Over the period 
2006-2009 passengers were entitled to: - care on less than 1% of all flights; - reimbursement on at least 0,5% of long-haul flights compared to less than 0,1% of short-
haul flights and 0,35% of  medium-haul flights. 
- compensation on potentially 1,5% of  long-haul flights compared to less than 0,4% of short-
haul and less than 1% for medium-haul flights.  However, this may be an overestimate. These 
graphs present information on all long delays for departing flights based on the available 
information and therefore include data on flight s that may be delayed due to "extraordinary 
circumstances" for which carriers do not have to pay compensation. Furthermore, this also 
captures delay upon departure, yet the right to co mpensation only applies to three hour delays 
upon arrival. Some flights that are delaye d by 3 hours upon departure may reduce the length 
of delay during flight and ther efore may, upon arrival, fall outs ide scope of the obligation to 
pay compensation. 
 
 2. Comparison of cancellations 
 
As specific data collection on cancelled flights will only start from 2011, the graph showing the proportion of cancelled flights for the y ears 2006 to 2010 is base d on estimations by 
Eurocontrol (comparison of published schedules w ith recorded scheduled flights). Note that 
such estimations are subject to a more signifi cant error margin than the data on delays, but 
they do give an idea of the order of  magnitude of flight cancellations.  
 
Estimated Rate of Cancellation of Scheduled Flights in 
Europe
0,0%0,5%1,0%1,5%2,0%2,5%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Preliminary Data provided by Eurocontrol
 
 
It appears from the graph th at the cancellations oscill ate roughly around 0.5% of the 
scheduled flights. About half of the cancellations in 2010 were due to the volcanic ash cloud 
crisis in April 2010. The volcanic ash cloud crisis aside, the increase of cancellations in 2010 
may be related to severe weather conditions but this increase still ne eds to further assessed. 
Similarly, the increase in cancellations in 2008 ma y be due, in part, to the impact of the 
economic crisis, however this needs to be analys ed further. These preliminary data do not yet 
allow us to distinguish the causes for the cancellations and therefore do not give the proportion of cancelled flights that would give rise to a right for compensation. The 
proportion of flights for which compensation is du e will therefore be only a percentage of the 
figures presented here. 
 
 2. Complaint handling by the National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) 
2.1. Complaint handling 20074 
2007 Complaints 
received in total Delay Cancellation Denied 
Boarding Others Number of 
cases closed Number of cases 
engaged for 
sanctioning 
AT 793 190 
(24%) 533 
(67%) 39 
(5%) 31 
(4%) 757 
(95%) 0 
BE 276 na na na na na 0 
BG 25 na na na na 25 
(100%) 0 
CY 109 68 
(62%) 12 
(11%) 7 
(6%) 22 
(20%) 74 na 
CZ 82 na na na na na 0 
DE 3.105 963 
(31%) 1.770 
(57%) 372 
(12%) 0 1.397 
(45%) 11 
(0,4%) 
DK 303 na na na na na 0 
ET 5 na na na na na 0 
EL 508 51 
(10%) 305 
(60%) 152 
(30%) 0 na 5 
(1%) 
ES 10.791 3.161 
(29%) 2.963 
(27%) 929 
(9%) 3.738 
(35%) na na 
FI 60 na na na na na na 
FR 2.254 777 
(34%) 1.150 
(51%) 327 
(15%) na na 0 
HU 145 na na na na na 4 
(3%) 
IE 331 na na na na na 0 
IT 7.154 3.096 2.968 423 667 na 127 
(2%) 
LT 41 26 13 2 na 41 05 
LV 25 5 
(20%) 12 
(48%) 7 
(28%) 1 
(4%) 25 1 
(4%) 
LU 18 6 4 1 7 11 0 
MT 43 na na na na na 0 
NL 279 na na na na na na 
PL 1.208 206 
(17%) 534 
(44%) 99 
(8%) 369 
(31%) na 32 
(3%) 
PT 8.233 na na na na na 0 
RO 249 na na na na na 54 
(2%) 
SK 56 na na na na na na 
SV 2 na na na na na 04 
SE 162 na na na na na na 
UK 5.483 na na na na 5.481 
(99.9%) na 
Total6 41.740 8.543 10.260 2.357 4.828 7.726 185 
                                                 
