Communication from the Commission Communication on the scope of the liability of air carriers and airports in the event of destroyed, damaged or lost mobility equipment of passengers with reduced mobility when travelling by air. (Text with EEA-relevance)
Date: 2008-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, airport, indemnification, liability, personal effects, transport accident

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 7.8.2008 
COM(2008) 510 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Communication on the scope of the liability of air carriers and airports in the event of 
destroyed, damaged or lost mobility equipment of passengers with reduced mobility 
when travelling by air.  

Text with EEA-relevance 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Communication on the scope of the liability of air carriers and airports in the event of 
destroyed, damaged or lost mobility equipment of passengers with reduced mobility 
when travelling by air.  

Text with EEA-relevance 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

On 5 July 2006, the Council and the European Parliament adopted the Regulation 1107/2006 
concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling 
by air1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation"). The overall objective of the Regulation is 
to ensure that disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility (hereinafter referred to 
as PRM) are not discriminated against when travelling by air. On 30 November 2005, in the 
course of the political negotiation process on the Commission proposal, and in relation to the 
future Article 12 concerning 'Compensation for lost or damaged wheelchairs, other mobility 
equipment and assistive devices', the Commission presented an statement for the minutes2, in 
which  the  Commission  committed  to  launch  an  study  and  to  report  on  it,  regarding  the 
possibility of enhancing the existing rights under Community, national or international law of 
air passengers whose wheelchairs or other mobility equipment are destroyed, damaged or lost 
during handling at an airport or during transport on-board aircraft. 

The Commission published a contract notice3 for a "Study on the compensation thresholds for 
damaged or lost equipment and devices belonging to air passengers with reduced mobility" 
(hereinafter referred as to "the  Study"), which is  available on the Commission website. The 
purpose of this Communication is to report on the outcome of the study and the possibility to 
enhance existing rights. 

2. 

THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM. 

“Damaged or lost luggage is annoying. Damaged or lost mobility equipment can destroy the 
whole journey and complicate life considerably for a long time. It is a loss of independence 
and dignity4.” 

A  significant  proportion  of  the  current  EU  population  has  mobility  problems  which  include 
needing a wheelchair other mobility equipment or assistive devices (hereinafter referred to as 
"mobility equipment"). The proportion of PRM within the population is likely to increase as 
the EU population ages. 

The Commission does not wish to reproduce in this Communication the data already provided 
in the study, which should be read as a complement to this Communication. Nevertheless, on 

1 
2 
3 
4 

OJ L 204/1 of 26.07.2006 
Council working document nº 15206/05 ( COD 2005/007). 
Contract notice 2006/S 111-118193 of 14.06.2006 
From a PRM association's answer to the consultants. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
the basis of those data, the Commission notes that there are clear indications that passengers 
with  reduced  mobility  who  require  mobility  equipment,  are  travelling  by  air  less  than  the 
general population. It is quite likely that fear of loss, damage or destruction of their mobility 
equipment is a contributory factor in deterring them from travelling and, therefore, preventing 
their integration in society. This fear is based on several objective reasons: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

The  loss  or  damage  of  wheelchairs  or  other  mobility  equipment  takes  away  the 
independence of the PRM and affects every aspect of their daily lives until the matter 
is properly resolved. 

PRM face risks to their health and safety if their mobility equipment is lost, damaged 
or  destroyed,  as  replacements  are  not  always  provided  and,  even  when  provided, 
replacements are not always suitable for the person’s needs. 

The  time  taken  by  airlines  or  airports  to  resolve  practical  problems  presented  by  the 
damage or loss of mobility equipment is inappropriate given the urgency of the need. 

The existing procedures and the average training level of the staff of most airlines and 
airports  regarding  how  to  act  when  confronted  with  a  loss  or  damage  of  mobility 
equipment are deficient. 

The  financial  implications  of  the  loss,  damage  or  destruction  of  mobility  equipment 
present  an  additional  risk  for  PRM  when  travelling  by  air  in  comparison  with  other 
passengers. 

The  provision  of  compensation  for  damaged,  destroyed  or  lost  mobility  equipment 
varies from air carrier to air carrier, and for airports 

3. 

