COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying document to the   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the operation and the results of Regulation (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}
Date: 2011-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, approximation of laws, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification

EN 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.4.2011 
SEC(2011) 428 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the operation and the results of Regulation (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} 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Delay Quantitative Data 

1. 
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  flights  experiencing  long  delays  divided  into 
short-haul flights (less than 1500km), medium-haul flights (more than 1500km but less than 
3500km) and long-haul flights (more 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  observed  (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 delays 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  least  3  hours  will  represent  flights  delayed  by  3  hours  or  more,  and 
will therefore include 4 and 5 hour delays. 

1 
2 

Source: Eurocontrol 
OJ L46/1 of 17.2.2004 

EN 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
General overview 

Proportion of total flights departing from EU airports that experienced long delays at 
departure, 2006-2009 

g
n
o

l

h
t
i

w
s
t
h
g

i
l
f
g
n
i
t
r
a
p
e
d

l
a
t
o
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

s
y
a
l
e
d

)

%

(

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

Delay > 2 hours

Delay > 3 hours

Delay > 5 hours

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Proportion of total flights arriving at EU airports that experienced long delays at 
departure, 2006-20093 

h
t
i

w
s
t
h
g

i
l
f

g
n
i
v
i
r
r
a

l
a
t
o
t

f
o

n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

s
y
a
l
e
d
g
n
o

l

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

)

%

(

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

Delay > 2 hours

Delay > 3 hours

Delay > 5 hours

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

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 Member 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  departure,  to  all  flights  (short, 
medium  and  long-haul  together)  departing  from  the  EU  over  the  period  2006-2009.  They 
present data for departing flights 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  potentially  fall  under  the  scope  of  the  Regulation's 
measures  on  long  delays  (i.e.  where  flights  are  delayed  by  at  least  2  hours).  This  figure 
includes two hour delays on short, medium and long-haul flights. Since the 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 due to extraordinary circumstances. According 
to the data available, this only potentially affects less than 0,5% of all flights (those which are 
delayed for more than 3 hours). In fact, this figure is an overestimate 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  Regulation's  obligation  to  offer  reimbursement  for 
long delays is, on average, less than 0,15%.  

A  comparison  of  these  two  graphs  illustrates  that  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 that 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 number 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  departing  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  the  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  below  actually  lead  to  the  right  to  compensation,  since  all  those 
flights  whose  delay  was  caused  by  extraordinary  circumstances  are  excluded  from  the 
application of article 7. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Short-haul flights (less than 1500km) experiencing long delays 

m
k
0
0
5
1
n
a
h
t
s
s
e
l
s
t
h
g

i
l
f
g
n
i
t
r
a
p
e
d
f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

)

%

(
d
e
y
a
l
e
d
e
r
e
w

t
a
h
t

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

Passengers are entitled to 
care after 2 hours, to 
compensation after 3 
hours and reimbursement 
after 5 hours 

Right to care

Right to compensation
(€250)

Right to reimbursement

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Medium-haul flights (1500-3500km) experiencing long delays 

-
0
0
5
1
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
s
t
h
g

i
l
f
g
n
i
t
r
a
p
e
d
f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

)

%

(
d
e
y
a
l
e
d
e
r
e
w

t
a
h
t

m
k
0
0
5
3

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

Passengers are entitled to 
care and compensation 
after 3 hours and 
reimbursement after 5 
hours 

Right to care

Right to compensation
(€400)

Right to reimbursement

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Long-haul flights (more than 3500km) experiencing long delays  

n
a
h
t

e
r
o
m
s
t
h
g

i
l
f

g
n

i
t
r
a
p
e
d
f
o

n
o

i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

)

%

(

d
e
y
a
l
e
d

e
r
e
w

t
a
h
t

m
k
0
0
5
3

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Passengers are entitled to 
compensation after 3 
hours, to care after 4 
hours and reimbursement 
after 5 hours 

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 Regulation 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 flights 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 compensation only applies to three hour delays 
upon arrival. Some flights that are delayed by 3 hours upon departure may reduce the length 
of delay during flight and therefore may, upon arrival, fall outside 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  years  2006  to  2010  is  based  on  estimations  by 
Eurocontrol  (comparison  of  published  schedules  with  recorded  scheduled  flights).  Note  that 
such  estimations  are  subject  to  a  more  significant  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

2,5%

2,0%

1,5%

1,0%

0,5%

0,0%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Preliminary Data provided by Eurocontrol