4 All percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number 
5 Some NEBs provided the combined number of sanctions for 2007 and 2008. For fair comparison, the 
totals have been split; half for 2007 and half for 20 08. Where totals are uneven, the remainder has been 
added to 2008. (eg RO reported 11 sanctions for 2007 and 2008, we attributed 5 to 2007 and 6 to 2008) 
6 Percentages for the total could not be calculated. The majority of NEBs could only provide us with the 
total number of complaints received,  but not with the exact  number of delays, cancellations and denied 
boardings. Therefore, calculating the total percentage per type of incident would not be meaningful. 
 
 2.2. Complaint handling 20087 
2008 Complaints 
received in total Delay Cancellation Denied 
Boarding Other Number of 
cases closed Number of cases 
engaged for 
sanctioning 
AT 1.171 246 
(21%) 835 
(71%) 34 
(3%) 56 
(5%) 994 
(85%) 0 
BE 370 na na na na na 0 
BG 81 na na na na 66 
(8%) 0 
CY 114 56 
(49%) 32 
(28%) 10 
(9%) 16 
(14%) 89 na 
CZ 142 na na na na na 0 
DE 3.968 1.151 
(29%) 2.399 
(60%) 414 
(10%) 4 
(0.1%) 1.876 
(47%) 11 
(0.3%) 
DK 317 na na na na na 0 
ET 5 na na na na na 0 
EL 577 58 
(10%) 346 
(60%) 173 
(30%) 0 na 6 
(1%) 
ES 7.989 2.321 
(29%) 2.285 
(29%) 844 
(11%) 2.539 
(32%) na na 
FI 100 na na na na na na 
FR 3.034 875 
(29%) 1.774 
(58%) 385 
(13%) na na 4 
HU 242 48 
(20%) 150 
(62%) 7 
(0.3%) 37 
(15%) na 4 
(2%) 
IE 413 70 
(17%) 304 
(74%) 20 
(5%) 19 
(5%) na 0 
IT 4.811 1.851 664 124 2.172 na 127 
(3%) 
LT 59 15 31 13 na 34 14 
(2%) 
LV 67 8 
(12%) 42 
(63%) 17 
(25%) 0 67 3 
(4%) 
LU 39 8 18 0 13 26 0 
MT 11 na na na na na 0 
NL 540 na na na na na na 
PL 1.538 142 
(9%) 816 
(53%) 78 
(5%) 502 
(33%) na 110 
(7%) 
PT 7.765 2.573 
(33%) 691 
(9%) 551 
(7%) 3.950 
(51%) 1.104 
(15%) 4 
(0.05%) 
RO 370 na na na na na 64 
(2%) 
SK 83 na na na na na na 
SV 3 na na na na na 14 
(33%) 
SE 150 na na na na na na 
UK 5.318 na na na na 5.307 
(99,8%) 318 
(0,001%) 
Total9 39.277 
(-6%)10 9.414 10.369 2.670 9.295 9.448 308 
                                                 
7 All percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number 
8 The UK NEB amalgamates in its statistics the correc tive actions that it has taken to resolve a trend of 
non-compliance with EC Regulation 261/2004 with any sanction proceedings it has initiated through the Courts. For the avoidance of doubt the UK NEB initiated no Court sanctions within the period, 
resolving the issues it identified through other means such as corrective guidance and sanction warnings 
9 Percentages for the total could not be calculated. The majority of NEBs could only provide us with the 
total number of complaints received,  but not with the exact  number of delays, cancellations and denied 
boardings. Therefore, calculating the total percentage per type of incident would not be meaningful. 
10 In 2008 NEBs received 6% less comp laints in total compared to 2007 
 
