COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air
Date: 2021-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: air safety, airline, airport, civil aviation, consumer protection, disabled person, discrimination based on disability, passenger rights

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2021  SWD(2021) 417 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5 

1.1.  Overall context of passenger rights ................................................................................. 5 

1.2. 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ............................................................................... 7 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ....................................................................... 9 

2.1. 

Specific context of air PRM passenger rights ................................................................. 9 

2.2.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ......................................................... 10 

2.3.  Baseline and points of comparison ................................................................................ 13 

3.1.  Description of the current scope of the Regulation ....................................................... 15 

3.2.  Other relevant legislation and guidance ........................................................................ 15 

3.3.  Member States’ implementation and monitoring .......................................................... 17 

3.4.  Role of the European Commission in the implementation of the Regulation ............... 28 

3.5.  Major recent developments ........................................................................................... 29 

4.  METHOD .............................................................................................................................. 31 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Short description of methodology ................................................................................. 31 

Limitations and robustness of findings ......................................................................... 32 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS............................. 33 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 33 

Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 43 

5.3.  Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 50 

5.4.  Coherence ...................................................................................................................... 52 

5.5. 

EU added value ............................................................................................................. 60 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 62 

6.1. 

6.2. 

Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 62 

Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 65 

6.3.  Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 66 

6.4.  Coherence ...................................................................................................................... 66 

6.5. 

EU Added value ............................................................................................................ 67 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 68 

1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ......................................................... 68 

2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING ............................................................................................. 68 

3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES ......................................... 69 

4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ................................................................................ 69 

ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .............................. 70 

1 

 
 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................................ 81 

ANNEX 4: TABLES AND FIGURES .......................................................................................... 96 

ANNEX 5: TEN CORE PASSENGER RIGHTS ........................................................................ 102 

2 

 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

ADR 

CPC 

EASA 

EC 

ECA 

ECAC 

EEA 

EFTA 

EU 

EU+4  

FTE 

IATA 

ICAO 

NEB 

Alternative dispute resolution body 

Consumer Protection Cooperation 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

European Commission  

European Court of Auditors 

European Civil Aviation Conference 

European Economic Area, includes EU countries and 
also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway  

European Free Trade Association 

European Union (as of 1 May 2021 with 27 Member 
States) 

The EU27 plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the 
United Kingdom 

Full Time Equivalent (employees) 

International Air Transport Association 

International Civil Aviation Organisation 

National Enforcement Body 

3 

 
 
 
OAG 

PRM 

PTD 

UNCRPD 

Official Airline Guide 

Persons with disabilities or persons with reduced 
mobility 

Package Travel Directive 

United Nations  Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disability 

4 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Overall context of passenger rights 

Collective transport services are vital to stimulate economic growth, to enable social and 
territorial  cohesion  and  to  preserve  the  environment;  their  quality  affects  directly  their 
attractiveness and the satisfaction of passengers in the EU. Traditionally passenger rights 
were mandated through the terms and conditions of the contract between passengers and 
carriers.  This  approach  proved  insufficient  as  very  often  it  turned  out  to  be  costly, 
cumbersome and frustrating for passengers to defend their rights vis-à-vis carriers.  It is 
the  reason  why  the  objective  to  introduce  passenger  protection  rules  in  all  modes  of 
transport was set by the Commission twenty years ago1.  

Today  the  EU  framework  for  passenger  rights  provides  a  consistent  level  of  protection 
for  citizens  using  collective  transport  services  (either  air,  rail,  waterborne  or  bus  and 
coach  transport).  They  promote  quality  and  protect  passengers  during  all  phases  of  the 
journey  (before,  during  and  after  the  service).  The  framework  consists  of  five 
Regulations covering air, rail, bus & coach as well as waterborne passenger rights. These 
Regulations  were  designed 
improve  passenger 
information  and  ensure  an  immediate  and  proportionate  assistance  when  required, 
including for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility (PRM).  

travel  disruptions, 

to  minimise 

The EU passenger rights Regulations were adopted between 2004 and 2011 and they are the 
following:  

-  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  establishing  common  rules  on  compensation  and 
assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long 
delay of flights2, keeping in mind that denied boarding3 and carrier’s liability in the 
event  of  accident4  in  aviation  were  already  addressed  in  the  1990s.  This 
Regulation  was  complemented  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006  concerning 
the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility 
when travelling by air5 whose ex-post evaluation is presented in this report;  

1 White paper – ‘European Transport policy for 2010: time to decide’, COM(2001) 370 final, 12.09.2001. 
2  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  February  2004 
establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding 
and  of  cancellation  or  long  delay  of  flights,  and  repealing  Regulation  (EEC)  No  295/91  (OJ  L  46, 
17.2.2004, p. 1–8). 
3  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  295/91  of  4  February  1991  establishing  common  rules  for  a  denied 
boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (O.J. L36, 08.02.1991, p. 5-7). 
4 Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents 
(OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p. 1-3). 
5 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning 
the  rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  air  (OJ  L  204, 
26.7.2006, p. 1-9). 

5 

 
 
                                                 
-  Regulation  (EC)  No  1371/2007  rail  passengers’  rights  and  obligations.6,  which 
will be repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 2021/782 on rail passengers’ 
rights and obligations7 as of 7 June 2023; 

-  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when 

travelling by sea and inland waterway 8; and 

-  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and 

coach transport9.  

After  the  adoption  of  passenger  rights  Regulations  for  all  four  transport  modes,  the 
Commission published in 2011 its communication entitled "European vision for passengers: 
Communication on passenger rights in all transport modes”10 where three key principles for 
passenger  rights  were  identified:  the  non-discrimination  of  passengers;  the  availability  of 
accurate,  timely  and  accessible  information  to  all  passengers;  and  an  immediate  and 
proportionate assistance when required. This was underpinned by ten core passenger rights 
(see Annex 5).11 The framework also  intended to  contribute to  a level  playing field  for 
transport  operators  within  and  across  modes,  through  creating  a  European  standard  for 
passenger protection. 

As a result, EU passenger rights apply to a growing market of around 450 million citizens 
performing several billions of journeys every year for private or business purpose.12 In this 
context,  the  passenger  protection  has  become  a  cornerstone  of  EU  transport  policy13, 
building on international conventions and the general consumer protection framework of the 
Union.  

In its recent Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy14, the Commission observed that “EU 
passenger  rights  should  be  better  implemented,  clearer  for  both  carriers  and  passengers, 
offer  adequate  assistance,  reimbursement,  possibly  compensation  when  disruptions  arise, 
and appropriate sanctions if the rules are not properly applied” and expressed its intention to 
take actions to achieve this aim.  

6 Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail 
passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14-41). 
7 Regulation (EU) No  2021/782 of the European Parliament and of the  Council of 29 April 2021 on rail 
passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 172, 17.5.2021, p. 1-52). 
8  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010 
concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation 
(EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 1-16). 
9  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011 
concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2006/2004 (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1–12) 
10 See COM(2011) 898 final. 
11 See COM(2011) 898 final. 
12  Analysis  of  EU  Transport 
http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/da0cd68e-1fdd-11eb-b57e-01aa75ed71a1.0001.03/DOC_1 
and 
explained/index.php?title=Category:Passengers 
13 White Paper  – ‘Roadmap to  a Single European Transport Area  – Towards a  competitive and resource 
efficient transport system’, COM (2011) 144 final. 
14 See Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the future, point 
92;  Annex 
final.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0789 

figures,  Statistical  pocketbook,  European  Commission 

(Action  Plan)  Action  63,  COM(2020)  789 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

Explained 

Statistics 

Eurostat 

in 

6 

 
                                                 
In line with the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the level of protection introduced 
by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1107/2006  on  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons 
with reduced mobility when travelling by air (hereafter “the Regulation”) 13  years ago is 
now evaluated in the context of the simplification and consolidation of the EU framework 
on passenger rights. This evaluation is also in line with the recommendations presented by 
the Court of Auditors in its special report on passenger rights in November 2018.15 

1.2.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The purpose of this ex-post evaluation is to assess whether the Regulation has delivered 
the intended rights to PRM and to assess whether there are any gaps in the Regulation. 
The  evaluation  aims  to  provide  evidence  to  support  any  future  decisions  related  to  the 
development  of  the  legislative  framework  in  this  policy  area,  including  a  possible 
revision of the current Regulation. 

The Regulation was evaluated for the first time in 201116, just three years after it became 
fully applicable. At the time the Commission concluded that the overall implementation 
of the Regulation was satisfactory, and there was no evidence that would have indicated a 
need  for  the  legislative  review  of  the  Regulation.  However,  it  emerged  that  the 
interpretation  and  application  of  certain  provisions  of  the  Regulation  varied  between 
Member States. Therefore the Commission adopted in 2012 Interpretative Guidelines17 to 
ensure the uniform interpretation of the Regulation. 

In accordance with the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines, it is appropriate now 
to  assess  how  well  the  Regulation  has  performed,  whether  it  has  reached  its  intended 
purpose and whether it continues to be justified in light of new developments in the last 
ten years. 

The evaluation of this Regulation has been carried out in parallel with the evaluation of 
Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 on waterborne passenger rights and Regulation (EU) No 
181/2011 on bus and coach passenger rights. 

15  ECA  Special  Report  no  30/2018:  EU  passenger  rights  are  comprehensive  but  passengers  still  need  to 
fight for them. See https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47547. Recommendations from 
ECA are the following: (1) improve the coherence of the EU passenger rights framework; (2)  improve the 
clarity  within  the  passenger  rights  framework;  (3)  increase  passengers’  awareness  about  their  rights;  (4) 
improve the effectiveness of the passenger rights framework; (5) further empower the national enforcement 
bodies  (NEBs)  s  with  more  rights  to  enforce  the  Regulation  and  enable  the  Commission  to  receive  the 
necessary information from NEBs about the state of play of the enforcement of passenger rights.  
16 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning and effects 
of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2006 
concerning  the  rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  air, 
COM(2011) 166 final. It is based on a support study by an independent consultant that can be found at:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2011%3A0166%3AFIN   
17  Interpretative  Guidelines  on  the  application  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with 
reduced mobility when travelling by air, SWD(2012) 171 final. 

7 

 
                                                 
The evaluation of this Regulation was also announced in the European Union’s Strategy 
for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-203018. 

The geographic scope of the evaluation covers all 27 EU Member States as well as the 
United  Kingdom,  Iceland,  Norway  and  Switzerland  (collectively  referred  to  as 
“EU+4”)19. 

The evaluation covers the period from 26 July 2008, when the Regulation became fully 
applicable,  until  February  2020.  It  builds  inter  alia  on  an  external  support  study 
(hereafter  “the  support  study”)  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor20  (hereafter 
addressed  as  “the  contractor”)  which  covers  the  period  between  2008  and  2019.  The 
scope  of  the  support  study  does  not  include  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 
However, when stakeholders have made specific comments or where effects are already 
clear  and unambiguous,  these points are presented in  the support study  and also  in  this 
evaluation.  

The evaluation solely focusses on Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 and does not evaluate 
the  air  passenger  rights  covered  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004.  However,  it  is  not 
entirely  possible  to  separate  these  two  Regulations,  so  there  will  be  references  to  both 
Regulations throughout the evaluation. 