OUTCOME OF THE STUDY: THE CHALLENGES 

The actual number of accidents per year and per company involving incidents with mobility 
equipment  is  very  low.  The  total  number  of  relevant  complaints  is  somewhere  in  the  range 
between 600 and 1000 cases per year, compared to 706 million air passengers carried per year 
in  the  European  Union5.  That  means  a  ratio  between  less  than  one  and  one  and  a  half 
complaints as a maximum in a million of passengers. 

The  study  analyses  both  the  experience  in  the  USA  and  the  situation  in  Europe.  The  two 
analysis  provide  a  reasonable  basis  for  believing  that  this  estimate  is  close  to  the  actual 
number. The study has also concluded that there are a number of outstanding issues regarding 
both  the  quantitative  aspects  and  the  qualitative  aspects  of  the  problem  worth  to  be 
highlighted: 

3.1. 

Quantitative objective: to reduce the number of incidents 

The number of events of destroyed, damages or lost mobility equipment of PRM is linked to 
the  correct  handling  and  stowage  of  mobility  equipment  onboard  aircraft  and  storage  at 
airports  is  a  fundamental  part  of  the  conditions  of  transport  of  PRM  in  order  to  meet  their 
needs,  and  a  skill  for  which  staff  must  be  properly  trained.  The  objective  should  remain  to 
allow  the  PRM  to  use  her/his  personal  device  as  long  as  possible.  Ideally,  the  mobility 

5 

705.8 million air passengers carried in the EU in 2005. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
equipment should be handed over by the PRM and back to him at the door of the aircraft in all 
those  cases  where  the  PRM  cannot  use  their  own  mobility  equipment  onboard.  Other 
procedures may be set up when required for safety, security or practical reasons. 

The attachment to the 2001 Airline Passenger Service Commitment6, signed by the majority 
of European national carriers (hereinafter referred as to the Airline Commitment) states that 
signatory  airlines  must  take  all  reasonable  steps  to  avoid  loss  or  damage  to  mobility 
equipment or other disability assistive devices; they will develop their own individual service 
plans  incorporating  the  Airline  Commitment;  They  will  establish  staff  training  programmes 
and introduce changes to their computer systems to implement the Airline Commitment; and 
that "PRM must be enabled to remain independent to the greatest possible extent".  

The Airport Voluntary Commitment on Air Passenger Service (hereinafter referred to as "the 
Airport  Commitment"),  developed  by  European  airports  under  the  auspices  of  Airports 
Council  International  Europe7  states  that  "Staff  will  be  given  appropriate  training  in 
understanding and meeting the needs of PRMs". The aim for the signatories was to develop 
their  own  individual  service  plans  on  the  basis  of  the  Commitment  and  to  incorporate  the 
appropriate  provisions  of  the  European  Civil  Aviation  Conference  (ECAC)  Document  30 
(Section 5)8, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation9 (ICAO Annex 9). 

Point  5.2.3.2  of  ECAC  document  3010  states  that  "Member  States  should  promote  the 
distribution  of  a  booklet  to  airline  and  airport  operator  personnel  on  procedures  and 
facilities  to  be  provided  to  assist  PRM,  which  would  contain  all  the  necessary  information 
concerning the conditions of transport of such persons and the assistance to be provided to 
them,  as  well  as  the  steps  to  be  taken  by  them.  They  should  ensure  that  airlines  include  in 
their  manuals  all  procedures  concerning  PRM".  Point  5.5  of  the  same  document  says 
"Member  States  should  ensure  the  provision  at  airports  of  a  ground  handling  service  for 
PRMs  comprising:  staff  trained  and  qualified  to  meet  their  needs  (…)  the  appropriate 
equipment to assist them." 

However,  those  voluntary  agreements  are  not  always  properly  honoured.  Firstly,  few 
companies  and  airports  in  the  EU  have  actually  developed  their  own  plans  or  customer 
policies  to  implement  those  voluntary  agreements.  Secondly,  those  that  have  done  so  have 
adopted such different plans or policies that they result in widely differing levels of protection 
for PRM. Thirdly, those plans and customer policies are not always published, which makes it 
very difficult for PRM to know what to expect in advance.  