 2.3. Complaint handling 200911 
2009 Complaints 
received in total Delay Cancellation Denied 
Boarding Others Number of 
cases closed Number of cases engaged 
for sanctioning 
AT 856 354 
(41%) 418 
(49%) 15 
(2%) 69 
(8%) 783 
(91%) 0 
BE 530 na na na na na 0 
BG 57 na na na 7 
(12%) 40 
(70%) 0 
CY 108 48 
(44%) 30 
(28%) 13 
(12%) 17 
(16%) 93 
(86%) 0 
CZ 143 34 
(24%) 75 
(52%) 11 
(8%) 23 
(16%) 138 
(97%) 0 
DE 3.060 819 
(27%) 1.821 
(60%) 413 
(13%) 7 
(0.2%) 964 
(32%) 80012 
(26%) 
DK 237 46 
(19%) 155 
(65%) 17 
(7%) 19 
(8%) 125 
(53%) 0 
ET 17 4 
(24%) 11 
(65%) 2 
(12%) 0 na 0 
EL 487 49 
(10%) 292 
(60%)  146 
(30%)  0 na  11 
(2%) 
ES 6.931 2.684 
(39%) 3.152 
(45%) 1.095 
(16%) 0 3.466 
(50%) 60 
(1%)8 
FI 100 19 
(19%) 54 
(54%) 15 
(15%) 12 
(12%) 85 
(85%) 0 
FR 3.073 865 
(28%) 1.716 
(56%) 492 
(16%) na na 9 
(0,003%) 
HU 178 60 
(34%) 113 
(63%) 5 
(3%) na na 17 
(10%) 
IE 311 60 
(2%) 204 
(8%) 44 
(2%) 3 
(0,1%) na 0 
IT 2.625 828 1.331 254 212 na na 
LT 40 20 
(50%) 17 
(43%) 3 
(8%) na 35 0 
LV 62 16 
(26%) 35 
(56%) 9 
(15%) 2 
(3%) 62 1 
(2%) 
LU 15 2 
(13%) 11 
(73%) 2 
(13%) na 15 
(100%) na 
MT na na na na na na na 
NL 749 133 
(10%) 458 
(36%) 82 
(6%) 76 
(6%) na 0 
PL 1.035 63 
(6%) 538 
(52%) 72 
(7%) 362 
(35%) na 129 
(12%) 
PT 7.055 1.387 
(20%) 1.069 
(15%) 386 
(5%) 4.213 
(60%) 2.598 
(37%) 1 
(0%) 
RO 300 8 
(3%) 16 
(5%) 29 
(10%) 247 
(82%) na 1 
(0,3%) 
SK 275 na na na na na na 
SV 26 2 
(8%) 19 
(73%) 5 
(19%) 0 26 
(100%) 8 
(31%) 
SE 124 29 
(23%) 79 
(64%) 16 
(13%) 0 54 
(44%) 0 
UK 4.666 1.345 
(29%) 2.795 
(60%) 483 
(10%) 43 
(1%) na 2813 
(0,001%) 
Total 33.060 
(-16%)14 8.875 
(27%) 14.409 
(44%) 3.609 
(11%) 5.312 
(16%) 8.484 
(26%) 1.075 
(3%) 
                                                 
11 All percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number 
12 Number of opened regulatory offence procedures against airlines, their outcome is still pending 
13 The UK NEB amalgamates in its statistics the correc tive actions that it has taken to resolve a trend of 
non-compliance with EC Regulation 261/2004 with any sanction proceedings it has initiated through 
the Courts. For the avoidance of doubt the UK NEB initiated no Court sanctions within the period, 
resolving the issues it identified through other means such as corrective guidance and sanction warnings 
 
