Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on the operation and the results of this Regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights {SEC(2007) 426}
Date: 2007-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, air transport, carrier, common transport policy, consumer protection, indemnification, ticket

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.4.2007 
COM(2007) 168 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 

on the operation and the results of this Regulation establishing common rules on 
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of 
cancellation or long delay of flights 

{SEC(2007) 426} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 3 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3 

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 4 

MAIN OBJECTIVES AND PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION....................... 4 

4.1 

Quantitative evidence of impact................................................................................... 4 

4.1.1.  Denied Boarding – Overbooking ................................................................................. 5 

4.1.2.  Cancellations – Delays................................................................................................. 5 

4.1.3.  Complaints to National Enforcement Bodies (NEB) and the Commission ................. 5 

4.1.4.  Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 5 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

7.5. 

8. 

REGULATION (EC) No 261/2004 INTRODUCED NEW RULES IN RELATION 
TO DENIED BOARDING, CANCELLATIONS AND LONG DELAYS................. 6 

Denied Boarding – Overbooking ................................................................................. 6 

Cancellation.................................................................................................................. 6 

Re-routing .................................................................................................................... 7 

Delays and Assistance.................................................................................................. 7 

Information................................................................................................................... 8 

ENFORCEMENT BY THE NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT BODIES (NEB).......... 8 

Structure of National Enforcement Bodies .................................................................. 9 

Independence of National Enforcement Bodies........................................................... 9 

Imposition of sanctions ................................................................................................ 9 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ANALYSIS................................................................... 9 

Improve enforcement ................................................................................................... 9 

Clarify interpretation of those aspects of the Regulation which are unclear ............. 10 

Establish clarity between delays and cancellations.................................................... 10 

Establish guidelines on 'Exceptional Circumstances'................................................. 10 

Enhance the role of the NEB...................................................................................... 11 

OPERATIONAL CONCLUSIONS........................................................................... 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 

on the operation and the results of this Regulation establishing common rules on 
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of 
cancellation or long delay of flights 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

On  11  February  2004,  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  adopted  jointly  the 
Regulation  establishing  common  rules  on  compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  the 
event of denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of flights1,2. 

Article  17  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  provides  for  a  report  to  be  submitted  by  the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation and the results of 
this Regulation. 

This  Communication  provides  the  report  required  under  Article  17  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
261/2004. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION 

Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  introduced  new  rules  on  compensation  and  assistance  for  air 
passengers  in  the  event  of  denied  boarding,  cancellations,  long  delays  and  involuntary 
downgrading. Depending on the circumstances, the Regulation requires airlines to:  

–  provide  passengers  with  assistance  such  as  accommodation,  refreshments,  meals  and 

communication facilities; 

–  offer re-routing and refunds; 

–  pay compensation of up to € 600 per passenger; and 

–  proactively inform passengers about their rights under the Regulation. 

The Regulation also requires Member States to set up enforcement bodies with the ability to 
impose dissuasive sanctions. 

It applies to all flights from and within the European Union and to flights from outside the EU 
to an airport situated in the EU operated by EU-registered carriers. 

1 

2 

OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1. 
IP/05/181 of 16 February 2005. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Regulation  was  strongly  opposed  by  many  airlines,  particularly  a  number  of  low  cost 
operators. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the European Low Fares 
Airlines Association (ELFAA) challenged the Regulation in the High Court of England and 
Wales,  and  the  case  was  subsequently  referred  to  the  European  Court  of  Justice  (ECJ). 
However, the ECJ rejected the airlines’ appeal in January 20063. 

The  Commission  has  organised  three  separate  meetings  with  the  National  Enforcement 
Bodies (NEB) which were designated by the Member States in accordance with Article 16 of 
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The Regulation is silent on the definition of competences and 
tasks to be accomplished by these enforcement authorities. 

Following  these  meetings,  the  Commission  remains  in  contact  with  the  NEB  on  the 
development of an information document on the application of the Regulation. 

3. 

METHODOLOGY 

In order to have independent and unbiased quantitative and qualitative data on the application 
of  this  Regulation,  the  Commission  contracted  an  external  consultant4.  One  of  the  most 
important  characteristics  of  this  study  was  the  broad  and  intensive  consultation  of  as  many 
stakeholders as possible, including consumer associations and passenger federations. 