In  the  context  of  the  Airport  Commitment,  the  majority  of  airports  spontaneously  provide 
assistance to passengers with reduced mobility. However, the procedures whereby the PRM is 
allowed  to  get  to  the  door  of  the  aircraft  in  their  own  wheelchair,  or  receive  their  own 
wheelchair on arrival, vary from airport to airport 

6 
7 

8 

9 

10 

The Airline Passenger Service Commitment: see article 8 and attachment 
ACI Europe (2001), Airport Voluntary Commitment on Air Passenger Service and its Special Protocol 
to Meet the Needs of People with Reduced Mobility. 
ECAC Policy Statement in the Field of Civil Aviation Facilitation (ECAC.CEAC DOC No. 30 (PART 
I) 10th Edition/December 2006 
Standards and Recommended Practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (Annex 9 of the 
Chicago Convention). 
See footnote 8. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

Qualitative objective: to minimise the consequences of an incident. 

3.2.1.  The current lack of a common procedure leading to immediate solutions on the spot. 

The extent of damage sustained to mobility equipment can have serious implications not just 
because of its cost. The issue is also about both the time during which the PRM will be unable 
to  use  their  equipment,  and  the  long  period  until  compensation  is  finally  paid  to  them.  The 
difficulties of establishing where to send complaints about damage and appeals for assistance 
on  arrival,  in  what  is  often  an  unfamiliar  airport,  adds  to  the  time  and  stress  involved  in 
finding  even  a  temporary  solution  to  the  practical  problems  of  everyday  life  when  without 
mobility equipment. 

There are currently no international, Community or national legislation on offering immediate 
assistance to PRM whose mobility equipment has been lost, damaged or destroyed, or on how 
this  immediate  assistance  should  be  provided,  or  what  are  the  essential  aspects  of  such 
assistance. 

The Airline Commitment, does not give details of how related claims for compensation are to 
be dealt with or what action should be taken on the spot when a wheelchair or other mobility 
equipment is damaged or lost.  

The  majority  of  airports  do  not  have  a  policy  regarding  claims  for  damaged  or  destroyed 
wheelchairs  or  mobility  equipment.  The  provision  of  compensation  and  the  procedures  by 
which airports provide a replacement vary from airport to airport despite the existence of the 
Airport  Commitment11.  This  may  result  in  gaps  and  inconsistencies  regarding  replacement 
and  compensation  for  PRM  whose  equipment  was  destroyed  or  damaged  during  the  time 
when  the  airport  is  in  charge.  This  certainly  results  in  uncertainty  and  confusion  for  PRM, 
who never know how to act or to whom they should turn in the event of an accident involving 
their mobility equipment. 

3.2.2.  The  difference  between  the  nature  and  the  limits  of  the  liability  of  airlines  and  the 

liability of airports.  

Traditionally there has been a difference between the nature and the limits of the liability of 
the airlines and the airports. This difference may cause confusion among stakeholders. 

3.2.2.1.  Transport of equipment on board an aircraft (airline liability) 

Currently,  assistance  to  PRM  is  provided  by  air  carriers  in  the  framework  of  the  ground-
handling. Air carriers can provide the assistance either directly, through a third company or 
through  the  airport  when  it  acts  as  a  service  provider  for  the  air  carrier.  Airline  liability  is 
currently  limited  by  a  miscellany  of  international  conventions12,  Community  Regulations 

11 
12 

See footnote 6. 
Those conventions are: 1 -The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International 
Carriage  by  Air,  signed  at  Warsaw  on  10/1929,  abbreviated:  the  Warsaw  Convention  (1929).  2  -The 
Protocol  to  Amend  the  Convention  for  the  Unification  of  Certain  Rules  Relating  to  International 
Carriage  by  Air  signed  at  Warsaw  on  12  October  1929;  signed  in  the  Hague  on  28/09/1955, 
abbreviated:  The  Hague  Protocol  (1955).  3  -The  Convention  for  the  Unification  of  Certain  Rules  for 
International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28/05/1999, abbreviated: the Montreal Convention 
(1999). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implementing  those  international  conventions  within  the  EU13,  and  legal  or  administrative 
procedures  that  other  countries  impose  on  EU  companies  that  wish  to  enter  their  national 
markets. Companies may waive their limited liability and agree to compensate the full value 
of the lost mobility equipment or of its repair. 