 In 2009 a total of 35.198 complain ts were received. The majority of these complaints (41%) 
were due to cancellations, and 25% were due to delays. Nearly a quarter (24%) of all 
complaints in 2009 were resolved, and in 3% of  cases (1.075) sanctions were issued. Notably 
Spain received the most complaints (9.069), followed by Portugal (7.055) and the UK (4.666). In assessing trends during the period from 2007 to 2009, it is important to note that NEBs 
have been able to provide the Commission with more detailed information in 2009 than in the 
preceding years, and this disparit y in the provision of data will  impact upon the analysis. For 
example in 2008, 13 Member States were unable to  provide figures for the specific type of 
complaint, where as in 2009 only four Member States were still unable to provide this information. As a consequence, it will appe ar as though the number of complaints per 
category have risen when, in fact, this may not be the case. This highlights both the 
importance of collecting comparable data and the commitment of NEBs to improve data collection.  All Member States provided data for the total number of complaints in all years (with the exception of Malta for 2009). The tables indicate that a number of countries have witnessed 
an increase in the total number of complaints received. Notable examples include the 
Netherlands which reported an increase from 279 complaints in 2007 to 749 in 2009.  
 Regarding the number of sanctions, in 2009 1075 cases have been engaged for sanctioning, 
this figure has risen from 308 in 2008. It is likely that the nu mber of these cases in 2009 is 
even higher than the table suggests, since two big aviation markets have not been able to 
provide the relevant data. Notably however ther e has not been a corresp onding rise in the total 
number of complaints. The increase in the pr oportion of cases enga ged for sanctioning is 
likely to be attributed to a significant increase in  Germany from 11 in 2008 to 800 in 2009. It 
is possible that this increase is due to the conc lusion of cases that were initiated in previous 
years. 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
14 In 2009 NEBs received 10% less comp laints in total compared to 2008 
 
 3. Structure of NEBs 
Country Organisation 
Austria Enforcement and complaints : Bundesministerium für Verkehr, 
Innovation und Technologie (Ministr y for Transport, Innovation and 
Technology) 
Belgium Enforcement and complaints: Service Public Fédérale Mobilité et 
Transports (Mobility and Trans port, Federal public service) 
Bulgaria Enforcement and complaints: Главна  Дирекция  "Гражданска  
въздухоплавателна  администрация " (Directorate-General Civil 
Aviation Authority) 
Cyprus Enforcement and complaints: Τµήµα Πολιτικής  Αεροπορίας  
(Department of Civil Aviation) 
Czech Republic Enforcement and complaints: Ú řad pro civilní letectví (Civil Aviation 
Authority) 
Denmark Enforcement and complaints: Trafikstyrelsen (Danish Transport 
Authority) 
Estonia Enforcement and complaints: Tarbijatekaitseamet (Consumer 
Protection Board) 
Finland Enforcement: Kuluttajavirasto, asiamies (Finnish Consumer Agency 
& Ombudsman) Enforcement and Complaints: Liiken teen turvallis uusvirasto TraFi 
(Finnish Transport Safety Agency) Dispute Resolution and Compla ints: Kuluttajariitalautakunta 
(Consumer Disputes Board)
 
France Enforcement and complaints: Direction générale de l'Aviation civile 
(DGAC)  (Civil Aviation Authority) 
Germany Enforcement and complaints: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (Civil Aviation 
Authority)  
Greece Enforcement and complaints: Υπηρεσία  Πολιτικής  
Αεροπορίας  (Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority) 
Hungary Enforcement: Polgári Légiközle kedési Igazgatóság (Civil Aviation 
Authority)  Complaints: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság (Hungarian Authority for Consumer Protection) 
Ireland Enforcement and complaints: Commission for Aviation Regulation 
Italy Enforcement and complaints: Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile 
(ENAC) (Civil Aviation Authority) 
Latvia Enforcement and complaints: Pat ērētāju tiesību aizsardz ības centrs 
(Consumer Rights Protection Centre) 
Lithuania Enforcement and complaints Civilin ės Aviacijos Administracija (Civil 
Aviation Administration) 
Luxembourg Enforcement and complain ts: Ministère de l'Economie et du 
Commerce extérieur (Ministry for th e market and external trade) 
Malta Enforcement and complaints: Department of Civil Aviation 
Netherlands Enforcement and complaints: Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat (Civil 
Aviation Authority) 
Poland Enforcement and complaints: Urz ąd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (Civil 
Aviation Authority) 
Portugal Enforcement and complaints: Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil  
(Civil Aviation Authority) 
 