This evaluation assesses the actual performance of the Regulation in terms of its: 

-  Effectiveness  where  the  progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  the 
intervention  is  analysed.  This  analysis  will  seek  to  identify  factors  driving  or 
hindering progress and how these are linked to the intervention; 

-  Efficiency  where  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Regulations  are  analysed  with  the 
purpose  of  making  it  clear  whether  the  costs  of  the  intervention  have  been 
proportionate; 

-  Relevance: looking at the objectives of the EU intervention being evaluated and 

see how well they (still) match the (current) needs and problems; 

-  Coherence where it will be analysed how well the Regulation works i) internally 

and ii) with other EU interventions and international obligations; 

-  EU  added  value:  considering  arguments  about  the  value  resulting  from  EU 
interventions  that  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from 

18 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  Regions  ‘Union  of  Equality:  Strategy  for  the  Rights  of 
Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030’, COM(2021) 101 final. 
19 Lichtenstein was not included in the analysis, due to the fact that there is no commercial air passenger 
traffic in the country. 
20 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231259999 
Executive 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231261208 
Stakeholder  consultation  report:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/327ffbfa-1b4e-
11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231261449   

summary:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/621740d2-1b4f-11ec-b4fe-

report:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d8b8bd04-1b4d-11ec-b4fe-

  Final 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
interventions initiated at regional or national levels by both public authorities and 
the private sector. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Specific context of air PRM passenger rights 

There  are  approximately  87  million  people  in  the  European  Union  that  live  with 
disabilities.21 They should have opportunities equal to other citizens, including when using 
air transport. Not all of them will require assistance when travelling, but it is important that 
they do not experience limitations or discrimination because of their disability. 

It  was  important  to  introduce  a  set  of  well-defined  rules  to  ensure  that  PRM  don’t 
experience  discrimination  when  travelling  by  air  as  the  transportation  of  PRM  often 
involves more costs than transporting other citizens:  they might need special attention and 
it can take extra resources to assist them. In an industry that strives to reduce costs as much 
as possible and relies on strict schedules and swift processes, airlines would otherwise be 
inclined to refuse transporting many of them. 

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 was the first EU regulation that established the definition of 
PRM which is currently used in the EU passenger rights legislation. In addition, Regulation 
(EC)  No  261/2004  granted  certain  rights  to  PRM:  in  the  context  of  denied  boarding, 
cancellation and delays the carrier is obliged to pay particular attention to the needs of PRM 
(Article 9) and give them priority in such situations (Article 11).  

As  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  did  not  address  most  issues  that  PRM  face  when 
travelling  by  air,  in  2006  this  Regulation  was  adopted  to  provide  a  comprehensive 
protection to PRM passengers. Subsequently, in case of passenger rights for other modes of 
transport  (rail,  waterborne  and  bus  and  coach)  the  Commission  decided  to  propose  one 
single regulation per mode, including the rights of PRM within the modal regulation. 

The Regulation which started to fully apply in 2008 sets the legal framework for the rights 
of PRM to travel by air in the European Economic Area.  

For the purposes of the Regulation, a ‘person with disability’ and a ‘person with reduced 
mobility’ is defined as “any person whose mobility when using transport is reduced due to 
any  physical  disability  (sensory  or  locomotor,  permanent  or  temporary),  intellectual 
disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or age, and whose situation needs 
appropriate attention and the adaptation to his or her particular needs of the service made 
available to all passengers”22. This is a very broad definition covering persons who need a 

21  EU  SILC  (Statistics  on  Income  and  Living  Conditions)  and  EU  LFS  (Labour  Force  Survey): 
https://www.disability-europe.net/downloads/1046-ede-task-2-1-statistical-indicators-tables-eu-silc-2018; 
According  to  this  data,  24.7%  of  EU  population  who  are  more  than  16  years  old  are  limited  in  their 
activities  as  a  result  of  a  disability:  17.7%  having  moderate,  7%  severe  limitations.  See  Table  1.  of  that 
document. 
22 See Article 2(a), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. This definition is very close to the definition of Article 
2(i), Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. 

9 

 
                                                 
wheelchair but also persons who have difficulties walking long distances, persons who are 
hard  of  hearing  or  visually  impaired  as  well  as  persons  with  hidden  disability  (including 
cognitive disabilities such as anxiety, Asperger syndrome or a mental health conditions). 

The market for PRM travelling by air 

There are no statistics available on the number of PRM travelling by air. However, based on 
data shared by some of the busiest airports in Europe it is estimated that in 2018 around 9.8 
million  passengers  requested  PRM  assistance  in  Europe23.  Both  the  absolute  number  of 
PRM  travelling  by  air  and  their  percentage  within  all  air  passengers  have  increased 
significantly over the last two decades. According to the above mentioned data shared by 
some of the busiest airports in Europe it is estimated that in 2003 0,4% of all air passengers 
(around 2,6 million out of the total 590 million passengers) requested assistance on journeys 
to and from EU27+424. Between 2008 and 2018, the number of passengers requesting PRM 
assistance increased by +111% (from around 4,6 million passengers, 0,6% of the total 805 
million passengers in 2008 to around 9,8 million passengers, 0,9% of the total 1120 million 
passengers in 2018) whilst in the same period passenger journeys increased by +39% only25.  

Participants  at  the  stakeholder  consultation  (airlines,  airports,  PRM  representative 
organisations) mentioned the following factors that could explain this increase: 

• 
• 
• 

An aging population; 
An increasing proportion of population with severe long-standing disabilities;  
Increased confidence of PRM to travel by air.  

2.2.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Since the creation of a European Single Market for aviation in the  1990’s, air transport 
has revolutionised the way we travel and has brought Europeans closer together as more 
and more people can travel and travelling times became much shorter. This process has 
happened in a relatively short timeframe and what started with national legacy carriers is 
now a highly global and competitive market for airlines. 

In  2002  the  Commission  made  a  stakeholder  consultation  related  to  airlines'  contracts 
with  passengers26  which  identified  a  number  of  possible  improvements  to  passengers’ 
rights  and  invited  stakeholders  to  comment  on  which  issues  required  action  by  the 
European  Union.  The  results  of  the  consultation  showed  that  the  protection  of  people 
with reduced mobility was one of the first priorities.27 

23 See support study point 1.11 
24 See support study, Figure 1.2 
25 See support study, Figure 1.2 
26 Airlines’ contracts with passengers. Consultation paper of Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, 
21.6.2002. See also the summary of this consultation, COM(2005)47 final, p. 3-4. 
27  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  the  rights  of 
persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, COM(2005) 47 final, p. 2. 

10 

 
                                                 
The Commissions legislative proposal for PRM travelling by plane28 was preceded by a 
broad  public  consultation29,  where  the  overwhelming  majority  of  stakeholders  who 
responded  supported  the  adoption  of  a  broad  set  of  rights  protecting  PRM  when 
travelling by air.  

The stakeholder consultation  in  2002 showed a broad support  among respondents  from 
each  stakeholder  groups  for  the  objectives  in  the  intervention.  The  only  major  debate 
concerned whether airports or airlines should be responsible for providing assistance to 
PRM at airports.  

Before  the  Regulation  was  adopted  only  airlines  provided  assistance  for  PRM  by 
themselves or via their ground handlers. At the time when the Commission presented its 
legislative  proposal,  it  was  aware  that  assisting  PRM  could  have  a  negative  effect  on 
airlines’ profits, particularly when PRM travel on less expensive tickets. If only airlines 
would be responsible for transporting PRM, their PRM assistance costs would be roughly 
proportional to the number of PRM they transport. In such cases the competitive pressure 
to  reduce  costs  could  lead  to  incentives  for  airlines  to  reduce  the  number  of  PRM  that 
they carry, either by lowering the scope or quality of assistance or deny transporting them 
abusing safety rules.  If they gained a reputation for doing so, PRM  would soon start to 
avoid them.  

As a consequence, the Commission decided to put the responsibility of assisting PRM at 
airports on airports managing bodies and in its proposal established a centralised system 
for the provision of PRM assistance at each airport, obliging airport managing bodies to 
be  responsible  for  such  assistance  and  at  the  same  time  allowing  them  to  levy  a 
transparent,  cost  related  charge  on  all  airlines  using  an  airport  in  proportion  to  the 
number of passengers that they transported to and from that airport. 

Such an approach greatly reduced the incentives for airlines to minimise the number of 
PRM carried as airlines pay charges proportional to the total number of passengers that 
they carried to or from an airport, so the costs of airlines related to PRM assistance at that 
airport  is  independent  of  the  number  of  people  with  reduced  mobility  that  each  airline 
transported. 

The  other  measure  to  impede  discrimination  was  to  establish  strict  rules  about  when 
airlines are allowed to derogate from the obligation to transport PRM. Airlines can only 
deny the reservation of PRM or refuse transporting them on the basis of justified aviation 
safety requirements established by national, EU or international law or the decision of the 
competent authorities or in case the size of the aircraft or its doors make the embarkation 
or carriage of that  person physically impossible.  In addition,  to deter  abuse airlines  are 
obliged both to make publicly available the safety rules that they apply to the transport of 

28 See COM(2005) 47 final. 
29  See  the  summary  of  the  results  in  the  Commission’s  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport  and  amending 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities  responsible  for  the 
enforcement of consumer protection law COM(2008) 817 final, p. 6. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
PRM  and  to  inform  in  writing  passengers  who  are  refused  to  be  transported  of  the 
reasons for that refusal if the passengers concerned request that. 

The general  objective of the Regulation  was  to  provide PRM with  opportunities for air 
travel comparable to other citizens. This general objective was supported by two specific 
objectives,  namely  to  ensure  extended  and  seamless  assistance  at  all  European  airports 
and to avoid giving airlines incentives to reduce the number of PRM transported.  

The Commission’s legislative proposal was adopted by the EU co-legislators with some 
modifications.  The  following  provisions  of  the  Regulation  were  not  part  of  the 
Commission’s  legislative  proposal:  the  obligatory  PRM  awareness  and  assistance 
training for airline and airport staff (Article 11), the obligation of carriers and airports to 
handle  complaints  (Article  15),  the  obligation  of  airlines  to  make  their  safety  rules 
publicly  available  (Article  4(3)),  the  obligation  of  airport  managing  bodies  to  have  to 
separate  the  accounts  of  their  activities  related  to  PRM  assistance  (Article  8(5))  and  to 
publish  an  audited  annual  review  of  the  use  of  the  charges  they  collected  for  PRM 
assistance (Article 8(6)). The only negative change for PRM passengers compared to the 
Commission’s  original  proposal  was  that  the  pre-notification  deadline  for  PRM  was 
raised from 24 hours in the proposal to 48 hours in the Regulation (Article 7(1)). 