The objective of the study was to assess the extent to which airlines are complying with the 
Regulation,  to  investigate  whether  the  enforcement  process  is  working  and  to  examine 
possible amendments to the Regulation. In order to do this, four different main work streams 
were undertaken: desk research, interviews with stakeholders, a survey of actual air journeys 
and  a  legal  review.  This  study  has  provided  substantial  input  for  the  preparation  of  this 
Communication. 

4. 

MAIN OBJECTIVES AND PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION 

The main objective of the Regulation is to improve the situation of passengers if their journey 
is disrupted. It sets out minimum rights for passengers to be respected by any airline, as the 
inconveniences suffered by passengers are comparable when stranded at an airport, whether 
that airport is a hub5 or  a regional airport and whether passengers  fly first  class  or at a low 
fare. 

4.1 

Quantitative evidence of impact 

The objective of this Communication is to assess the degree to which airlines are complying 
with  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  and  to  investigate  whether  enforcement  procedures  are 
working  properly.  The  following  chapters  analyse  whether  the  existence  of  the  new 
Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  has  had  a  quantitative  impact  in  reducing  cases  of  denied 
boarding, cancellations and delays. 

3 

4 

5 

Case C-344/04: 
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79939889C19040344&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET 
OJ S 36-038536, 22.2.2006. 
HUB is an airport that an airline uses as a transfer point to get passengers to their intended destination. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
4.1.1.  Denied Boarding – Overbooking 

There are no publicly available statistics on denied boarding and downgrading of passengers 
for European carriers. Air carriers have been asked to provide information on this issue but, 
with  two  exceptions,  they  have  all  refused,  stating  that  this  aspect  is  part  of  an  individual 
commercial business strategy. 

4.1.2.  Cancellations – Delays 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  a  flight  has  been  delayed  or  cancelled,  as  airlines  might 
apply a different approach to the classification of delays and cancellations, thereby affecting 
the payment of financial compensation. In addition, the most comparable cancellation data are 
provided from airlines through their own associations, but there is no independent, definitive 
source of data available. 

Eurocontrol publishes regular information on delays and the main causes for these delays6. It 
shows that almost 70% of delays are caused by airline- and airport-related operations. 

A concern has been expressed by some that airlines may be reclassifying cancellations as long 
delays  in  order  to  avoid  claims  for  compensation  payments.  If  airlines  were  to  transform 
cancellations  into  long  delays  out  of  economic  interests  in  an  attempt  not  to  pay  financial 
compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, a drop in the number of cancellations and 
a  corresponding  increase  in  the  number  of  long  delays  might  have  been  expected  after  the 
Regulation was introduced. 

There  is  no  detectable  evidence  of  any  such  trend,  although  there  is  no  guarantee  that  the 
classification of delays and cancellations used in statistics is the same as that used by airlines 
when deciding what compensation to provide under the Regulation. 

4.1.3..  Complaints to National Enforcement Bodies (NEB) and the Commission 

Although little statistical evidence is available, there is anecdotal evidence that airlines have 
not  always  complied  with  the  Regulation.  This  is  indicated  by  the  air  passenger  complaints 
sent  to  the  NEB  and  to  the  Commission.  These  complaints  statistics  are  not  statistically 
representative  but  they  give  an  insight  into  airline  behaviour  and  show  some  interesting 
trends. The overall number of complaints received by the different instances might also give 
indication about a growing awareness amongst passengers about their rights. 

4.1.4.  Conclusions 

As Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 has been in force only for two years, it is difficult to assess 
whether  it  has  had  any  quantitative  effect  in  changing  the  overall  level  of  denied  boarding, 
delays/cancellations, or in changing the classification of cancellations to delays. Although, in 
some cases, there may have been a switch from involuntary to voluntary denied boarding as a 
result of the requirement to call for volunteers. 

This conclusion does not necessarily mean that the situation of passengers has not improved 
on a qualitative level, as airlines have indeed been making progress in their efforts to improve 
passenger treatment within the framework of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. Over the last two 

6 

http://www.eurocontrol.int/eCoda/portal 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
years, airlines have shown that they are capable of managing some major incidents at airports 
by providing passengers with assistance. 

The  number  of  complaints,  still  being  limited,  is  not  an  indicator  revealing  the  quality  of 
service rendered to the passengers. However, the evolution in time of those complaints may 
become  an  appropriate  indicator  uncovering  improvement  or  degradation  of  passenger 
treatment. The Commission will therefore dedicate special attention to this issue. 