 Romania Enforcement and complaints: Autoritatea Na ţională pentru Protec ţia 
Consumatorilor (National Author ity for Consumer Protection) 
Slovakia Enforcement and complaints: Slovenská obchodná inšpekcia – 
Ústredný inšpektorát (Slovak Trade Inspection – Central Inspectorate) 
Slovenia Enforcement and complaints: Mi nistrstvo za promet, Direktorat za 
civilno letalstvo (Ministry of Tran sport, Civil Aviation Directorate) 
Spain Enforcement and complaints: Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea 
(AESA) (Air Safety State Agency) 
Sweden Enforcement: Konsumentverket (Swedish Consumer Agency) and 
Konsumentombudsmannen  (Swedish Consumer Ombudsman)  
Complaints and dispute resolution:  Allmänna Reklamationsnämnden 
(National Board for Consumer Complaints)  
UK Enforcement: Civil Aviation Authority 
Complaints: UK Air Transport Users Council 
 
Differences in Member States:  
In 23 Member States both enforcement and compla int handling tasks are the responsibility of 
a single authority; in 18 Member States this is the Civil Aviation Authority or relevant 
Government Ministry; in 3 Member States this is a consumer authority; in Ireland it is the 
responsibility of an independe nt economic regulatory authority ; and in Slovakia these tasks 
are managed by a central trade inspectorate, supp orted by a number of regional inspectorates.  
 In three Member States the enforcement and complaint handling tasks are separated. In two 
Member States (Hungary and the UK) enforcement is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, and complaint handling is carried out by a consumer authority. In one Member 
State (Sweden) there are two separate authorit ies for enforcement and individual complaint 
handling, although both are consumer authoritie s – the Civil Aviation Authority is not 
involved. 
 In one Member State (Finland) the Regulation is implemented by three designated authorities, 
with different but complementary duties and po wers. The Finnish Transport Safety Agency 
handles complaints filed by busin ess travellers and may take ac tions against airlines for not 
fulfilling their obligation under Regulation (EC)  261/2004. The Consumer Disputes Board is 
an independent and impartial a lternative dispute re solution body and issues recommendations 
in disputes between consumers and traders.  The Consumer Agency / Ombudsman does not 
handle individual complaints, it monitors consum ers' position in the market and acts in the 
collective interest of consumers. As an en forcement body, its duty is to ensure that the 
contract terms and general practi ces of airlines are in line wi th their statutory obligations. 
 