Based  on  the  Commission’s  legislative  proposal  and  the  result  of  the  legislative 
procedure  the  following  PRM  needs  and  operational  objectives  can  be  identified 
retrospectively: 

Table 1 - Problems, proposals and objectives of the Regulation 

Problem identified 
at  the time of the 
proposal 

PRM need 
identified at the 
time of the 
proposal 

Operational objective in the Regulation 

Article in Regulation 

PRM were denied 
boarding for 
reasons other than 
safety 

There was no 
established, 
consistent process 
for booking 
assistance 

Limit instances of  
denied boarding 

Prohibit airlines from refusing PRM 
carriage on the grounds of disability or  
reduced mobility, with the exceptions of 
justified safety reasons established by law 

Article 3 and Article 4 

Ensure a more 
structured and 
consistent approach 
to booking 
assistance services 

Require airlines, travel agents and tour 
operators to make certain arrangements 
on prior notification of the need for 
assistance 

Article 6 

Only limited rights 
had been granted to 
PRM under 

Establish a broader 
set of rights for 
PRM (and the 

Grant PRM the right to a specified 
package of assistance at airports on 
departure, on arrival and in transit and 

Article 7 

12 

 
 
 
 
Problem identified 
at  the time of the 
proposal 

Regulation 
261/200430 

PRM need 
identified at the 
time of the 
proposal 

corresponding 
responsibilities for 
key operators) 

Operational objective in the Regulation 

Article in Regulation 

require them to notify  the need for this 
assistance 

Make the managing bodies of airports 
responsible for providing this assistance 
free of charge to PRM and allow them to 
levy charges on airlines to finance he 
costs of such assistance, separate the 
accounts of their activities related to their 
PRM assistance and publish an audited 
annual review of the use of the charges 
they collected for PRM assistance 

Train airport staff to provide appropriate 
PRM assistance 

Require the managing body of an airport 
to lay down quality standards for 
assistance services, after consultation 
with airport users (airlines) and PRM 
representatives 

Article 8 

Article 11 

Article 9 

Require airlines to provide specified 
assistance on board aircraft, free of 
charge to PRM 

Article 10 

Train airport staff to provide appropriate 
PRM assistance 

Article 11 

Forbid the limitation or waiver of 
obligations created by the regulation 

Article 13 

There was no 
system for 
imposing sanctions 
following an 
infringement of 
rights 

Create a framework 
for complaints-
handling,  and 
enforcement 

Require Member States to designate 
bodies responsible for enforcement of the 
Regulation and for dealing with 
complaints 

Article 14 and 15 

Require Member States to lay down 
sanctions for infringements 

Article 16 

Source: Commission analysis based on Table 3.18 of the support study  

2.3.  Baseline and points of comparison  

In assessing how the intervention affected PRM rights, the situation before the adoption 
of the Regulation has to be recalled.  

30 In case of denied boarding, long delay or cancellation of the flight, they shall receive assistance as soon 
as  possible,  blind  and  visually  impaired  passengers  shall  receive  information  in  a  format  which  is 
accessible for them. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There  were  no  binding  obligations  at  international  level  to  protect  PRM  rights  when 
travelling  by  air  before  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation.  Both  the  International  Civil 
Aviation  Organization  (ICAO)  and  the  European  Civil  Aviation  Conference  (ECAC) 
published  and  updated  non-binding  recommendations  and  guidelines,  however  these 
documents did not grant enforceable rights for PRM nor do obligations for operators (see 
in more detail in 3.2 and 5.4)31.   

The  US  had  already  a  comprehensive  legislation  on  PRM  rights  at  the  time  of  the 
drafting  of  the  Regulation,  but  that  did  not  generate  the  necessary  impetus  for  an 
international intervention on the rights of PRM when travelling by air.  

In  2005  nine  member  states  (i.e.  Austria,  Germany,  Spain,  France,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Netherland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) already had national legislation protecting 
the  rights  of  PRM  when  travelling  by  air,  however  their  scope  and  content  varied 
significantly32.  While  the  associated  protection  covered  most  of  the  largest  Member 
States playing a key role in the EU aviation market, it did not extend to the majority of 
Member  States.  In  addition,  the  level  of  protection  granted  by  national  legislation  in 
different Member States varied, giving rise to confusion about which rules applied. 

Had  this  situation  continued,  the  protection  provided  to  PRM  would  have  varied 
considerably across Member States, potentially reducing their confidence when travelling 
and  hence  the  overall  level  of  PRM  travel.  They  would  also  have  faced  additional 
barriers  such  as  much  time  spent  in  investigating  different  protection  schemes  and 
possibilities. 

In  those  Member  States  where  PRM  were  not  granted  rights  when  using  air  transport, 
they had to rely on airlines’ policies, terms and conditions on transporting PRM. 

Airlines  often  offered  assistance  to  PRM  even  before  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation.  The  services  were  in  most  cases  provided  solely  by  the  airlines  or  their 
ground handlers and airport managing bodies were rarely involved in the provision of the 
service.  Some  airlines  offered  better  services  than  others  depending  on  their  interest  in 
PRM  as  their  possible  customers.  The  travelling  experience  of  PRM  therefore  varied 
considerably,  with  the  offer  ranging  from  no  service  at  all  to  assistance  broadly 
comparable with that currently available. In many cases, airlines charged an extra fee for 
PRM  assistance  services.  This  situation  in  many  cases  limited  PRM  travel  options  and 
confidence in air transport. 

31  Chapter  8  of  Annex  9  of  the  Convention  on  International  Civil  Aviation  (also  known  as  Chicago 
Convention)  makes some recommendations to state parties about the  facilitation of PRM  passengers and 
the  European  Civil  Aviation  Conference  adopted  a  document  (ECAC  Doc  30.)  containing  non-binding 
guidance material for national authorities and operators on the same topic. 
32 See Impact Assessment Study on the Legislative Proposal on the rights of passengers in International bus 
and coach transports, Final Report, July 2007. Commissioned by DG Energy and Transport, and carried out 
by PwC. 

14 

 
                                                 
3.1.  Description of the current scope of the Regulation 

The  Regulation  applies  to  PRM,  using  or  intending  to  use  commercial  passenger  air 
services on departure from, on transit through, or on arrival at an airport, when the airport 
is  situated  in  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  to  which  the  Treaty  applies.33  The 
Regulation  is  applicable  to  Iceland,  Liechtenstein  and  Norway  in  accordance  with  the 
EEA  Agreement34  and  to  Switzerland  in  accordance  with  the  Agreement  between  the 
European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (1999)35. 

The  Regulation  does  not  allow  Member  States  to  grant  any  exemptions  from  the 
application of the Regulation. 

3.2.  Other relevant legislation and guidance 

The Regulation does not perform its tasks in isolation, but in interaction with other EU 
legislation,  national  legislation  and  non-binding  international  standards  and  guidance 
documents. The following is a brief description of the different legal instruments related 
to the transportation of PRM in the EU. 

In point 5.4 on Coherence this interplay will be analysed in detail. 

European Union legislation and guidelines 

Central for passenger rights in air is  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that grants rights to 
PRM  as  to  any  other  air  travellers’  rights  in  case  of  denied  boarding,  cancellation  and 
long  delay  of  flights.  As  mentioned  earlier,  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  stipulates 
specific rights to PRM: it imposes a general obligation on airlines to prioritise their needs 
and  it  specifies  that  in  the  case  of  denied  boarding,  cancellations  or  long  delays,  PRM 
shall receive care as soon as possible.  

Furthermore the luggage and mobility equipment of PRM is handled by ground-handlers 
who  therefore  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  PRMs’  travel.  The  activity  of  ground-
handlers is regulated by Directive 96/67/EC on access to the ground-handling market at 

33  See  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006.  According  to  Article  355  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), EU law does not apply to the countries and territories listed in 
Annex  II  to  the  TFEU  (See  Annex  II  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU) 
(http://ec.europa.eu/archives/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm).Instead, those countries and territories are subject 
to the special association arrangements laid down in accordance with Part Four of the TFEU. Moreover, it 
does  not  apply  to  the  Faeroe  Islands,  the  Isle  of  Man  and  the  Channel  Islands  according  to  the  act  of 
accession of Denmark and the United Kingdom. Therefore, these territories are to be considered as third 
countries  within  the  meaning  of  the  Regulation.  On  the  other  hand,  under  Article  355  of  the  TFEU,  the 
provisions of the Treaties do apply to French overseas departments, namely Guadeloupe, French Guiana, 
Martinique, Réunion Island, Mayotte as well as Saint-Martin, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. 
Therefore, these territories are part of a Member State to which the Treaty applies within the meaning of 
the Regulation. 
34 Agreement on the European Economic Area  
OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3–522 
35 Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Final Act 
OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 73–90 

15 

 
                                                 
Community  airports36.  The  provisions  of  Directive  96/67/EC  shall  also  apply  to  the 
activities covered by the Regulation where this does not conflict with the Regulation37.  

On  the  basis  of  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  965/201238,  the  European  Aviation 
Safety Agency (EASA) adopted ‘acceptable means of compliance’ (AMC) related to the 
for  PRM.  
carriage  of 
These AMCs are non-binding standards to illustrate how to comply with EU safety rules: 
one  does  not  have  to  follow  them,  but  if  one  follows  them,  safety  rules  are  complied 
with.39  

‘special  categories  of  passengers’ 

including 

(SCPs), 

Certain rules regarding liability for loss or damage of mobility equipment can be found in 
Regulation  No  (EC)  2027/1997  on  air  carrier  liability  in  respect  of  the  carriage  of 
passengers  and  their  baggage  by  air40  which  transposes  the  Convention  for  the 
Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air commonly (known as the 
‘Montreal Convention’) into EU law. 

Finally, it should be mentioned that the Commission published non-binding interpretative 
guidelines on the Regulation41 to enhance the harmonised application of the Regulation.  

International binding and non-binding legal instruments 

There  are  two  international  organisations  governing  civil  aviation  which  both  adopted 
non-binding standards and guidance related to the facilitation of transporting PRM. 

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nation agency, adopted 
the  ‘Chicago 
the  Convention  on  International  Civil  Aviation  (also  known  as 
Convention’). Chapter 8 of Annex 9 of this Convention makes some recommendations to 
state parties about the facilitation of transporting PRM passengers. 

The  European  Civil  Aviation  Conference  (ECAC)  is  an intergovernmental  organisation 
which  seeks  to  harmonise  civil  aviation  policies  and  practices  amongst  its  44  Member 
States  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  promote  understanding  on  policy  matters  between  its 
Member States and other parts of the world. ECAC also adopted a document, known as 

36  Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the ground-handling market at Community 
airports (OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36–45). 
37  Recital (9), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 
38  Regulation  (EU)  No  965/2012  of    5    October    2012  laying      down      technical      requirements      and   
administrative   procedures   related   to   air   operations   pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  216/2008  of  
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council (OJ  L  296,  25.10.2012,  p.  1). 
39  European  Union  Aviation  Safety  Agency,  Acceptable  Means  of  Compliance  (AMC)  and  Guidance 
Material  (GM)  to  Annex  III  Organisation  requirements  for  air  operations  [Part-ORO]  of  Commission 
Regulation 
operations,  
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Consolidated%20AMC-GM_Annex%20IV%20Part-
CAT_March%202019.pdf; See  Annex I (2) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.  
40 Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents 
(OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p. 1–3). 
41 See SWD(2012), 171 final. 

965/2012 

(EU) 

air 

on 

16 

 
                                                 
ECAC’s Doc 3042, containing non-binding guidance material for national authorities and 
operators on the facilitation of transporting PRM passengers.  

It is also important to mention here that the legislation in the US (known as 14 CFR Part 
382) has a different approach to the division of responsibility for PRM assistance, which 
have an impact on carriers operating between the EU and the US. 

In  the  broader  context,  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
(UNCRPD)43 should be mentioned to which all the 31 countries examined in this report 
are parties. The UNCRPD requires state parties to the Convention to ensure that persons 
with  disabilities have access  to  transport and therefore sets  a very strong foundation of 
PRM passenger rights44. 

Carriers’ and airports’ implementation and application 

Providing assistance to PRM at airports has an average cost which ranges from EUR 0.06 
per passenger  at  the cheapest  airport  (Palanga,  LT) to  EUR 1.53 at  the  most expensive 
(Catania,  IT).  The  overall  cost  envelope  is  difficult  to  estimate  as  PRM  assistance 
numbers  are  not  available  for  all  European  airports.  However,  eight  airport  operators 
(namely  Paris-CDG,  Frankfurt,  Riga,  Copenhagen,  Rome-Fiumicino,  Shannon,  Zurich 
and  Heathrow)  indicated  the  costs  for  PRM  assistance,  which  amounts  to  around 
EUR180 million annually for all eight airports. Such costs can be passed to airlines in the 
form of PRM charges. 