All these legal texts operate according to the same mechanism: presumption of liability of the 
carrier in case of checked baggage14. This means that the victim will not have to prove that 
the  carrier  was  at  fault  in  order  for  the  carrier’s  liability  to  be  incurred.  The  only  thing  the 
PRM needs to prove is the fact that the damage or loss occurred while the equipment was in 
the care of the carrier (also commonly referred to as the "period of transportation"). 

With regard to equipment that was checked in at the check-in counter (always by or on behalf 
of  the  carrier)  and  consequently  labelled  as  luggage,  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  period  of 
transportation  starts  at  the  moment  the  check–in  procedure  starts.  The  same  holds  true  for 
luggage that is “a delivery at cabin”. Although the equipment can be labelled prior to being 
actually handed over to the carrier (at the gate or at the door of the aircraft), the liability of the 
carrier should only be triggered at the moment the equipment is physically handed over to the 
carrier (be it at the boarding gate or at the door of the aircraft). 

3.2.2.2.  Handling of the equipment at an airport (airport liability). 

Airports  have  assumed  the  responsibility  for  providing  assistance  to  PRM  since  the 
Regulation  fully  came  into  effect  on  26  July  2008.  Airport  liability  is,  in  principle,  not 
limited15  and  it  is  established  according  to  national  liability/tort  law.  This  fact  that  the 
applicable  legal  framework  is  different  as  between  airports  and  airlines  results  in  two  big 
differences in the nature of their respective liability: First of all, as a rule, airport liability is 
based on a proven fault by the airport managing body. Secondly, whereas airport liability is 
not limited, airline liability definitely is. This means that, in the case of airports, the PRM will 
have to prove the fault of the wrongdoer before a court if the airport does not accept the claim 
(not  so  if  the  air  carrier  is  responsible),  but  can  recover  the  full  damages  (not  so  if  the  air 
carrier is liable, since its liability is normally limited). 

3.2.3.  Compensation: amount and procedure. 

For  a  long  time,  PRM  organisations  have  been  pressing  for  unlimited  liability  in  cases  of 
incidents regarding mobility equipment both during handling at an airport or during transfer 
on-board  aircraft.  This  approach  is  driven  by the  high  cost  of  modern  mobility  equipment16 
and  the  relatively  low  limit  of  current  liability  for  baggage under  international  conventions, 
and  in  particular  the  Montreal  Convention17,  which  indeed  suggest  that  the  amount  of 
compensation under international conventions may not be adequate in all cases. 

13 

14 
15 
16 
17 

Regulation  (EC)  Nº 889/2002  of  the European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  of 13  May  2002 (JO  L 
140/02  of  30.05.2002,  amending  Council  Regulation  (EC)  Nº  2027/97  on  air  carrier  liability  in  the 
event of accidents. 
See Article 1.10 of the REGULATION (EC) Nº 889/2002. 
Airport liability is not dealt with by any international convention or Community . 
for example, electric wheelchairs can cost up to € 10000  
Up to 1000 SDRs (approximate amount in euros based on the SDR value on 10/03/2008 according to 
the IMF SDR valuation: € 1060).  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Most air carriers provide compensation in line with the Montreal Convention. Damages to the 
mobility equipment above 1000 SDR are at the passenger's own risk, unless the passenger has 
made,  at  the  time  when  the  checked  baggage  was  handed  over  to  the  carrier,  a  special 
declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case 
so requires18. Special insurance for PRM mobility equipment is proposed by only a minority 
of  companies  and  for  a  marginal  number  of  airports.  The  majority  of  air  carriers  and  of 
airports  do  not  offer  special  insurance  coverage  for  damaged  or  destroyed  wheelchairs  or 
mobility equipment. 