It  appears  from  the  graph  that  the  cancellations  oscillate  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 needs to further assessed. 
Similarly,  the  increase  in  cancellations  in  2008  may  be  due,  in  part,  to  the  impact  of  the 
economic crisis, however this needs to be analysed 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 due 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 

190 
(24%) 
na 

na 

68 
(62%) 
na 
963 
(31%) 
na 
na 
51 
(10%) 
3.161 
(29%) 
na 
777 
(34%) 

na 

na 

3.096 

26 
5 
(20%) 
6 
na 
na 
206 
(17%) 
na 

na 

na 
na 
na 

na 

533 
(67%) 
na 

na 

12 
(11%) 
na 
1.770 
(57%) 
na 
na 
305 
(60%) 
2.963 
(27%) 
na 
1.150 
(51%) 

na 

na 

2.968 

13 
12 
(48%) 
4 
na 
na 
534 
(44%) 
na 

na 

na 
na 
na 

na 

39 
(5%) 
na 

na 

7 
(6%) 
na 
372 
(12%) 
na 
na 
152 
(30%) 
929 
(9%) 
na 
327 
(15%) 

na 

na 

423 

2 
7 
(28%) 
1 
na 
na 
99 
(8%) 
na 

na 

na 
na 
na 

na 

793 

276 

25 

109 

82 

3.105 

303 
5 

508 

10.791 

60 

2.254 

145 

331 

7.154 

41 

25 

18 
43 
279 

1.208 

8.233 

249 

56 
2 
162 

5.483 

41.740 

Others 

31 
(4%) 
na 

na 

22 
(20%) 
na 

0 

na 
na 

0 

3.738 
(35%) 
na 

na 

na 

na 

667 

na 
1 
(4%) 
7 
na 
na 
369 
(31%) 
na 

na 

na 
na 
na 

na 

Number of 
cases closed 

Number of cases 
engaged for 
sanctioning 

757 
(95%) 
na 
25 
(100%) 

74 

na 
1.397 
(45%) 
na 
na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

41 

25 

11 
na 
na 

na 

na 

na 

na 
na 
na 
5.481 
(99.9%) 
7.726 

0 

0 

0 

na 

0 
11 
(0,4%) 
0 
0 
5 
(1%) 

na 

na 

0 

4 
(3%) 
0 
127 
(2%) 
05 
1 
(4%) 
0 
0 
na 
32 
(3%) 
0 
54 
(2%) 
na 
04 
na 

na 

185 

8.543 

10.260 

2.357 

4.828 

All percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number 
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 2008. 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) 
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. 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 
ET 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

LU 
MT 
NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 
SV 
SE 

UK 

Total6 

4 
5 

6 

 
 
                                                 
2.2. 

Complaint handling 20087 

2008 

Complaints 
received in total 

Delay 

Cancellation 

Denied 
Boarding 

246 
(21%) 
na 

na 

56 
(49%) 
na 
1.151 
(29%) 
na 

na 
58 
(10%) 
2.321 
(29%) 
na 
875 
(29%) 
48 
(20%) 
70 
(17%) 

1.851 

15 

8 
(12%) 
8 

na 

na 
142 
(9%) 
2.573 
(33%) 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

835 
(71%) 
na 

na 

32 
(28%) 
na 
2.399 
(60%) 
na 

na 
346 
(60%) 
2.285 
(29%) 
na 
1.774 
(58%) 
150 
(62%) 
304 
(74%) 

664 

31 

42 
(63%) 
18 

na 

na 
816 
(53%) 
691 
(9%) 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

34 
(3%) 
na 

na 

10 
(9%) 
na 
414 
(10%) 
na 

na 
173 
(30%) 
844 
(11%) 
na 
385 
(13%) 
7 
(0.3%) 
20 
(5%) 

124 

13 

17 
(25%) 
0 

na 

na 
78 
(5%) 
551 
(7%) 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

1.171 

370 

81 

114 

142 

3.968 

317 

5 

577 

7.989 

100 

3.034 

242 

413 

4.811 

59 

67 

39 

11 

540 

1.538 

7.765 

370 

83 

3 

150 

5.318 

39.277 
(-6%)10 

Other 

56 
(5%) 
na 

na 

16 
(14%) 
na 
4 
(0.1%) 
na 

na 

0 

2.539 
(32%) 
na 

na 

37 
(15%) 
19 
(5%) 