3.3.  Member States’ implementation and monitoring 

The    Regulation  requires  Member    States  to  designate  national  enforcement  bodies 
(NEBs),  which    are    responsible    for    enforcing    the    Regulation    and    to  lay    down   
penalties    in    their    national    law    in    order    to    sanction    operators    that    breach    the 
Regulation45.  All Member States designated their NEBs and adopted national legislation 
which allows to sanction operators that breach the Regulation. 

3.3.1 The National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) and their activities 

of 

the 

May 

2018, 

Rights 

Convention 

Persons  with  Disabilities, 

42  ECAC  Policy  Statement  in  the  field  of  Civil  Aviation  Facilitation,  ECAC  Doc  No.  30  (Part  1),  12th 
edition, 
https://www.ecac-ceac.org/images/documents/ECAC-
Doc_30_Part_1_12th_edition_May_2018_Amendment_4_Nov_2020.pdf.  
43  United  Nations 
on 
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-
disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html  The  UNCRPD  was  adopted  in 
2006  and  entered  into  force  in  May  2008.  It  creates  a  legal  obligation  on  the  Member  States  that  have 
ratified it to incorporate accessibility requirements in national legislation.  
44 Persons with disabilities - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission (europa.eu), 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1137 
45 The consumer law Directives followed a similar approach, which has been changed only recently  with 
the  adoption  of  the  so-called  Omnibus  Directive,  which  introduces  more  detailed  and  stronger  rules 
regarding  enforcement,  see  Directive  2019/2161/EU  of  27  November  2019  amending  Council  Directive 
93/13/EEC  and  Directives  98/6/EC,  2005/29/EC  and  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  as  regards  the  better  enforcement  and  modernisation  of  Union  consumer  protection  rules,  OJ 
18.12.2019, L 328/7. 

17 

 
                                                 
The Regulation follows the same approach as Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and later the 
other passenger rights Regulations, an approach that allows for high flexibility in respect 
of  enforcement,  recognising  the  different  national  regulatory  frameworks  in  place  in 
different  Member  States.  More  specifically,  while  the  substantive  rights  of  PRM 
travelling by  air are specified in  the text  of the Regulation,  the articles  on enforcement 
(i.e. Articles 14 to 16) allow a great discretion to the Member States to designate one or 
more  existing  transport,  consumer  protection  or  equality  authority  as  NEB  or  create  a 
new one to carry out complaint handling, monitoring and enforcement activities.  

The Member States have implemented the Regulation differently and hence NEBs have 
different  tasks  and  powers  and  follow  different  procedures  in  the  different  Member 
States. 

The NEBs are in most cases civil aviation authorities, transport authorities dealing with 
different  modes  of  transport  or  ministries  responsible  for  transport.  In  a  few  cases 
Member States have designated consumer protection authorities as NEBs. Finally, in two 
Member States authorities responsible to promote the equality of persons with disabilities 
were designated as NEBs. 

Most Member States designated one NEB for the enforcement of the Regulation. Latvia, 
Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta,  Romania,  Sweden  designated  two  NEBs  and  Finland 
designated  three.  The  distribution  of  tasks  between  the  NEBs  vary  Member  State  by 
Member  States  but  often  one  NEB  (typically  the  transport  authority)  is  responsible  for 
the  systemic  enforcement  and  oversight  and  the  other  NEB  (typically  the  consumer 
protection  authority  or  authorities  responsible  to  promote  the  equality  of  persons  with 
disabilities) handles individual complaints. 

Table 2 - Summary of Member State implementation 

Member State 

Regulation 261/2004 

Regulation 1107/2006 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 

SPF Mobilité & Transport 
Ministry of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications 
Czech Civil Aviation Authority 
Danish Transport, Construction and Housing Authority* 
Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) 
Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (CPTRA)* 
Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR) 
Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority 
Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea (AESA)* 
Direction générale de l'aviation civile (DGAC) 
Croatian Civil Aviation Agency 
L’Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (ENAC) 
Department of Civil Aviation 

Consumer Rights Protection Centre 
(CRPC)* 
Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration (LTSA) 

Civil Aviation Agency of Latvia 

Ministère de l'Économie 
Ministry for Innovation and 

Direction de l'Aviation Civile 
Equal Treatment Authority 

18 

 
Member State 

Malta 

Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 
Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

Iceland 

Norway 
Switzerland 
United 
Kingdom 

Regulation 261/2004 
Technology (ITM) & Consumer 
Protection Bodies  
Malta Competition and Consumer 
Affairs Authority 

Regulation 1107/2006 

Civil Aviation Authority 

Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) 
APF - Agentur für Passagier- und Fahrgastrechte* 
Commission on Passengers' Rights & Civil Aviation Office (CAO) 
Autoridade Nacional da Aviação Civil (ANAC) 

National Authority for Consumer 
Protection (ANPC)* 

Ministry of 
Labor, Family and Social Protection 
National Authority for People with 
Disabilities 

Consumer Disputes Board* 

Civil Aviation Agency 
Slovak trade Inspectorate * 
Finnish 
Competition and 
Consumer 
Authority 

Traficom 

Swedish Transport Authority 
Icelandic Transport Authority 
(ICETRA) 

Swedish Consumer Agency 

Civil Aviation Authority 
Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) 

Civil Aviation Authority 

*NEBs which also are alternative dispute resolution bodies (ADR)46  (or in the case of Spain are in the process to 
become an ADR)  
Source: Study on the current level of protection of air passenger rights in the EU47 

The fact that such diverse bodies are in charge to enforce the Regulation in the Member 
States  can  make  it  difficult  for  PRM  and  other  stakeholders  (e.g.  organisations 
representing  PRM,  transport  operators)  to  locate  the  NEB,  submit  complaints  or  other 
enquiries. 

The competence of NEBs also differs significantly. All can handle individual complaints 
except  the German NEB which  focuses on the systemic  enforcement of  the Regulation 
only  (however,  in  case  of  Germany  passengers  can  submit  a  complaint  to  an  efficient 
transport  specific  ADR  if  the  airline  agreed  to  participate  in  the  conciliation  procedure 
before this body which most airlines operating in Germany do). 

Many  NEBs  did  not  disclose  data  on  how  much  staff  they  dedicate  to  implement  the 
Regulation.  NEBs  which  did  disclose  data  seem  to  have  very  limited  staff  resources, 

46 Alternative Dispute  Resolution bodies (ADRs) are bodies that offer a simple, fast and low cost out-of-
court solution to disputes between consumers and service providers. 
47 See Study on the current level of protection of air passenger rights in the EU, Final Report, 13 January 
2020  commissioned  by  DG  Mobility  and  Transport.:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/f03df002-335c-11ea-ba6e-01aa75ed71a1 

19 

 
 
                                                 
most often they indicated that 1 full time equivalent (FTE)48 or even less deals with the 
enforcement of the Regulation.49  

The maximum amount of penalties also differ significantly between Member States, and 
in some cases it is doubtful whether even a maximum fine could dissuade operators from 
breaching the Regulation. 

3.3.2 Monitoring activities 

In  addition  of  dealing  with  complaints,  and  (if  necessary)  imposing  sanctions,  Article 
14(1) of the Regulation also stipulates that NEBs shall “take the measures necessary to 
ensure that the rights of PRM are respected.” However, besides this general obligation, 
the Regulation offers flexibility for NEBs to choose the actions they deem appropriate to 
monitor operators’ compliance with the Regulation. 

Although  these  tasks  are  not  specified  in  the  text  of  the  Regulation,  monitoring  and 
enforcement of the Regulation presupposes carrying out at least some specific activities. 
It  seems  from  the  contributions  received  from  NEBs  and  the  analysis  of  the  contractor 
that  there  are  significant  differences  between  the  level  of  monitoring  activities  of  the 
different  NEBs:  some  of  them  seem  to  be  very  proactive  and  engage  in  different 
monitoring  activities  on  a  regular  basis,  some  are  less  proactive  (they  only  engage  in 
specific  monitoring  activities  or  they  engage  in  monitoring  activities  less  frequently) 
while  other  NEBs    indicated  no  proactive  monitoring  activities  at  all  and  they  seem  to 
focus only on handling complaints. Some NEBs did not share information on this issue.50 

Those  NEBs  which  indicated  during  the  stakeholder  consultation  that  they  carried  out 
monitoring activities mentioned that they carried out one or more of the following tasks: 

- 
- 
- 

-  monitoring of the homepages of airlines (e.g. to ensure that airlines’ general terms 
and  conditions  are  not  contrary  to  the  Regulation)  and  airports  (e.g.  to  check 
whether their quality standards are published); 
audits of airports and some of them also audit airlines; 
targeted inspections of airlines or airports; 
regular  contact  with  airports and airlines (in the  form  of meetings or by  written 
correspondence)  to  inform  them  about  their  obligations  and  ensure  that  they 
comply with them; 
cooperation  with organisations of persons with disabilities to gather information 
about  the  application  of  the  Regulation  (to  complement  the  information  they 
receive from the few formal complains PRM submit to them). 

- 

3.3.3 Complaint handling 

48  A  full-time  equivalent  (FTE)  is  a  unit  to  measure  employed  persons  in  a  way  that  makes  them 
comparable although they may work a different number of hours per week. A full-time person is therefore 
counted as one FTE, while a part-time employee gets a score in proportion to the hours he or she works. 
49 In Annex 4 (Running costs and benefits according to the NEBs) a detailed table indicates the full time 
equivalent (FTE) of staff dealing with the enforcement of this Regulation for each NEB. 
50 See Support Study, Appendix D Country Fiches 

20 

 
                                                 
If  a  PRM  passenger  considers  that  an  airport  managing  body  or  airline  infringed  their 
rights  granted by the Regulation,  they  are entitled to  submit a complaint  to  that airport 
managing body or airline.  

In case the PRM passenger concerned is not satisfied with the airport managing body’s or 
airline’s response to the complaint, they are entitled to submit complaints to a NEB or to 
another body designated by a Member State.  

The total amount of complaints submitted to the NEBs relating to the Regulation is very 
low: about 150 complaints for the whole EU in 2019 (Around 15 complaints per million 
passenger). Different NEBs deal with varying numbers of complaints. 18 of the 26 NEBs 
providing  complaint  data  received  on  average  less  than  five  complaints  per  year 
throughout  the  period  for  which  they  provided  data.  The  eight  NEBs  with  the  highest 
number  of  complaints  in  2019  received  between  11  and  26  complaints51.  At  the  same 
time,  four  NEBs52  did  not  receive  any  complaints  in  2019,  and  the  remaining  NEBs 
received an average of one to five complaints per year in 2019 or in the previous years 
for which they provided data. 

It  shall  also  be  noted  that  reporting  on  the  volume  of  complaints  by  different  NEBs 
differs  significantly,  whilst  some  report  exclusively  complaints  which  fall  under  the 
scope of the Regulation others report any complaint that they received for any reason. As 
there is no reporting obligation for NEBs under the Regulation, the Commission depends 
on the data the NEBs voluntarily share with the Commission. 

Nevertheless,  the  overall  volume  of  complaints  appears  to  be  growing  slowly  with  a 
grow  of  more  than  85  %  from  around  80  in  2008  to  around  150  in  2018  (EU  27+3), 
which might be due to an increase in the number of PRM travelling, more breaches of the 
Regulation, better awareness of the right to complain, or more willingness to do so. There 
can  be  many  factors  to  this  varying  number  of  complaints  and  due  to  limited  data 
available, it remains difficult to specify the determining factor - in particular as regards 
the  motivation  for  a  passenger’s  decision  to/not  to  complain.  A  further  analysis  on  the 
factors for this and the impacts will be addressed in Chapter 5. 