5. 

REGULATION 
(EC)  NO  261/2004  INTRODUCED  NEW  RULES  IN 
RELATION  TO  DENIED  BOARDING,  CANCELLATIONS  AND  LONG 
DELAYS 

The following chapters analyse whether air carriers comply with these rules and whether they 
respect the rights of air passengers. 

5.1. 

Denied Boarding – Overbooking 

The rules relating to denied boarding appear largely to be observed by the majority of airlines 
and  thus  give  little  cause  for  concern.  Indeed,  the  former  'Denied  Boarding'  Regulation7 
dating from 1991 seems to have found its way into a commonly adopted commercial airline 
policy  to  which  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  added  the  provision  to  call  for  volunteers. 
However,  passengers  still  report  cases  of  denied  boarding  without  any  initial  call  for 
volunteers. 

Denied  boarding  because  of  commercial  overbooking  is  mostly  solved  quickly  on  the  spot. 
The obligation to call for volunteers seems to have created more flexibility for passengers and 
airlines. 

In  more  complex  cases  involving,  for  example,  inappropriate  travel  documents,  missed 
connection flights or late check-in, the ability of passengers to claim their rights depends on 
the airline's assessment of the situation on site at the time of check-in or boarding. 

5.2. 

Cancellation 

Within  the  legal  framework  of  financial  compensation  to  be  paid  to  passengers  for  the 
cancellation  of  a  flight,  airlines  can  invoke  extraordinary  circumstances  if  a  flight  is 
cancelled8 and thus be waived from this obligation. Recital 14 cites five potential examples of 
extraordinary  circumstances  –  political  instability,  meteorological  conditions  incompatible 
with  the  operation  of  the  flight,  security,  unexpected  flight  safety  shortcomings  and  strikes. 
Recital 15 mentions delays to flights by an aircraft resulting from an air traffic management 
decision earlier in the day. 

In  practice,  experience  has  shown  that,  in  most  cases,  airlines  invoke  these  extraordinary 
circumstances when facing a cancellation. In 2005, the Commission advised all Community 
carriers  that  such  a  practice  cannot  be  abused9.  However,  airlines  argue  that  they  have  no 

7 

8 

9 

Regulation  (EEC)  No  295/91  of  4  February  1991  establishing  common  rules  for  a  denied-boarding 
compensation system in scheduled air transport (OJ L 36, 8.2.1991). 
Recitals 14 and 15 and Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. 
DG TREN, correspondence of 10 March 2005, D(2005)104765. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
interest  in  any  voluntary  cancelling  of  flights,  as  this  would  have  a  negative  commercial 
impact. 

This force majeure provision allows an air carrier to exclude financial compensation in cases 
where “an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been 
avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”. One of the main problems has been 
the interpretation of this clause. Passengers themselves, of course, would not want air safety 
to  be  compromised  but  the  suspicion  remains  that  the  'exceptional  circumstances'  card  is 
played  too  often  by  airlines  in  order  to  avoid  paying  compensation  for  which  no  payment 
deadline is foreseen in the Regulation. 

This  matter  covers  a  large  proportion  of  all  claims  submitted  by  passengers  to  airlines,  the 
NEB and the Commission, although it only concerns a limited part of the Regulation. Not all 
NEB seem to be challenging air carriers on this issue. This leaves passengers with little choice 
but to accept the decision of the air carrier, or to take legal action. 

5.3. 

Re-routing 

In  the  event  of  denied  boarding  and  cancellations,  the  Regulation  obliges  airlines  to  offer 
passengers  a  choice  between  a  refund  or  re-routing.  In  practice,  when  some  airlines  cannot 
provide  an  alternative  flight  on  their  own  aircraft,  they  only  offer  the  passenger  a  refund. 
The  Regulation  itself  does  not  specify  whether airlines  should  re-route  passengers  via  other 
carriers or by surface transport if there is no alternative flight available on their own aircraft. 
The  concept  of  'comparable  transport  conditions'  is  open  to  diverging  interpretations. 
The  'network  airlines'10  generally  have  reciprocal  agreements  enabling  them  to  re-route 
passengers via other carriers if necessary, at a reasonable price. 