2.172 

na 

0 

13 

na 

na 
502 
(33%) 
3.950 
(51%) 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

Number of 
cases closed 

Number of cases 
engaged for 
sanctioning 

994 
(85%) 
na 
66 
(8%) 

89 

na 
1.876 
(47%) 
na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

34 

67 

26 

na 

na 

na 

1.104 
(15%) 

na 

na 

na 

na 
5.307 
(99,8%) 

9.448 

0 

0 

0 

na 

0 
11 
(0.3%) 
0 

0 
6 
(1%) 

na 

na 

4 

4 
(2%) 

0 

127 
(3%) 
14 
(2%) 
3 
(4%) 
0 

0 

na 
110 
(7%) 
4 
(0.05%) 
64 
(2%) 
na 
14 
(33%) 
na 
318 
(0,001%) 

308 

9.414 

10.369 

2.670 

9.295 

All percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number 
The UK NEB amalgamates in its statistics the corrective 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 
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. 
In 2008 NEBs received 6% less complaints in total compared to 2007 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

ET 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SV 

SE 

UK 

Total9 

7 
8 

9 

10 

 
 
                                                 
2.3. 

Complaint handling 200911 

2009 

Complaints 
received in total 

Delay 

Cancellation 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

ET 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SV 

SE 

UK 

Total 

11 
12 
13 

856 

530 

57 

108 

143 

3.060 

237 

17 

487 

6.931 

100 

3.073 

178 

311 

2.625 

40 

62 

15 

na 

749 

1.035 

7.055 

300 

275 

26 

124 

4.666 

33.060 
(-16%)14 

354 
(41%) 
na 

na 

48 
(44%) 
34 
(24%) 
819 
(27%) 
46 
(19%) 
4 
(24%) 
49 
(10%) 
2.684 
(39%) 
19 
(19%) 
865 
(28%) 
60 
(34%) 
60 
(2%) 
828 
20 
(50%) 
16 
(26%) 
2 
(13%) 
na 
133 
(10%) 
63 
(6%) 
1.387 
(20%) 
8 
(3%) 
na 
2 
(8%) 
29 
(23%) 
1.345 
(29%) 
8.875 
(27%) 

418 
(49%) 
na 

na 

30 
(28%) 
75 
(52%) 
1.821 
(60%) 
155 
(65%) 
11 
(65%) 
292 
(60%) 
3.152 
(45%) 
54 
(54%) 
1.716 
(56%) 
113 
(63%) 
204 
(8%) 
1.331 
17 
(43%) 
35 
(56%) 
11 
(73%) 
na 
458 
(36%) 
538 
(52%) 
1.069 
(15%) 
16 
(5%) 
na 
19 
(73%) 
79 
(64%) 
2.795 
(60%) 
14.409 
(44%) 

Denied 
Boarding 
15 
(2%) 
na 

na 

13 
(12%) 
11 
(8%) 
413 
(13%) 
17 
(7%) 
2 
(12%) 
 146 
(30%) 
1.095 
(16%) 
15 
(15%) 
492 
(16%) 
5 
(3%) 
44 
(2%) 
254 
3 
(8%) 
9 
(15%) 
2 
(13%) 
na 
82 
(6%) 
72 
(7%) 
386 
(5%) 
29 
(10%) 
na 
5 
(19%) 
16 
(13%) 
483 
(10%) 
3.609 
(11%) 

Others 

69 
(8%) 
na 
7 
(12%) 
17 
(16%) 
23 
(16%) 
7 
(0.2%) 
19 
(8%) 

0 

 0 

0 

12 
(12%) 

na 

na 

3 
(0,1%) 
212 

na 

2 
(3%) 

na 

na 
76 
(6%) 
362 
(35%) 
4.213 
(60%) 
247 
(82%) 
na 

0 

0 

43 
(1%) 
5.312 
(16%) 

Number of 
cases closed 
783 
(91%) 
na 
40 
(70%) 
93 
(86%) 
138 
(97%) 
964 
(32%) 
125 
(53%) 

na 

na  

3.466 
(50%) 
85 
(85%) 

na 

na 

na 

na 

35 

62 

15 
(100%) 
na 

na 

na 

2.598 
(37%) 

na 

na 
26 
(100%) 
54 
(44%) 

na 

8.484 
(26%) 

Number of cases engaged 
for sanctioning 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

80012 
(26%) 