In addition to submitting a complaint to a NEB, PRM passengers should also be able to 
seek for redress using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) bodies. Based on information 
provided  by  NEBs  and  ADR  bodies  themselves,  not  all  Member  States  are  equally 
equipped  in  that  respect:  a  number  of  them  do  not  have  specific  ADR  bodies  for  the 
transport  sector,  which  may  lead  to  a  lack  of  transport  sector  specific  expertise  which 
may make their work difficult. Therefore, in such countries disputes related to passenger 
rights  are  handled  by  a  generic  ADR  body.  In  addition,  in  some  Member  States  where 
ADRs are entitled to adjudicate on passenger rights claims, the participation of carriers in 

51 These  were  the  NEBs  with the highest number of complaints in 2019 (with  the  number of complaints 
received): - Spain (26), Austria (14), France (21), Germany (15), Ireland (13), Italy (11), Netherlands (13) 
and  the  UK  (17).  With  the  exception  of  Austria,  these  countries  represent  the  largest  European  aviation 
markets,  either  in  terms  of  passenger  numbers  at  airports  or  countries  of  registration  of  the  largest  EU 
airlines. see Support Study  point 3.13 
52 Estonia, Croatia, Cyprus, Croatia, see Support Study  Point  3.13 

21 

 
                                                 
the procedure is voluntary. The Commission has supported the launch of Travel-Net,53 an 
association  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR)  and  Online  Dispute  Resolution 
(ODR)  bodies  for  transport  and  travel  disputes,  to  facilitate  networking  and  exchange 
between them. 

National ADRs also indicated that they only received very few complaints related to the 
Regulation.  The  only  exception  is  the  UK  ADR  body,  which  received  more  than  160 
complaints both in 2018 and in 2019 This is likely related to the fact that UK legislation, 
in  line  with  the  provisions  of  UK  disability  rights  legislation  applying  in  other  sectors, 
grants passengers who suffer emotional distress due to an infringement of the Regulation 
the right to seek financial compensation from the airline or airport concerned. The below 
figure shows the complaints reported by NEBs.  

Figure 1 - Complaints received by NEBs in years 2006-2018 

Source: Support Study, Figure 3.2 
Note that UK is not in the chart as it would be off-scale due to national legislation granting additional rights 

The  main  reasons  for  PRM  to  complain  are,  by  order  of  importance:  “Lack  of  or  low 
quality  assistance  by  airline  or  airport”  (20%),  “loss  or  damage  of  the  mobility 
equipment”  (17%),  “denied  boarding  of  the  mobility  equipment  by  the  airline”  (12%), 
“slow  or  delayed  assistance  by  the  airport”  (10%)  and  “denial  to  transport  assistance 
dogs” (10%) amounting to a total of two third of complaints according to data received 
from NEBs as shown in Figure 2 below54. 

53  Launch  event  for  TRAVEL_NET,  a  network  of  ADR  entities  handling  consumer  disputes  in  the 
passenger transport and travel sectors (Berlin, 10 November 2017); https://www.adrpoint.gr/travel-net (the 
Greek ADR hosts the website with an application form). It has more than 20 members. 
54 Support study Figure 3.3: Most common types of complaints received by NEBs 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
The highest  number of  complaints (20%) concern the lack of or insufficient  assistance. 
This may be caused by both the airline and the airport and it may be due to long waiting 
times or lack of communication of needs between carriers, airport, booking agency and 
passenger. 

Denied  boarding  is  the  reason  only  for  7%  of  the  complaints.  However  since  denied 
boarding  of  mobility  equipment  comprises  12%  of  complaints  and  denial  to  transport 
assistance  dogs  comprises  another  10%,  and  the  latter  two  cases  will  often  entail  a 
situation  when  the  passenger  will  not  be  able  or  willing  to  travel  without  the  mobility 
equipment  or  assistance  dog,  the  data  shows  that  denied  boarding  remains  an  issue  for 
PRM. 

It is also important to note that the loss or damage of mobility equipment concerns 17% 
of  the  complaints.  This  was  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  Commission  proposed  in  the 
context of the review of air passenger rights that the liability of air carriers with regard to 
mobility equipment should be increased up to the actual value of the equipment55. 

Figure 2 - Types of complaints received by NEBs 

Source: Support Study, Figure 3.3 

It  is  important  to  note that although between 2012 and 2019 several  businesses (‘claim 
agencies’)  have  emerged  to  help  air  passengers  to  manage  their  complaints  against 
airlines,  these  businesses  seem  to  deal  exclusively  with  complaints  arising  from  the 

55  This  would  be  achieved,  in  conformity  with  the  Montreal  Convention,  by  compelling  airlines  to 
automatically offer the option to make a special declaration of interest laid out within the Convention, at no 
additional cost (Article 2(4) of the proposal – Article 6a of the amended Regulation (EC) No 2027/97), see 
Proposal for a Regulation of  the European Parliament and of the  Council amending Regulation (EC) No 
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  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  2027/97  on  air  carrier 
liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, COM(2013)130 final. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
breaches  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  (in  particular  those  giving  a  right  to 
compensation)56 and not from breaches of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006.  

3.3.4 Sanctions imposed by NEBs 

The  maximum  amount  of  penalties  that  NEBs  may  impose  on  operators  differ 
significantly between Member States, and in cases these maximum amounts are very low 
(in case of Lithuania it is only EUR 800, but the maximum amount is also below  EUR 
5000 in Bulgaria, Estonia, Malta and Latvia) it is doubtful whether even a maximum fine 
could dissuade operators from breaching the Regulation. 

Most of the NEBs are authorized to impose sanctions themselves, however in some cases 
the NEBs can only initiate to impose sanctions and another authority will decide whether 
sanctions are imposed or not.57  

There is also a great difference in the number of sanctions that the NEBs have actually 
imposed  since  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation  ranging  from  67  sanctions  to  0 
sanctions.  

The  Belgian,  Luxembourg,  Maltese  and  Polish  NEBs  did  not  indicate  whether  they 
imposed sanctions or not. 

NEBs  from  17  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece, 
Croatia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Austria,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Slovakia, 
Sweden),  and  also  from  the  United  Kingdom,  Iceland,  Norway,  Switzerland  did  not 
impose any sanction on the basis of infringement of the Regulation.  

Accordingly, between 2008 and 2019 only NEBs of 6 out of the 31 countries examined 
imposed  sanctions:  the  Spanish  NEB  imposed  67  sanctions,  the  German  NEB  imposed 
four  sanctions,  the  French,  Italian,  Dutch  and  Portuguese  NEBs  imposed  one  sanction 
each58.  

The French NEB has used the maximum amount possible when it imposed penalties. 

The  table  below  shows  the  differences  in  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  by  different 
Member States and the number and amount of sanctions imposed.  

56 There is no evidence to conclude that in the UK claim agencies are dealing with complaints in massive 
numbers. 
57 Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, France, Austria, Slovenia. 
58 See for more details Annex 3. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3 - NEB competences and sanctions 

Enforcement powers 

Max fine amount 

Number  of  sanctions 
imposed  to  date  and 
magnitude 
of 
penalties levied 

M
S 

Able 
to 
hand
le 
indiv
idual 
comp
laints
? 

BE  Yes 

Supervisory  and 
powers,  and 
report 
consideration of prosecution 

inspection 
to 
for 

infringements 

the  power 

BG  Yes 

Supervisory  and 
inspection 
powers, and the power to issue 
fines 

CZ  Yes 

The NEB can initiate sanctions 
proceedings 

DK  Yes 

DE  No 

EE  Yes 

IE 

Yes 

The NEB has the power to act 
as  an  intermediary  between 
parties  as  dispute  resolution, 
and  can  initiate  procedures  to  
issue fines 

The  NEB  has  monitoring  and 
enforcement  powers,  and  can 
initiate  administrative  offence 
procedures 

The  NEB  can  issue  a  precept 
(a  form  of  order  to  comply) 
and  can  issue  sanctions  if  this 
is breached. 

lead 

The  NEB  has  the  power  to 
initiate  prosecutions,  which 
can 
fines  being 
imposed,  and  can  carry  out 
monitoring  and  inspections  at 
airports 

to 

No information 

No information 

EUR 5,000 

No sanctions imposed 

1,000,000 
(approximately 
37,000) 

czk 
EUR 

No sanctions imposed 

Unlimited 

No sanctions imposed 

EUR 30,000 

4  sanctions,  EUR  1000-
EUR 2,000 per sanction 

EUR 3,500 

No sanctions imposed 

No information 

No sanctions imposed 

EL  Yes 

The  NEB  can  issue  sanctions 
through airport-based teams 

EUR 250,000 

No sanctions imposed 

25 

 
 
ES  Yes 

. The  NEB can issue financial 
sanctions. 

EUR 70,000 

FR  Yes 

The  NEB  can  make  reports  to 
the Minister of Transport  who 
can  decide  whether  to  issue  a 
sanction 

EUR 7,500 per instance of 
non-compliance  

67 
with 
sanctions, 
sanctions  of  on  average 
and EUR 500,000 in total 

1  sanction  for  refusing  to 
transport 
(3 
total). 
infringements 
Sanction of EUR 22,500 

a  PRM 
in 

HR  Yes 

The  NEB 
can 
sanctions on carriers 

impose 

EUR 6,700 

No sanctions imposed 

IT 

Yes 

CY  Yes 

The  NEB  can  carry  out 
inspections, 
impose 
sanctions 

and 

The  NEB  can  carry  out 
impose 
investigations, 
suspend  or 
sanctions  and 
withdraw operating licenses 

EUR 120,000 

1  sanction  imposed  with  a 
sanction of EUR 10,000 

EUR  8,000  or  10%  of  the 
company’s 
annual 
turnover 

No sanctions imposed 

LV  Yes 

No information provided  

EUR 1800 

No sanctions imposed 

LT  Yes 

The  NEB  has  complaints 
handling 
sanctioning 
powers 

and 

EUR 800 

No sanctions imposed 

LU  No 

No information provided 

No information provided 

No information provided 

inform
ation 
provid
ed  

HU  Yes 

Investigation,  arbitration  and 
sanctioning powers. 

EUR 20,000 

No sanctions imposed 

MT  Yes 

The NEB can issue sanctions 

EUR 2,329.37 

No information provided 

NL  Yes 

The NEB can investigate cases 
and issue sanctions 

EUR 74,000 

1  sanction  imposed  with 
an amount of EUR 9,000 

AT  Yes 

PL  Yes 

The  NEB  can 
investigate 
claims  and  file  a  complaint 
with the district authority who 
can impose a sanction 

investigate 
The  NEB  can 
compliance, 
although 
responsibility  for  enforcement 
is split and only one body can 
issue fines 

EUR 22,000 

No sanctions imposed 

No information 

No information provided 

PT  Yes 

The  NEB  can  issue  fines,  but 
not award compensation 

EUR 400,000 

1  sanction  of  EUR  6,000, 
with 
sanctions 
3 
proceedings ongoing.  

26 

 
RO  Yes 

No information provided 

No information provided 

No sanctions imposed 

SI 

Yes 

SK  Yes 

The  NEB  has  the  power  to 
investigate,  and  commence 
minor offence proceedings 

EUR 60,000 

No sanctions imposed 

The  NEB  has  the  power  to 
investigate  and  make  non-
binding civil decisions. It may 
also impose fines.  

EUR  66,000  for  a  first 
offence,  rising 
to  EUR 
166,000  for  repeated  non-
compliance 

No sanctions imposed 

FI 

Yes 

The NEB can investigate cases 
and issue fines.  