According  to  the  study,  only  a  minority  of  EU  companies  allow  PRM  to  declare  that  their 
mobility equipment has a higher value and that this can then be claimed accordingly. Among 
those companies, some limit the excess value declaration to a given amount above the level of 
compensation  set  by  international  and  EU  rules,  but  below  the  actual  cost  of  the  mobility 
equipment. Several carriers pointed out that declaring a special value involves “a supplement 
[that] has to be paid by the passenger”. 

All  stakeholders  agree  that  the  cost  of  providing  for  the  needs  of  PRM  must  not  be  passed 
directly to PRM. However, only a few have drawn the logical conclusion and compensate the 
full  cost  of  the  damage  or  loss  of  the  mobility  equipment.  The  Regulation  consolidates  the 
principle that assistance shall be provided without additional charge to PRMs19 , but its scope 
does not include the specific amount of compensation, which is left to be dealt with under the 
"rules of international, Community and national law20". 

It  is  worth  noticing  that  for  railway  transport,  Community  legislation  imposes  on  railway 
companies the obligation of full compensation, if the railway undertaking is liable for the total 
or partial loss or damage of the mobility equipment21. 

3.2.4.  The inclusion or exclusion of mobility equipment in the definition of "baggage". 

The  point  of  view  of  PRM  organisations  and  the  majority  of  the  Civil  Aviation  Authorities 
responding to the survey linked to the study is that mobility equipment should not be regarded 
as baggage. The purpose of this exclusion is that mobility equipment should not be subject to 
the  airline  limited  liability  rules  laid  down  by  the  international  conventions.  As  a 
consequence,  airlines  and  airports  should  compensate  the  full  cost  of  the  lost  mobility 
equipment or the price of repairing it. 

The US Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) does not give a definition of mobility equipment and 
does  not  expressly  exclude  it  from  the  definition  of  baggage;  however,  it  does  impose  full, 
objective  liability  without  financial  limits  in  the  event  of  an  accident  involving  mobility 
equipment  on  all  carriers  wishing  to  cover  domestic  routes  in  the  United  States22.  The  U.S. 
Department of Transportation intends to amend soon its regulation implementing the US Air 
Carrier  Access  Act  to  make  foreign  air  carriers  operating  to  and  from  the  United  States 

18 

19 
20 
21 

22 

in line with what it is stipulated by article 22.2 of the Montreal Convention and article 1.5 of Regulation 
889/2002. 
See Article 8 of Regulation nº 1107/2006. 
See article 12 of Regulation nº 1107/2006. 
REGULATION (EC) No 1371/2007 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, JO 315/14 of 31.12.2007, article 25. 
The  Air  Carrier  Access  Act  (ACAA)  prohibits  discrimination  in  air  travel  against  individuals  with 
disabilities.  The  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  issued  a  regulation  (14  CFR  Part  382) 
implementing the ACAA which explicitly refers to the treatment of mobility aids and devices. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
subject to most of the disability-related requirements currently available to U.S. carriers under 
Part 382, including treatment of mobility aids and assistive devices. 

The current Canadian legislation in place concerning PRMs is Part VII of the  Air transport 
Regulations: Terms and Conditions of Carriage Regulations23. The Canadian Transportation 
Agency  seems  to  define  mobility  aids  as  priority  checked  items  of  a  personal  nature,  even 
though the mobility equipment is not excluded from the baggage definition strictu sensu. By 
doing  so  the  Canadian  Transportation  Agency  does  not  allow  companies  working  on  their 
territory  to  apply  the  limited  liability  provisions  in  respect  of  destroyed,  damaged  or  lost 
baggage in international conventions to mobility equipment. There is an understanding that to 
land in Canada, the carrier must respect the Canadian regulations. This understanding seems 
not to have been challenged by any foreign carrier. 

4. 

AN ANSWER TO THE CHALLENGES: REGULATION Nº 1107/2006. 

4.1. 

Quantitative objective: to reduce the number of accidents. 