0 

0 

11 
(2%) 
60 
(1%)8 

0 

9 
(0,003%) 
17 
(10%) 

0 

na 

0 

1 
(2%) 

na 

na 

0 

129 
(12%) 
1 
(0%) 
1 
(0,3%) 
na 
8 
(31%) 

0 

2813 
(0,001%) 
1.075 
(3%) 

All percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number 
Number of opened regulatory offence procedures against airlines, their outcome is still pending 
The UK NEB amalgamates in its statistics the corrective 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 complaints 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 disparity 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  appear  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 number 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 there has not been a corresponding rise in the total 
number  of  complaints.  The  increase  in  the  proportion  of  cases  engaged  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 conclusion of cases that were initiated in previous 
years. 

14 

In 2009 NEBs received 10% less complaints in total compared to 2008 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
3. 

Structure of NEBs 

Country 
Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 
Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 
Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Organisation 

Enforcement and complaints: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, 
Innovation und Technologie (Ministry for Transport, Innovation and 
Technology) 
Enforcement and complaints: Service Public Fédérale Mobilité et 
Transports (Mobility and Transport, Federal public service) 
Enforcement and complaints: Главна Дирекция "Гражданска 
въздухоплавателна администрация" (Directorate-General Civil 
Aviation Authority) 
Enforcement and complaints: Τµήµα Πολιτικής Αεροπορίας 
(Department of Civil Aviation) 
Enforcement and complaints: Úřad pro civilní letectví (Civil Aviation 
Authority) 
Enforcement and complaints: Trafikstyrelsen (Danish Transport 
Authority) 
Enforcement and complaints: Tarbijatekaitseamet (Consumer 
Protection Board) 
Enforcement: Kuluttajavirasto, asiamies (Finnish Consumer Agency 
& Ombudsman) 
Enforcement and Complaints: Liikenteen turvallisuusvirasto TraFi 
(Finnish Transport Safety Agency) 
Dispute Resolution and Complaints: Kuluttajariitalautakunta 
(Consumer Disputes Board) 
Enforcement and complaints: Direction générale de l'Aviation civile 
(DGAC) (Civil Aviation Authority) 
Enforcement and complaints: Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (Civil Aviation 
Authority)  
Enforcement and complaints: Υπηρεσία Πολιτικής 
Αεροπορίας (Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority) 
Enforcement: Polgári Légiközlekedési Igazgatóság (Civil Aviation 
Authority)  
Complaints: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság (Hungarian 
Authority for Consumer Protection) 
Enforcement and complaints: Commission for Aviation Regulation 
Enforcement and complaints: Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile 
(ENAC) (Civil Aviation Authority) 
Enforcement and complaints: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs 
(Consumer Rights Protection Centre) 
Enforcement and complaints Civilinės Aviacijos Administracija (Civil 
Aviation Administration) 
Enforcement and complaints: Ministère de l'Economie et du 
Commerce extérieur (Ministry for the market and external trade) 
Enforcement and complaints: Department of Civil Aviation 
Enforcement and complaints: Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat (Civil 
Aviation Authority) 
Enforcement and complaints: Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (Civil 
Aviation Authority) 
Enforcement and complaints: Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil 
(Civil Aviation Authority) 

 
 
Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Enforcement and complaints: Autoritatea Naţională pentru Protecţia 
Consumatorilor (National Authority for Consumer Protection) 
Enforcement and complaints: Slovenská obchodná inšpekcia – 
Ústredný inšpektorát (Slovak Trade Inspection – Central Inspectorate) 
Enforcement and complaints: Ministrstvo za promet, Direktorat za 
civilno letalstvo (Ministry of Transport, Civil Aviation Directorate) 
Enforcement and complaints: Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea 
(AESA) (Air Safety State Agency) 
Enforcement: Konsumentverket (Swedish Consumer Agency) and 
Konsumentombudsmannen (Swedish Consumer Ombudsman)  
Complaints and dispute resolution: Allmänna Reklamationsnämnden 
(National Board for Consumer Complaints) 
Enforcement: Civil Aviation Authority 
Complaints: UK Air Transport Users Council 

Differences in Member States: 
In 23 Member States both enforcement and complaint 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  independent  economic  regulatory  authority;  and  in  Slovakia  these  tasks 
are managed by a central trade inspectorate, supported 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  authorities  for  enforcement  and  individual  complaint 
handling,  although  both  are  consumer  authorities  –  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  powers.  The  Finnish  Transport  Safety  Agency 
handles complaints filed by business  travellers and  may take  actions against airlines for not 
fulfilling their obligation under Regulation (EC) 261/2004. The Consumer Disputes Board is 
an independent and impartial alternative dispute resolution body and issues recommendations 
in  disputes  between  consumers  and  traders.  The  Consumer  Agency  /  Ombudsman  does  not 
handle  individual  complaints,  it  monitors  consumers'  position  in  the  market  and  acts  in  the 
collective  interest  of  consumers.  As  an  enforcement  body,  its  duty  is  to  ensure  that  the 
contract terms and general practices of airlines are in line with their statutory obligations. 