SE  Yes 

The NEB can issue injunctions 
and impose fines 

Unlimited 

No sanctions imposed 

Unlimited 

No sanctions imposed 

UK  Yes 

IS 

Yes 

NO  No 

CH  Yes 

The  NEB  can  carry  out 
licenses 
inspections,  review 
and impose fines 

The  NEB  can  review  cases 
the  aim  of  resolving 
with 
them,  and  can  impose  fines 
although  it  is  their  policy  not 
to 

The NEB can carry out system 
level 
and 
monitoring 
enforcement, and impose fines 

Unlimited 

No sanctions imposed 

No information 

No sanctions imposed 

No information 

No sanctions imposed 

The NEB can carry out system 
level  enforcement,  investigate 
cases, and impose fines.  

CHF 
(approximately 
EUR18,641) 

20,000 

No sanctions imposed 

Source: Commission analysis based on the Support Study, Table 3.13. 

3.3.5 Infringement cases / preliminary rulings 

All  Member States designated on time one or more NEBs to  enforce the  Regulation  or 
handle complaints and NEBs are authorised to impose legal sanctions for the breach of 
the Regulation. No cases of NEBs having a consistent administrative practice contrary to 
the Regulation were detected either. 

There was also no indication of any significant volume of national court litigation based 
on the Regulation. There has furthermore been no national court or tribunal applying to 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU  for  a  preliminary  ruling  related  to  provisions  of  the 
Regulation. 

27 

 
3.4.  Role  of  the  European  Commission  in  the  implementation  of  the 

Regulation 

The  European  Commission  played  a  supporting  role  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation in several aspects: 

The  Commission  has  a  web  page  dedicated  to  inform  citizens  about  their  passenger 
rights59;  

The  Commission  conducted  several  information  campaigns  to  raise  the  awareness  of 
citizens  about  their  passenger  rights  (including  on  this  Regulation):60  The  Commission 
started carrying out information campaigns aimed at raising awareness among citizens in 
2009.  The  first  campaign  (2010-2012)  was  organised  for  air  and  rail  passenger  rights, 
while  a  second  one  launched  in  2013  concerned  all  modes.  Online  communication 
campaigns (online advertising) have proven the most cost-effective means during the last 
years  (campaigns  in  2016-2017,  2019,  2020  and  2021),  which  was  reflected  in  a  steep 
increase of visits of the relevant Your Europe passenger rights webpages; 

The  Commission  also  conducts  regularly  Eurobarometer  surveys  on  passenger  rights. 
The results of the latest survey from 2019 showed that only 32% of respondents of EU 
citizens are aware of the existence of EU passenger rights (however, we do not have data 
about  how  many  of  the  PRM  who  actually  travel  by  air  are  aware  of  their  passenger 
rights)  61 

The Commission facilitated the uniform  application of the Regulation  by  publishing its 
interpretative guidelines in 201262;  

The Commission organised regular meetings with NEBs and stakeholder representatives, 
with  a  view  to  promote  cooperation  and  the  sharing  of  experiences  (relating  to  both 
difficulties encountered and good practices).63  In addition, the Commission maintains a 
regular exchange with the NEBs between these meetings to reach common understanding 
on the interpretation of specific provisions of the Regulation and to help solving specific 
cases. 

In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission published Interpretative Guidelines 
on  the  progressive  restoration  of  transport  services  and  connectivity  –  COVID-1964 
emphasizing the obligation of operators to continue giving assistance for PRM and calling 
them  to    provide  with  their  staff  assisting  PRM  with  appropriate  personal  protective 

59 See https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/air/index_en.htm. 
60 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/passenger-rights/passenger-rights-campaign_en 
61 Special Eurobarometer 485 on Passenger Rights (survey carried out in the EU28, incl. the UK, in 
February/March 2019) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6814; 
62 See SWD(2012) 171 final.  
63https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-
groups/consult?lang=en&groupId=2861&fromMembers=true&memberType=4&memberId=44084 
64 Communication from the Commission Guidelines on the progressive restoration of transport services and 
connectivity – COVID-19, 2020/C 169/02  C/2020/3139   OJ C 169, 15.5.2020, p. 17–29  

28 

 
                                                 
equipment.  Updated  information  for  passengers  was  also  frequently  posted  at  the 
Commission’s Coronavirus Response website65. 

In  the  summer  of  2020  the  Commission  also  launched  infringement  procedures  for  the 
breach of other passenger rights Regulations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. 
for  not  applying  the  relevant  rules  on  reimbursement  of  tickets  following  cancellation  of 
services), however, the Commission did not receive any complaints about the breach of this 
Regulation in the context of the Covid pandemic.  

3.5.  Major recent developments 

There  are  some  factors  that  were  not  taken  into  consideration  or  that  had  yet  to  occur 
when  drafting  the  Regulation  that  are  important  to  take  into  consideration  when 
evaluating the Regulation. 

The  size  and  complexity  of  airports  and  the  operational  procedures  of  the  aviation 
industry make it more difficult for passengers to reach their flights 

Since  2008  when  the  Regulation  became  applicable  several  airports  have  been 
significantly  extended  or  new  large  airports  were  built  where  the  walking  distance 
between  the  entrance  of  the  terminal  and  the  departure  gate  has  increased.  Very  often 
commercial aspects prevail during airport construction or refurbishment over aspects like 
accessibility or easiness to navigate at the airport.  

Some  passengers  find  it  impossible  to  walk  long  distances,  therefore  they  ask  for 
assistance.  Other  passengers  who  also  have  difficulties  to  walk  longer  distances  would   
nevertheless  prefer  to  reach  their  flights  independently  and  not  to  ask  for  assistance  if 
they  would  be  allowed  more  time  to  do  so.  However,  in  many  airports  they  are  not 
allowed  to  check  in  enough  time  before  their  flights,  and  the  departure  gate  is  only 
announced  a  short  time  before  departure  (to  entice  passengers  to  spend  their  time 
shopping or at other commercial facilities) making it impossible for them to reach their 
departure gate on time and forcing them to request PRM assistance66. 

Increase  in  demand  of  PRM  assistance  by  passengers  who  do  not  have  a  genuine 
disability 

During  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation,  several  airport  managing  bodies  and 
airlines  mentioned  the  increase  in  the  number  of  passengers  requesting  assistance  for 
reasons  other  than  disability  or  reduced  mobility,  as  an  unintended  effect  of  the 
Regulation.  Several  airports  and  airlines  participating  at  the  stakeholder  consultation 
claim that there is a growing number of requests for assistance from certain passengers 

65  https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response_en 
66 Airport Council International (ACI) Europe, the association representing airports in Europe published a 
guidance  document  indicating  how  airports  and  their  operation  should  be  designed  taking  into 
facilitated:  https://www.aci-
consideration  how 
europe.org/downloads/resources/aci%20europe%20guidelines%20for%20passenger%20services%20at%2
0european%20airports.pdf. 

independent  movement  of  PRM  could  be 

29 

 
                                                 
who  would  otherwise  struggle  to  find  their  way  in  big  and  complex  airports,  or 
passengers who would like to skip queues or to have someone else to carry their luggage. 
Such misuses have a negative impact on the costs of operators and also on the quality of 
service that persons with genuine disability receive (in the sense that genuine PRM may 
need to wait more to receive assistance).  

Technological developments 

The development of technological solutions such as ambulifts and chairlifts that help to 
embark  and  disembark  an  aircraft  have  led  to  significant  improvements  in  the  safe, 
dignified and  efficient conveyance of PRM. Such technologies remove the need for the 
manual handling of PRM where they are not able to lift themselves into or out of a seat 
or  climb  stairs.  As  a  consequence,  where  these  solutions  are  available,  certain  airports 
and NEBs prohibited the manual handling of PRM. 

Several  innovations  using  digital  technology  have  improved  the  efficiency  with  which 
services  are  delivered.  PRM  assistance  tracking  devices  now  used  in  several  airports 
allow PRM assistance providers to know where staff and assistance equipment are in real 
time,  and  improve  operational  planning  and  monitoring  the  performance  of  their 
personnel. Other digital innovations such as online applications have facilitated access to 
information  for  PRM:  some  inform  them  about  their  rights,  others  allow  them  to  have 
access to real time information or to specify and personalise the assistance they need. 

The  size,  weight  and  power  of  electric  wheelchairs  used  by  PRM  has  developed 
substantially.  Electric  wheelchairs  are  increasingly  powered  using  lithium  ion  batteries. 
This  has  created  safety  problems  and  as  a  result  it  lead  to  increasing  denial  of  their 
transport.67 

The COVID crisis poses challenges to the sustainability of financing PRM assistance 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  virtually  wiped-out  most  passenger  traffic  (including 
PRM) at European airports since spring 2020. This has created a problem for airports as 
the  financial  scheme  is  set  up  so  that  airport  charges  in  one  year  pay  for  the  costs 
incurred in the previous year. Hence airports and airlines were supposed to bear the costs 
of assisting PRM in 2019 (which was historically high) in 2020. It has not been deemed 
suitable to increase the respective PRM charge in 2020, because it would be so high that 
it  may  have  a  significant  effect  on  tickets  prices,  and  hence  discourage  potential 
passengers from travelling by air. However, at the same time, many airports and airlines 
have  financial  difficulties  and  they  are  unable  to  bear  the  costs  of  PRM  assistance 
themselves. 

In  addition,  PRM  costs  remain  high  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  even  though 
airports have been very pro-active at trying to lower PRM assistance costs in the face of 
lowered PRM demand. The reason for this is that there are significant fixed costs that are 
independent from the number of PRM requesting assistance (e.g. they cannot reduce the 

67 See the case study on safety requirements of airlines in Appendix C of the support study 

30 

 
                                                 
number of staff in the same proportion of the decrease of demand, they need to maintain 
the equipment, etc.).  

In  several  Member  States,  airlines  and  airports  are  negotiating  with  the  competent 
authorities  about  potential  solutions  for  this  problem,  possibly  by  spreading  the 
assistance costs to a longer time period. 

4.  METHOD 

4.1.  Short description of methodology 
The evaluation of the Regulation started in 2019 with the publication of a roadmap68 and 
was overseen by an Inter-service Steering Group (details in Annex 1). It builds to a large 
extent  on  the  support  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  for  the  Commission 
between February 2020 and July 202169.  

A wide range of data sources have been used to collect evidence to answer the evaluation 
questions.  Stakeholders’ views were  gathered through public consultations and targeted 
consultation activities, including a workshop. All stakeholder groups were reached, and 
the  risk  of  receiving  incomplete  or  biased  information  was  mitigated  by  triangulating 
different  sources  of  information,  including  multiple  stakeholders,  juxtaposing  divergent 
viewpoints,  and  by  providing  the  relevant  factual  information  where  possible.  The 
findings are supplemented by additional information gathered by the Commission during 
its  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  across  Member  States,  from 
issues raised by NEBs at  the Commission’s regular expert group meetings or at  ECAC 
meetings70 , and from individual complaints received from citizens.The methodology for 
this evaluation includes the following elements: 

•  Public consultation for a five weeks period on the evaluation roadmap; 
•  A 15-week long public consultation; 
•  Support study: 

o  Desktop  research  collecting  publicly  available  information  (e.g.  specific 
studies which are relevant  to  the evaluation,  reports, national  legislation, 
guidance documents of the industry, documents published by NEBs); 
o  Targeted stakeholder consultations on the five evaluation questions with a 
broad range of stakeholders at different points of the evaluation phase; 
o  Three  case  studies:  dealing  with  1)  safety  conditions  applied  by  airlines 
related  to  the  transport  of  PRM,  2)  the  quality  standards  of  airports 
relating to PRM and 3) PRM charges applied by airports;  

Final 

68  See  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11896-Air-passenger-rights-
people-with-disabilities-reduced-mobility-evaluation-_en.  
69 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231259999 
70 Especially the meetings of the Subgroup on the Transport of Persons with reduced mobility of the ECAC 
Facilitation Working Group  

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d8b8bd04-1b4d-11ec-b4fe-

report: 

31 

 
                                                 
o  Country  fiches  developed  for  all  EU+4  countries  showing  information 
received  from  NEBs  the  implementation  methods,  enforcement  methods 
of each Member State; 

o  Workshop with a representative sample of selected stakeholders;  
o  A cost-benefit analysis. 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

As  previously  explained,  the  Commission  did  not  undertake  a  detailed  Impact 
Assessment before its legislative proposal in 200571, hence information about the period 
before the legislative proposal had to be gathered from other sources for this evaluation. 
It was possible to retroactively reconstruct the situation before the intervention, although 
it should still be noted that the information available about that period is limited.  