Low  cost  airlines  do  not  have  equivalent  agreements  and  they  appear  to  be  unwilling  to 
organise  re-routing  through  other  carriers,  leaving  passengers  stranded  for  days  at  regional 
airports. In these cases, some airlines reportedly refuse to provide appropriate assistance and 
hotel accommodation, or even to refund passengers. 

5.4. 

Delays and Assistance 

When  a  flight  disruption  causes  passengers  to  be  at  least  two  hours  late,  the  airline  has  to 
provide appropriate assistance in order to minimise discomfort. This should be in the form of 
drinks, meals, communication facilities and hotel accommodation, if necessary. 

Low cost carriers, usually operating from regional airports, often struggle with the obligation 
to provide assistance. In fact, the limited accommodation available at those airports (catering 
services, hotels, etc.) does not always permit these airlines to organise assistance properly. 

In  many  cases,  this  assistance  is  not  spontaneously  provided  or  not  given  at  all.  Airlines 
sometimes  even  seek  to  invoke force  majeure  although  the  Regulation  does  not  provide  for 
this  kind  of  exemption.  Air  carriers  are  bound  to  inform  passengers  of  their  rights  and  to 
provide assistance. 

The  provision  of  assistance  may  become  difficult  if,  for  example,  hotel  rooms  in  the 
surrounding  airport  area  are  no  longer  available  because  of  a  lengthy  strike  or  exceptional 

10 

Structures that express strategic choices made by airlines to serve or not to serve given airports. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
meteorological  conditions  or  if  catering  services  are  not  available  on  the  airport  premises. 
Nevertheless, the Regulation does not distinguish between airports according to their size or 
location. 

Under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 there is no definition of delays. There is some confusion 
concerning airlines' obligations towards passengers during long delays of over 24 hours and 
this could become an important source of conflict. 

Minimum  entitlements  for  stranded  passengers  are  defined  and  airlines  operating  from 
regional airports should take special measures to comply with them. Whether flying first class 
or  low  cost,  the  inconveniences  suffered  by  passengers  are  comparable  and  should  be 
addressed as defined in the Regulation. 

5.5. 

Information 

Overall, airlines’ terms and contract conditions are broadly consistent with the Regulation, but 
some  airlines  provide  a  general  statement  (sometimes  misleading  and  inaccurate)  when 
addressing  points  of  the  Regulation  in  their  terms  and  conditions.  It  would  help  passengers 
(and NEB) if a contact person of the airlines would be indicated on the information provided 
by the airlines. 

Airlines have to proactively inform passengers about their rights by way of a sign at check-in 
and  by  means  of  a  written  document  to  passengers  facing  a  delay  of  at  least  two  hours11. 
In many airports, these signs are not available and, in some cases, the written notice is not at 
hand when requested. The entitlement to information is instrumental and should be honoured 
by all parties concerned. 

6. 

ENFORCEMENT BY THE NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT BODIES (NEB) 

As the Regulation does not define in detail the competences and tasks to be accomplished by 
the NEB, passengers are faced with inconsistent application and enforcement of their rights. 
Passengers  filing  a  complaint  often  have  to  wait  a  very  long  time  before  receiving  any 
feedback or they are confronted with a language problem when submitting a claim in another 
Member State where the flight disruption took place. 

Passengers bring cases to the attention of the Commission where the NEB confirm that the air 
carrier is in breach of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, but that they will not take any further 
action to enforce the law or sanction the airline. 

The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings12 against the United Kingdom on the 
basis  of  Articles  16(1)  and  16(2)  with  a  background  of  Article  12  of  the  Treaty13.  The  Air 
Transport  Users  Council  (AUC),  the  designated  complaints  handling  body,  prioritises 
complaints of UK citizens and/or flights contracted on UK territory. 

11 

12 

13 

Recital 20 and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. 
Case 2322/2006. 
Article  12:  "Within  the  scope  of  application  of  this  Treaty,  and  without  prejudice  to  any  special 
provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. … ". 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the meantime, because progress through the enforcement authorities can be slow, the first 
cases of private legal actions have been launched. 

6.1. 

Structure of National Enforcement Bodies 

In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  the  organisation  responsible  for  complaint  handling  and 
enforcement of the Regulation is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). 

There  are  significant  differences  in  the  enforcement  process  between  Member  States. 
The most effective appear to be Denmark and Belgium. 