As  has  been  demonstrated  in  point  3.1  of  this  Communication,  the  absence  of  specific 
procedures for handling wheelchairs or other mobility equipment and the fact that, training on 
handling wheelchairs and other mobility equipment is not being provided in all airports or by 
all  airlines,  indicate  that  improvements  could  easily  be  made.  Regulation  1107/2006  has 
tackled  this  shortcoming  in  the  current  state  of  affairs  by  establishing  legal  obligations 
concerning  both  the  necessary  procedures  and  the  necessary  training  for  the  staff  to  ensure 
adequate assistance to PRM24. 

Such legal obligations include, inter alia, the handling of mobility equipment at the airport or 
its transportation on board aircraft. Therefore, the quality and the adequacy of the assistance 
provided  by  airlines  and  air  carriers  should  improve  significantly.  Specific  procedures  on 
check-in  and  training  for  staff  in  the  handling  of  mobility  equipment  will  raise  awareness 
among  employers  and  employees  alike  and  help  to  reduce  even  further  the  number  and  the 
gravity of accidents, as well as the personal and economic costs. 

4.2. 

Qualitative objective: to minimise the consequences of an incident. 

Point  3.2.1  of  this  Communication  highlights  the  shortcomings  of  the  current  lack  of  a 
common  procedure  which  would  provide  immediate  solutions  on  the  spot,  in  the  case  of 
damaged or lost mobility equipment. Regulation 1107/2006 partly covers that legal vacuum. 
First of all, Annex I of Regulation 1107/2006 specifically includes in the definition of airport 
assistance  the  "temporary  replacement  of  damaged  or  lost  mobility  equipment,  albeit  not 
necessarily  on  a  like  for  like  basis"25.  Secondly,  Article  9  establishes  a  legal  obligation  for 
airports  to  set  up  "quality  standards  for  the  assistance  specified  in  Annex  I  and  determine 
resource requirements for meeting them".  

23 

24 
25 

The  Terms  and  Conditions  of  Carriage  Regulations  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  Canada 
Transportation Act. Part V of the Act deals with the transportation of persons with disabilities. Section 
155 of this Part V explains the provisions for a damaged or lost aid.  
See articles 9 and 11 of the Regulation 
See Annex I to Regulation nº 1107/2006. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  regards  the  difference  between  the  nature  and  the  limits  of  the  liability  of  airlines  and 
airports mentioned in point 3.2.2 of this Communication, article 12 of Regulation 1107/2006 
establishes  the  obligation  of  compensation  "in  accordance  with  rules  of  international, 
Community and national law".  

The Commission will closely monitor how airports and airlines implement this responsibility 
in the new context laid down by the Regulation, in order to assess in the future whether the 
inclusion of a more precise definition of the airport's liability, along the lines of what it is laid 
down for air carriers in Regulation 889/2002, would be advisable. 

With  regard  to  the  amount  of  compensation  and  the  relevant  procedure,  dealt  with  in  point 
3.2.3 of this Communication, the number of incidents regarding mobility equipment is already 
small and the new protection offered by Regulation 1107/2006 should help to further reduce 
the  number  of  incidents  and  their  consequences.  It  therefore  seems  clear  that,  if  the  current 
rules applying to compensation were to be changed, any economic consequences which those 
accidents could involve for companies or airports would not have a major economic impact 
on carriers or airports. 

Finally,  point  3.2.4  of  this  Communication  deals  with  the  issue  of  whether  mobility 
equipment  should  be deemed included in the notion of "baggage". This question is relevant 
because it is linked to the amount of the compensation, since the limits on liability imposed by 
international  conventions  only  apply  to  baggage.  Some  of  the  Community's  biggest  air 
transport  partners  have  already  developed  detailed  administrative  procedures  regarding  the 
rights  of  PRM  on  this  issue.  Broadly  speaking,  those  administrative  procedures  impose 
objective liability and full compensation on air carriers and sometimes on airports. European 
air carriers covering transoceanic routes to Canada or domestic flights in the US or Canada do 
already  comply  with  those  rules  outside  the  Community's  borders.  Some  companies  have 
already  waived  their  limited  liability  through  their  own  customer  policy  or  their  internal 
quality standards. 