On the other hand, a number of inputs from a broad range of stakeholders were received 
from  the  period  after  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation,  including  from  NEBs  and  major 
European  airports  and  airline  groups,  as  well  as  passenger  and  PRM  organizations.  In 
addition, robust data from Eurostat and recognised industry sources such as data from the 
air  travel  intelligence  company  Official  Airlines  Guide  (OAG)  ensured  a  solid 
quantification basis. OAG schedule data and Eurostat passenger, aircraft movement and 
economic data is available for the whole evaluation period, whilst fare data is available 
for the period 2011-2018. Hence, it is possible to make comparisons between years and 
analyse the development of movements. Furthermore, the costs of PRM services can be 
analysed on the basis of availability of airport PRM charge data for a wide selection of 
airports,  accounting  for  82%  of  all  passengers  travelling  in  Europe,  and  of  data  on  the 
associated costs incurred by a majority of stakeholders.  

On the contrary, there is little accurate data on the overall size of the market affected by 
the Regulation  and the number and profile of passengers benefitting from it. This is an 
important limitation of the analysis.  

The  stakeholder  consultation  was  carried  out  in  2020  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic 
and some stakeholders could not participate in the support study. Others were unable to 
send responses as detailed as they would have wished due to a lack of resources during 
the  health  crisis,  although  they  were  given  additional  time  to  participate  in  the 
consultation process. 

Despite the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the limitations mentioned 
above, the quality of data gathered by the stakeholder consultation is relatively good as 
several  high  quality  responses  were  received  from  representatives  of  all  major 
stakeholder groups. 

71 See Point 2.2. above 

32 

 
                                                 
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1.  Effectiveness  

Evaluation questions 

5.1.1.  To  what  extent  have  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation  been  achieved,  especially 
the general objective of ensuring that PRM have comparable options to travel by air as 
other citizens and the specific objectives to prohibit discrimination based on disability 
and provide PRM with an extended and seamless assistance during their journey? 

The  Regulation  has  been  very  effective  in  meeting  its  general  objective  and  its  two 
specific objectives. Compared to the situation in 2008, when the Regulation became fully 
applicable, today PRM have significantly more freedom to travel by air at no extra cost 
to them, and barriers that may have prevented them from travelling in the past have been 
substantially overcome. As a result, their options to travel by air are broadly comparable 
to  those  of  other  citizens.  They  receive  in  general  better  assistance  than  before  the 
adoption  of  the  Regulation,  and  there  are  fewer  instances  when  they  might  suffer 
discrimination. 

The  Regulation  has  led  to  improvements  of  the  situation  of  PRM  who  intend  to  travel 
across the EU in five main aspects.  

Greater awareness to the special needs of PRM when using air transport 

Most stakeholders participating in the targeted stakeholder consultation (including PRM 
representatives)  agreed  that,  mainly  due  to  the  obligatory  disability  equality  training 
which  the  Regulation  introduced,  the  awareness  of  airport  and  airline  staff  about  the 
needs of PRM has significantly increased and a European culture of PRM assistance was 
created. 

However,  this  was  a  gradual  process.  Although  the  Regulation  was  adopted  having  in 
mind  all  passengers  with  disabilities  and  reduced  mobility72,  in  the  early  years  the 
implementation  of  the  Regulation  heavily  focused  on  the  needs  of  passengers  with 
restricted mobility  and the needs of citizens who live with  other disabilities (e.g. blind, 
deaf  persons,  persons  with  intellectual  or  developmental  disabilities)  were  often 
neglected.  Assistance  to  PRM  was  often  seen  as  the  provision  of  a  wheelchair  with  an 
attendant73.  

72  This  is  clearly  reflected  in  the  broad  definition  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons  with  reduced 
mobility in Article 2 a) of the Regulation. 
73 According to the support study, in the past in 97% of the cases airlines provided wheelchair assistance 
for their PRM passengers. Persons with a disability that does not cause a limitation in mobility (e.g. blind 
or deaf persons, and persons with intellectual or developmental disability) would need a different type of 
assistance more suited for their needs. PRM representative organisations noted that providing  wheelchair 
assistance for all types of PRM does not respect the dignity of PRM without a limitation in their mobility 
and tend to reduce their propensity to ask for assistance for the future.  

33 

 
                                                 
The  stakeholder  consultation  revealed  that  in  recent  years  several  airports  started  to 
introduce good practices focusing on the needs of persons with hidden disabilities: some 
UK  airports74  introduced  the  ‘sunflower  lanyard’  as  a  discreet  sign  with  which  a 
passenger  can  indicate  the  need  for  special  support  (for  example  more  time  at  the 
security),  Italian  and  Baltic  airports75  developed  programs  to  explain  to  autistic 
passengers what to expect during their journey at the airport.  

Some stakeholders (including PRM representatives and certain airports) nevertheless still 
consider that more attention should be paid to the needs of persons whose mobility is not 
restricted, but their disability (which is often less visible to the airport and airline staff) 
makes them travelling by air challenging. 

In addition, although the Regulation does require a disability-related training76 for certain 
personnel  working  for  the  airport  managing  bodies  and  for  airlines,  it  does  not  require 
such training from everyone working at the airport in direct contact with PRM (notably 
security  and  immigration  officers  and  staff  handling  the  mobility  equipment  of  PRM). 
The Regulation  does  also  not  require travel  agents  and tour operators to  complete such 
training. As the work of the latter is essential to  provide a seamless and pleasant travel 
experience  for  PRM77,  it  can  be  considered  as  a  legal  gap  that  they  are  not  obliged  to 
complete such training. 

Improved assistance provided to PRMs 

As  mentioned  already  in  point  2.3.  above,  before  the  Regulation  became  applicable 
airlines provided assistance to their PRM customers and the scope of services depended 
on  the  applicable  national  legislation  (but  only  nine  Member  States  had  national 
legislation  protecting  PRM  travelling  by  air)  and  on  the  commercial  policy  of  the 
respective  airline.  Consequently,  if  the  national  legislation  did  not  grant  rights  to  PRM 
when  travelling  by  air,  it  depended  solely  on  the  airline’s  interest  in  PRM  as  a  market 
segment  whether  they  provided  assistance  to  PRM  or  not,  and  whether  they  charged 
(sometimes significant) extra fee for such service or they offered PRM assistance free of 
charge.  

Stakeholders  (including  PRM  representative  organisations,  airports,  airlines  and  NEBs) 
participating  at  the  consultation  agreed  that  the  Regulation  has  brought  significant 

74 Among others Gatwick and Heathrow Airports See Support Study  point 3.45 
75 Vilnius and Bologna Airports  See Support Study point 3.45 
76 Such trainings should take into consideration the communication and other needs of persons living with 
different types of disabilities. 
77  PRM  representatives  mentioned  at  the  stakeholder  consultation  that  the  lack  of  proper  training  of 
ground-handlers about mobility equipment is one of the major causes of these equipment being damaged 
during a flight (add reference). Security checks can be a particular source of concern for PRM, because of 
issues such as sensitivity around physical searches or handling of specialist mobility or medical equipment, 
therefore the lack of disability awareness training of security officers can also cause negative impacts for 
PRM.  Travel  agents  and  tour  operators  have  a  crucial  role  to  register  the  special  needs  of  their  PRM 
customers and to transmit them to airlines. PRM representatives mentioned at the stakeholder consultation 
that travel agents and tour operators do not always precisely register the assistance need for PRM or they 
do not transmit them to the airlines in due time because they lack the necessary training about PRM needs 
and about the Regulation. 

34 

 
                                                 
improvement:  assistance  is  provided  at  all  airports  throughout  Europe  to  all  passengers 
who request it. It consists of a pre-determined package of services, it is free and available 
if pre-notified at least 48 hours before departure although most operational stakeholders 
will  still  ensure  that  it  is  provided  even  when  the  passenger  in  need  of  such  assistance 
does not pre-notify in due time and only asks for it at the last minute. In conclusion, most 
PRM receive the necessary support when travelling by air78. 

The  Regulation  imposes  the  obligation  on  airports  with  an  annual  traffic  of  more  than 
150  000  commercial  passenger  movements  to  adopt  in  cooperation  with  airport  users 
(airlines)  and  PRM  representatives  their  quality  standards  for  the  provision  of  PRM 
assistance  at  airports  and  to  publish  them,79  which  should  be  then  monitored  and 
enforced by NEBs.  

The  support  study80  found  that  quality  standards  have  been  widely  adopted  across 
European  airports,  however  their  impact  on  the  quality  of  assistance  is  very  limited 
because  very  few  NEBs  monitor  their  application.  In  addition,  most  of  these  quality 
standards  put  too  much  emphasis  on  the  ECAC  Doc  30  key  performance  indicators 
related  to  the  punctuality  of  providing  assistance,  which  resulted  in  many  airports 
focusing  on  the  timeliness  of  conveying  PRM  through  the  airport  to  meet  performance 
targets rather than providing care and empathy.  

However,  the  stakeholder  consultation  also  showed  a  different  approach  by  some 
airports:  e.g.,  the  Italian  NEB  requires  all  Italian  airports  to  publish  annual  ‘Service 
Charters’ that measure the ‘softer’ service elements (e.g. ‘perceptions of the adequacy of 
personnel training’ and ‘perceptions of the professionalism of personnel dedicated to the 
provision  of  the  assistance  service’)  against  published  targets.  The  UK  NEB  publishes 
annual quality of service reports covering assistance delivered at UK airports which also 
uses  ‘soft’  metrics  (e.g.  a  passenger  survey  where  customers  can  also  measure  staff 
attitude  and  where  the  airport  regularly  consults  with  PRM  representatives  and 
implements their recommendations). Finally, some airports in other Member States (e.g. 
Copenhagen  Airport,  Aéroports  de  Paris,  all  Spanish  airports)  survey  PRM  after 
assistance  has  been  delivered  to  them,  which  can  also  give  a  more  comprehensive 
feedback to airport managers and customers. 

A reduction in the number of denied boarding events 

The Regulation prohibits airlines to refuse reservation or carriage of PRM except where 
necessary to comply with applicable safety regulations or where the size of the aircraft or 

78 According to the representative  Special Eurobarometer 485 survey about passenger rights carried out in 
2019  with  the  participation  of  approximately  28.000  persons  from  all  Member  States,  8%  of  the 
respondents requested PRM assistance for themselves or for another person in 2018 when using air, rail, 
waterborne  or  bus  and  coach  transport,  and  81%  of  them  were  satisfied  with  the  service  provided. 
Although this survey was not specific for air transport, it shows the importance of PRM assistance free of 
charge for passengers who need it and also the commitment of carriers to provide a high quality assistance: 
See the survey at: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/api/deliverable/download/file?deliverableId=71855 
79 See Article 9(1), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 
80 See the case study on Airports’ Quality Standards of the Support Study Appendix C 

35 

 
                                                 
its  doors  make  the  embarkation  or  carriage  of  the  PRM  impossible.81  When  an  airline 
uses one of these derogations, it has to inform the PRM immediately about the reasons 
for  refusal,  and  it  has  to  communicate  these  reasons  in  writing  to  the  PRM  within  five 
working days if the PRM so requests82. 