There  is  substantial  variation  in  the  level  of  resources  that  NEB  have,  and  even  some 
relatively well-resourced NEB considered that they did not have enough resources to handle 
the number of complaints that they were receiving. In some Member States, the NEB does not 
appear to investigate complaints in detail. 

6.2. 

Independence of National Enforcement Bodies 

In  almost  all  cases,  NEB  state  that  they  are  independent  from  the  aviation  industry.  The 
powers NEB have to take action on individual complaints are variable. Although NEB may 
have  the  power  to  fine  an  airline,  they  rarely  have  the  power  to  impose  payment  of 
compensation in individual cases. 

6.3. 

Imposition of sanctions 

Article  16  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  requires  that  enforcement  bodies  have  the 
obligation  to  impose  effective,  dissuasive  and  proportionate  sanctions.  There  is  significant 
variation in the scale of the penalties that NEB can impose. 

There is an important legal difference between the types of sanctions that can be applied in 
Member  States.  In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  any  sanction  issued  for  non-compliance 
with  the  Regulation  would  be  an  administrative  penalty,  usually  issued  by  the  CAA  and 
subject to appeal to a civil court. However, in Denmark, Belgium and the UK, penalties would 
be applied under criminal law and therefore a higher standard of proof would be necessary. In 
Belgium, the law also allows for the relevant airline staff to be imprisoned for a period of up 
to 1 year for non-compliance with the Regulation. 

7. 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ANALYSIS 

After  more  than  two  years  of  application  of  the  Regulation,  progress  has  been  made  but 
substantial  improvement  is  necessary  if  more  consistent  application  of  the  rules  by  airlines 
and  more  consistent  enforcement  of  the  rules  by  the  Member  States  are  to  be  achieved. 
In contrast with the past, stranded passengers now have specific rights, but too often they are 
in a weak position compared to the airlines. 

To address the issues for improvement, the Commission considers work in a number of areas 
to be necessary. 

7.1. 

Improve enforcement 

Enforcement of the Regulation can be improved in a number of ways. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The Commission needs to enhance cooperation with and between the NEB in order to ensure 
an  appropriate  level  of  service  to  the  public  and  better  cooperation  as  a  network.  At  a  later 
stage, cooperation between the NEB might take the form of a 'Code of Good Practice' dealing 
with issues not addressed by the Regulation such as: the timescale for complaint submission 
by passengers and the replies delivered by NEB, the conditions under which complaints can 
be referred between NEB and the languages acceptable for referred complaints as well as the 
improvement of the quality of statistics. 

The Commission has the option of bringing infringement proceedings against Member States 
where  enforcement  appears  to  be  ineffective,  which  may  lead  to  distortions  of  competition 
between airlines. 

7.2. 

Clarify interpretation of those aspects of the Regulation which are unclear 

these  have 

The Commission will seek to clarify those aspects of the Regulation which are perceived as 
unclear,  particularly  where 
enforcement. 
In particular, the Commission intends to issue a Communication setting out its interpretation 
of  the  Regulation  after  consulting  with  the  NEB.  It  is  expected  that  such  Communication, 
while  not  being  legally  binding,  will  carry  significant  weight  with  airlines,  facilitate  the 
enforcement  process  and  also  make  it  easier  for  consumers  to  understand  their  rights  under 
the Regulation. 

created  difficulties  with 

7.3. 

Establish clarity between delays and cancellations 

At present, passengers, NEB and even airlines have difficulty differentiating between delays 
and  cancellations  and  whether  a  delay  of  24  hours,  for  example,  is  to  be  catalogued  as  a 
cancellation or as a long delay. There are situations where air carriers have 'postponed' flights 
for 48 hours (as a 'delay'), whereas, in reality, the flight was 'cancelled' because of technical 
problems, in which case they avoid potential claims for compensation from passengers. 

It would be helpful to discuss with airlines and NEB more precise criteria for differentiating 
between  delays  and  cancellations.  It  would  also  be  useful  to  improve  collection  of  data  to 
ensure  that  the  status  of  a  flight  is  clearly  recorded  both  for  purposes  of  enforcement  of 
passenger rights and for better monitoring of overall service quality in the industry. 

7.4. 

Establish guidelines on 'Exceptional Circumstances' 

Exceptional circumstances seem to provide a source of persistent dispute between passengers, 
airlines and NEB. Assessment of such claims for cancelled flights accounts for about 30% of 
all  complaints  and  takes  up  more  than  70%  of  the  resources  of  national  authorities.  As  it 
stands at present, the Regulation makes no provision for financial compensation for delays. 