 4. Sanctions 
4.1. Legal basis for sanctions 
Country Legislation 
Austria Civil Aviation Act (Federal Law Gazette Nr. 253/1957), paragraph 169 
Belgium Amendment to Articles 32 (on 18 Ju ne 2006) and of Articles 45-51 (on 
22 December 2008) of Law of 27 Ju ne 1937 concerning regulation of 
air navigation 
Bulgaria Civil aviation act of the Re public of Bulgaria, Art. 147b  
Cyprus N213(I)/2002 Civil Aviation Law and Statutory Instrument 283/2005. 
Czech 
Republic The Civil Aviation Act (number 49/1997), and  
The Administrative Code (number 500/2004)  
Denmark Air Navigation Act, Articles 31(a) and 149(11)  
Estonia Aviation Act of Estonia, Article 584  
Finland 
 Finnish Aviation Act (1194/2009), and 
Finnish Conditional Fine Act (1113/1990)  
France Civil Aviation Code, Articles 6 and R 330-20  
Germany Air Traffic Licensing Regulation 
Air Traffic Law Law on Administrative Offences 
Greece Directions of Minister a nd Transport Communications:  
D1/D44137/2978/8-11-2004 D1/D/1333/148/16-1-07 D3/52598/7561/18-12-95 D3/B/47159/9521/15-11-2001 
Hungary Government Decree 25/1999, as amended by Government Decree 
33/2005 Hungarian Consumer Prot ection Act Section 47/C 
Ireland S45A of the Aviation Regul ation Act 2001 (as amended) 
Statutory instrument 274/2005 
Italy Legislative Decree 69/2006 of 27 January 2006 
Latvia Latvian Administrative Viol ations Code, paragraph 155.14 
Lithuania 
 Law on Aviation Number VIII-2066, Article 70, and 
Code of Administrative Violations , and Amendment of Government 
decision No. 285   
Luxembourg Law of 23 April 2008 on sanctions  and violations, Article 9 
Malta Legal Notice 63 of 2005, as amended by Legal Notices 13 and 411 of 
2007 Legal Notice 297 of 2005, as amen ded by Legal Notice 411 of 2007 
Legal Ntoice 205 of 2007, as amended by Legal Notice 411 of 2007 
Netherlands Civil Aviation Act, Articles 11.15 and 11.16 
General Administrative Law Act, chapter 4 
Poland Polish Aviation Act, Article 209b (1-5) and Enclosure No 2 
Administrative Procedure Code  
 
 Portugal Decrees-Law nº 10/2004, of 09.01.2004 and 209/2005, of 29.11.2005 
Decree-Law nº 209/2005 Joint Order 357/2006 
Romania Government Decision no 1912/2006 
Slovakia 
 Act No 128/2002 Coll. on state control of internal market in the 
consumer protection issues, and Act No 250/2007 Coll. on consumer protection 
Slovenia Regulation, Official  Gazette No. 61/2005  
Spain  Regulation 21/2003, July 7th, of Air Security  
Sweden Swedish Aerial Transporta tion Act (2010:510), Section 14 
Marketing Practices Act 
UK The Civil Aviation (Denied Boardi ng, Compensation and Assistance) 
Regulations 2005 
 
 
 4.2. Maximum amount of sanction whic h can be imposed on an airline 
AT up to 22.000 € 
BE Up to 4.000.000 €  
BG up to 1.000 € 
CY Administrative fine of up to 8.543 € or 10% of the total annual turnover 
of the company) 
CZ up to +/- 203.173 € (5.000.000 CZK) 
DE up to 25.000 € 
DK no sanctions imposed yet, so maximum amount unknown 
ET up to 640 € (10.000 EEK) 
EL Between 500 and 3.000 € 
ES up to 4.500.000 € 
FI there is no upper limit 
FR up to 7.500 € 
HU Between 15.000 and 2 billion HUF (55 – 7.150.000 €) 
IE NEB cannot sanction directly, it is  a criminal based system and the 
passenger has to go to court which ca n hold the airline liable and impose 
a fine of up to 150.000 € 
IT Between 5.000 and 50.000 € 
LT Between 1.000 and 3.000 Litas (290 – 870 €) 
LV up to 999 € 
LU between 251 and 50.000 € 
MT up to 2.329 € per complaint 
NL punitive sanction can be up to 74.000 € per infringement 
PL maximum amount is variable and depends on the infringement 
PT up to 250.000 € 
RO up to 583 € (2.500 Lei) 
SK between 3.319 and 66.000 € 
SV up to 33.383 € 
SE financial penalty between 43.000 and 53.000 € (400.000 and 500.000 
Swedish Crowns); if the case is taken to court, it can impose a fine of up 
to 106.700 € (1.000.000 SEK) 
UK Non compliance with the Regulation is  a criminal offence and subject to 
a fine of up to 5851€ (5.000 GBP)