 
 
 
 
 
4. 

Sanctions 

4.1. 

Legal basis for sanctions 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Legislation 

Civil Aviation Act (Federal Law Gazette Nr. 253/1957), paragraph 169 

Amendment to Articles 32 (on 18 June 2006) and of Articles 45-51 (on 
22 December 2008) of Law of 27 June 1937 concerning regulation of 
air navigation 
Civil aviation act of the Republic of Bulgaria, Art. 147b  

N213(I)/2002 Civil Aviation Law and Statutory Instrument 283/2005. 

The Civil Aviation Act (number 49/1997), and  
The Administrative Code (number 500/2004) 
Air Navigation Act, Articles 31(a) and 149(11)  

Aviation Act of Estonia, Article 584 

Finnish Aviation Act (1194/2009), and 
Finnish Conditional Fine Act (1113/1990) 

Civil Aviation Code, Articles 6 and R 330-20  

Air Traffic Licensing Regulation 
Air Traffic Law 
Law on Administrative Offences 
Directions of Minister and 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 
Government Decree 25/1999, as amended by Government Decree 
33/2005 
Hungarian Consumer Protection Act Section 47/C 
S45A of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 (as amended) 
Statutory instrument 274/2005 
Legislative Decree 69/2006 of 27 January 2006 

Latvian Administrative Violations Code, paragraph 155.14 

Law on Aviation Number VIII-2066, Article 70, and 
Code of Administrative Violations, and Amendment of Government 
decision No. 285  
Law of 23 April 2008 on sanctions and violations, Article 9 

Legal Notice 63 of 2005, as amended by Legal Notices 13 and 411 of 
2007 
Legal Notice 297 of 2005, as amended by Legal Notice 411 of 2007 
Legal Ntoice 205 of 2007, as amended by Legal Notice 411 of 2007 
Civil Aviation Act, Articles 11.15 and 11.16 
General Administrative Law Act, chapter 4 
Polish Aviation Act, Article 209b (1-5) and Enclosure No 2 
Administrative Procedure Code 

 
 
 
 
Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain  

Sweden 

UK 

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 
Government Decision no 1912/2006 

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 
Regulation, Official Gazette No. 61/2005 

Regulation 21/2003, July 7th, of Air Security 

Swedish Aerial Transportation Act (2010:510), Section 14 
Marketing Practices Act 
The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) 
Regulations 2005 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2.  Maximum amount of sanction which can be imposed on an airline 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 

CZ 
DE 
DK 
ET 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
IE 

IT 
LT 
LV 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SV 
SE 

UK 

up to 22.000 € 
Up to 4.000.000 €  
up to 1.000 € 
Administrative fine of up to 8.543 € or 10% of the total annual turnover 
of the company) 
up to +/- 203.173 € (5.000.000 CZK) 
up to 25.000 € 
no sanctions imposed yet, so maximum amount unknown 
up to 640 € (10.000 EEK) 
Between 500 and 3.000 € 
up to 4.500.000 € 
there is no upper limit 
up to 7.500 € 
Between 15.000 and 2 billion HUF (55 – 7.150.000 €) 
NEB cannot sanction directly, it is a criminal based system and the 
passenger has to go to court which can hold the airline liable and impose 
a fine of up to 150.000 € 
Between 5.000 and 50.000 € 
Between 1.000 and 3.000 Litas (290 – 870 €) 
up to 999 € 
between 251 and 50.000 € 
up to 2.329 € per complaint 
punitive sanction can be up to 74.000 € per infringement 
maximum amount is variable and depends on the infringement 
up to 250.000 € 
up to 583 € (2.500 Lei) 
between 3.319 and 66.000 € 
up to 33.383 € 
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) 
Non compliance with the Regulation is a criminal offence and subject to 
a fine of up to 5851€ (5.000 GBP)