If a number of cases could be investigated in depth by NEB, this could provide guidance for 
the future, but the NEB are not in a position to make a detailed examination of most of the 
complaints  they  receive  about  'exceptional  circumstances'.  It  might  be  useful  to  enter  into  a 
more  detailed  discussion  with  the  NEB  and  all  interested  parties.  On  the  basis  of  such 
discussions,  the  Commission  will  consider  whether  to  issue,  in  an  appropriate  form,  broad 
guidelines at least for the interpretation of 'exceptional circumstances'. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
7.5. 

Enhance the role of the NEB 

Given  developments  in  passenger  rights  for  other  modes  of  transport14,  setting-up  different 
NEB  for  different  modes  of  transport  once  passenger  rights  have  been  created  in  all  areas 
might be inefficient. The concept of ECC15 (European Consumer Centres), which are already 
dealing with cross-border (international nature of transport) complaints, could be an approach 
to help NEB in their day-to-day tasks. In addition, complaints could be centralised in this type 
of  structure  thereby  ensuring  that  complaints  handling  is  harmonised  with  no  conflict  of 
interest. It would also facilitate statistical follow up and monitoring (centralised), emphasising 
once  more  the  horizontal  and  harmonised  approach  to  passenger  rights  for  each  mode  of 
transport. 

If  there  is  a  breach  of  the  new  Regulation,  the  ECC  concerned  could  then  forward  the 
complaint to the appropriate Civil Aviation Authority or to a national ministry for legal action 
against the air carrier. 

8. 

OPERATIONAL CONCLUSIONS 

There are two main reasons why there have been difficulties with the Regulation in practice: 

–  imprecise text in the Regulation in certain areas, 

–  ineffective enforcement in some Member States. 

–  Clarification of provisions 

The Commission will continue discussions with NEB and all interested parties on the day-to-
day  application  of  concepts  that  are  currently  the  cause  of  dispute,  such  'exceptional 
circumstances' and the right to re-routing. 

–  Clearer Recording of Cancellations and Delays 

The Commission will discuss with the industry and the NEB how better information could be 
collected on the status of flights (completed on time, delayed or cancelled) and relayed to the 
NEB  in  order  to  improve  assessment  of  the  rights  of  passengers  making  claims  under  the 
Regulation and to improve data on the overall quality of service in the industry. 

–  Limited Enforcement by NEB 

The Commission will intensify cooperation with the NEB in order to address shortcomings. 
The  objective  remains  to  establish  proactive,  harmonised  enforcement  regimes  resulting  in 
effective outcomes for consumers throughout the EU. 

Over  the  next  six  months16,  the  Commission  will  organise  as  many  meetings  as  may  be 
needed with the NEB to tighten up and strengthen enforcement procedures. 

14 

15 
16 

Taken  up  in  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council: 
'Strengthening passenger rights within the European Union' - COM(2005) 46, 16.2.2005. 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress/ecc_network/index_en.htm (DG SANCO) 
Starting from the day of the adoption of this Communication. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  will  consider  intensifying  infringement  proceedings  against  Member 
States where, after that six month period, enforcement regimes do not appear to be effective 
and dissuasive as required by Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. 

–  Full application of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 

During  the  coming  six  months,  the  Commission  will  examine,  at  airports,  whether  airlines 
provide  passengers  with  the  information,  assistance  and  compensation  as  required  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004.  In  particular,  the  Commission  will  check  whether  the 
information  boards  at  check-in  and  the  written  notices  in  cases  of  flight  disruptions  are 
available and handed out.  

–  Better information towards passengers 

In  order  to  improve  the  information  available  on  air  passenger  rights,  the  Commission  will 
provide updated information material to the public before the summer of 2007. 

–  Possible amendment of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 

The Commission considers that a period of stability is required in the current system to allow 
NEB, airlines, Member States and the Commission itself to develop practical, consistent and 
understandable application of the Regulation that will secure the rights of airline passengers. 

It  will  work  with  all  interested  parties  to  improve  clarity,  implementation  and  enforcement. 
Only  if  these  contacts  fail  to  reach  a  satisfactory  result  will  the  Commission  consider  an 
amendment  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  to  ensure  that  passengers'  rights  are  fully 
respected. 

EN 

12 

   EN