As these examples show, different options can be envisaged when dealing with the amount of 
the compensation paid in case of destroyed, damaged or lost mobility equipment in order to 
approximate it to the real value of such equipment. That goal can be achieved by seeking to 
interpret  or  define  the  notion  of  baggage  so  as  to  exclude  mobility  equipment,  while  still 
ensuring legal coverage of such equipment under the applicable international conventions, or 
alternatively  by  removing  or  reviewing  the  limits  on  financial  compensation  under  those 
international conventions. Finally, airlines and airports might voluntarily waive their current 
limited liability regarding mobility equipment. 

The Commission considers that it is worth addressing this issue at ICAO level with the aim of 
abolishing or reviewing any financial limit on lost, damaged or destroyed mobility equipment, 
laid down in the Montreal Convention. The Commission recognises the difficulties linked to 
re-negotiating an international Convention. However, the fact that some ICAO members have 
decided  to  unilaterally  amend  their  rules  and  impose  full  compensation  for  their  domestic 
routes  regarding  the  mobility  equipment  indicates  that  such  an  EU  initiative  may  receive 
political support. 

In the mid-term, the Commission considers that the full application of Regulation 1107/2006 
will  improve  both  the  monitoring  and  the  enforcement  of  existing  rights  of  PRM  related  to 
compensation and/or replacement of destroyed, damaged or lost mobility equipment, as well 
as the kind of assistance to be provided on the spot when an incident occurs. Before deciding 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
whether  to  put  forward  a  legislative  proposal  on  these  issues,  the  Commission  considers  it 
prudent to allow Regulation 1107/2006 to become applicable, before assessing its impact on 
the  likely  decreasing  of  incidents.  Whilst  taking  into  account  current  practices  in  other 
countries  and  having  regard  to  Community  legislation  governing  railway  transport,  the 
Commission in the short term encourages airlines to voluntarily waive their limited liability. 

5. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  reminds  airports  and  airlines  of  their  obligation  to  put  in  place  the 
quality standards and the necessary training and procedures regarding the handling of 
mobility  equipment  and  the  rights  of  PRM  passengers  in  the  case  of  an  accident 
related to their mobility equipment, following in particular ECAC document nº 30 and 
its relevant annexes. 

As  regards  the  amount  of  compensation  and  in  order  to  bring  it  closer  to  the  actual 
value  of  the  equipment,  the  Commission  will  propose  to  the  Council  that,  with  the 
cooperation  of  the  Member  States,  the  Community  launch  an  initiative within  ICAO 
with  the  aim  of  clarifying  or  defining  the  term  'baggage'  so  as  to  exclude  mobility 
equipment  or,  alternatively,  of  abolishing  or  reviewing  any  liability  limits  on  lost, 
damaged  or  destroyed  mobility  equipment,  in  the  framework  of  the  Montreal 
Convention.  

The  Commission  encourages  airlines  in  the  UE  to  voluntarily  waive  their  current 
liability limits in order to bring the amount of compensation closer to the actual value 
of the mobility equipment. 

The  Commission  will  monitor  in  2008-2009  the  compliance  of  Member  States,  air 
carriers and airports with Community law, including Regulation 1107/2006. 

The  Commission  encourages  the  stakeholders  to  carry  out  a  better  and  more 
systematic collection of data concerning claims related to mobility equipment. 

The  Commission  will  include  in  the  Report  foreseen  in  Article  17  of  Regulation 
1107/2006  a  chapter  on  the  rights  of  PRM  whose  mobility  equipment  has  been  lost, 
damaged  or  destroyed.  The  Commission  will  then  assess  the  actual  developments 
following  the  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  1107/2006  and  the  progress  of  the 
initiative within ICAO mentioned in point (2) of these conclusions. If the assessment 
shows that necessary improvement has not been achieved, the Commissions will put 
forward  an  appropriate  legislative  proposal  to  enhance  the  existing  rights  under 
Community law of air passengers whose wheelchairs or other mobility equipment are 
destroyed, damaged or lost during handling at an airport or during transport on-board 
aircraft, including the revision of the current threshold for compensation and the need 
to better define airport liability. 

EN 

10 

   EN