This strict non-discrimination rule has guaranteed for most PRM the right to travel by air. 
They book their travel like any other passengers and then contact the airline or airport to 
pre-notify  their  specific  assistance  needs.  Pre-notification  might  be  cumbersome  for 
PRM, it nonetheless ensures that they are not denied transportation. In addition, if a PRM 
fails  to  pre-notify  his  or  her  special  needs,  it  does  not  mean  that  he  or  she  will  be 
penalised for that: airports and airlines shall nevertheless make all reasonable efforts to 
provide the necessary assistance.  

It  is  difficult  to  draw  definitive  conclusions  on  the  progress  made  towards  non-
discrimination  of  PRM  travelling  by  air.  Data  on  discrimination,  notably  on  denied 
boarding is not readily collected in Europe, making qualitative analysis in this area very 
challenging. 

The fact that the number of PRM traveling by air between 2008 and 2019 increased year 
on year, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the total number of passengers 
while the number of complaints submitted to NEBs related to denied boarding remained 
relatively  constant  and low since  200883 seems  to  indicate that the number of incidents 
related  to  denied  boarding  has  been  significantly  reduced  since  the  Regulation  became 
applicable. 

Nevertheless,  29%  of  all  complaints  relates  to  denied  boarding  or  refusal  to  transport 
mobility equipment or assistance dogs84 which may be considered as an indirect form of 
denied boarding, because most mobility equipment and assistance dogs are indispensable 
for their users who will not be willing to travel without them.  

Some PRM representatives are sceptical whether refusal to transport PRM always occurs 
on the basis of genuine safety concerns, notably they considered it questionable whether 
certain restrictive policies applied by airlines vis-á-vis PRM are justified on the grounds 
of  safety:  their  examples  include  airlines  which  only  transport  two  wheelchairs  or  one 
recognised assistance dog per flight while other airlines using the same type of aircrafts 
on the same route do not have similar limitations or airlines that require PRM to travel 
with an accompanying person when the PRM person does not need their help to comply 
with the statutory safety requirements, but to help eating or using the toilet.85   

The support study also shows that safety rules of airlines vary significantly, and  they are 
often difficult to find and interpret (in particular those related to the transport of batteries 

81 See Articles 3 and 4(1), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 
82 See Article 4(4), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 
83 See above under point 3.3.3. 
84 See Figure 4, where 7% relates to refusal to board a PRM passenger and 12% relates to refusal to board 
mobility equipment.  
85 See Appendix C of the support study 

36 

 
                                                 
of  mobility  equipment,  electric  wheelchairs  and  oxygen)  leaving  PRM  exposed  to  the 
risk of denied boarding.86 In general, PRM are unlikely to be able to research applicable 
safety  legislations  and  airline  rules  comprehensively,  or  to  assert  their  rights  with 
confidence  at  the  gate  given  this  level  of  information  asymmetry.  This  discourages 
certain PRM from using air transport and demonstrates the importance of effective NEBs 
monitoring and enforcement. 

Greater consistency of treatment across airlines, airports and Member States 

Before the Regulation  became  applicable airline policies to  transport PRM varied from 
airline to airline, and the scope of assistance provided to PRM varied from one airport to 
another as  well. The Regulation  has imposed a  consistent single framework throughout 
the EU+4 and there is a detailed list of specific assistance services that must be available 
to  PRM  free  of  charge.  As  a  result,  the  same  general  obligation  applies  throughout  the 
EU+4 to transport PRM. The Regulation also provides strict rules when derogation from 
this obligation is possible for reasons of aviation safety. 

As mentioned in the previous point, there is one area where such consistency is lacking: 
there  are  significant  differences  between  the  safety  rules  of  airlines  which  limit  the 
transport of PRM.  

Clear division of tasks between airports and airlines 

The  Regulation  achieved  in  general  a  clear  division  of  tasks  between  airlines  and 
airports: The Regulation lists in Annex I the assistance to be given by airport managing 
bodies  and  in  Annex  II  those  to  be  provided  by  airlines  on-board  of  the  aircraft. 
However, some uncertainties remain about the allocation of a few specific tasks.87 

5.1.2. Are passengers easily granted the rights to which they are entitled? 

In  order  to  exercise  their  rights,  PRM  have  to  be  aware  of  them.  In  general,  airlines, 
airports and also certain NEBs inform PRM of their rights under the Regulation through 
their  websites,  posters  and  leaflets  at  airports  and  via  assistance  telephone  lines. 
However, it shall also be noted that the obligation of operators to provide  information is 
not as extensive as that available under Regulation 261/2004 (in particular Article 14 of 
Regulation 261/2004 contains a specific obligation to inform passengers of their rights in 
case of denied boarding, long delay and cancellations).  

Given  the  data  available,  it  cannot  be  concluded  whether  passengers  are  easily  granted 
the rights to which they are entitled or not. PRM submit very few complaints and most 
NEBs  do  not  undertake  pro-active  monitoring.88  If  they  do,  they  report  very  little 
infringements. 

86 See Appendix E of the support study. 
87 As explained in detail below in point 5.4 on coherence. 
88 See above point 3.3.2. 

37 

 
                                                 
Stakeholders  expressed  diverging  views  about  the  reasons  for  such  a  low  level  of 
complaints:  PRM  representatives  argued  that  the  complaints  to  NEBs,  ADRs  and 
operators  only  represents  “the  tip  of  the  iceberg”  while  operators  claimed  that  they 
provide a high quality service, so in most cases PRM do not have reasons to complain. 

The following reasons could contribute to the low number of complaints:  

•  PRM representatives indicated that many PRM are unaware of their rights. 
•  PRM  may  be  less  willing  to  complain  than  other  passengers.  The  Swiss  NEB 
noted  that  “PRM  accept  to  a  great  extent  that  travelling  for  them  is  more 
burdensome. They seldom complain, probably also due to the fact that to make a 
complaint is often stressful for them”.  

•  PRM  representatives  indicated  that  the  lack  of  accessibility  of  complaint  forms 
may  also  mean  that  PRM  face  greater  barriers  than  other  passengers  when 
seeking to make a complaint. 

• 

•  Many passengers may consider that submitting a complaint to a NEB might not 
be beneficial for them as in many countries NEBs do not have the power to issue 
a binding decision in their case. 
In case an operator breaches the Regulation, NEBs cannot grant compensation to 
the  PRM  concerned,  with  the  exception  of  the  damage  or  loss  of  mobility 
equipment; consequently PRM have little financial incentive to complain.89   
In some Member States, PRM may also be confused by the existence of several 
NEBs dealing with passenger rights in air transport. 

• 

In particular, the non-binding nature of NEB decisions to passenger complaints tends 
to  dilute  the  intended  benefit  of  the  Regulation  because  in  case  a  PRM  wishes  to 
exercise their rights, there might be a need to bring the claim to the national courts 
which can be both expensive and time consuming. 

5.1.3.  To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation  ensured  the  same  level  of  passenger  rights 
protection across the EU? 

While  in  theory  the  same  substantive  rights  apply  across  the  EU,  the  enforcement  of 
these rights differs across the EU. 

According  to  the  Regulation,  NEBs  shall  take  measures  necessary  to  ensure  that  the 
rights of PRM are respected, including compliance with the quality standards referred to 
in Art. 9 and the satisfactory implementation of assistance at airports as referred to in Art. 
8  (Art.  14),  among  others  by  imposing  if  necessary  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive sanctions (Art. 16) and handle individual complaints (Art. 15).  

89  Especially  if  we  compare  this  Regulation  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004,  where  passengers  may 
receive a compensation up to 250, 400 or 600 EUR in case of long delays or cancellation of a flight.  
In addition, in point 2.3 above it has already been mentioned that the UK ADR body which seems to be the 
only organisation which can grant compensation in case the provisions of the Regulation are breached by 
operators  receives  more  complaints  than  any  other  ADR  or  NEB  also  seems  to  show  that  financial 
compensation  is  a  strong  incentive  for  PRM  to  complain  if  they  consider  that  their  rights  were  not 
respected. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  Regulation  allows  flexibility  to  the  Member  States  to  design  the  enforcement 
mechanism  in  their  national  legislation.  As  a  result,  the  legal  powers  and  practical 
capabilities of NEBs towards the enforcement of the Regulation vary significantly from 
one Member State to another.90 

Monitoring activities 

The overall approach of NEBs toward monitoring the implementation of the Regulation 
also varies significantly: some NEBs are very proactive, while some others appear only 
react to complaints which they receive.91 As the number of complaints,92 and the number 
and level of sanctions are very low everywhere in the EU,93 it is questionable whether the 
latter approach is sufficient to effectively enforce the Regulation.  

Many NEBs did not indicate the number of FTE working on ensuring the enforcement of 
the Regulation. Many NEBs which did disclose this data seem to have very limited staff 
resources, only one FTE or even less94, which appears to be particularly low given that 
the NEBs are expected by the Regulation to carry out a wide range of enforcement and 
monitoring  activities:  monitoring  the  homepages  of  airlines  and  airports  (to  ensure  that 
airlines  do  not  apply  discriminatory  safety  requirements,  and  allow  PRM  to  pre-notify 
their assistance need, that airports adopted quality standards for assistance in cooperation 
with airport users and PRM representatives and these standards are respected), inspecting 
airports  (e.g.  whether  airports  designated  meeting  points  in  accordance  with  the 
Regulation),  supervising  the  setting  of  PRM  charges,  informing  PRM  about  their 
passenger  rights  and  in  case  of  serious  or  repetitive  breaches  of  the  Regulation 
sanctioning the operator responsible for such breaches. 

There  can  be  several  factors  contributing  to  the  low  number  of  sanctions,  e.g.  the 
satisfactory  implementation  of  the  Regulation  and  the  effective  complaint  handling  by 
airports and airlines. However, it may also be a sign of lack of pro-active monitoring of 
the Regulation’s application by NEBs, difficulties of providing evidence for infringement 
or a lack of knowledge of PRM about their right to complaint.  

It is also important to mention that in some Member States95 even the maximum amount 
for a fine that can be imposed seems too low to be dissuasive for operators. 

In addition, the number of sanctions and the amount of the fines are only one indicator of 
the activity of a NEB. Several NEBs (e.g. Denmark, Italy or United Kingdom) ensure the 
compliance  with  the  Regulation  using  regular  audits,  inspections  and  dialogue  with 
operators, so sanctions aren’t necessarily needed to enforce the Regulation. 

90 See above under point 3.3.2 and 3.3.4. 
91 See above under 3.3.4 and the Country fiches in Appendix D of the support study   
92 See above under point 3.3.3. 
93 See above under point 3.3.4. 
94 See above under point 3.3.2. 
95 See above point 3.3.4 and Table 3 the lowest amounts have Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania  

39 

 
                                                 
The  above  mentioned  variations  in  the  legal  powers,  monitoring  capabilities  and 
approaches of NEBs mean that the extent to which PRM can exercise their rights varies 
significantly between Member States.   

Airports and airlines are negatively affected by the lack of a level playing field as a result 
of the different regulatory enforcement that they face in the different Member States (e.g. 
airlines  operating  flights  from  or  to  Member  States  with  more  demanding  NEBs  might 
have much higher  regulatory costs from the compliance with  the Regulation  than other 
airlines). 

5.1.4.  Did  the  Regulation  lead  to  legal  clarity?  Are  there  legal  gaps  hindering  the 
realisation of the Regulation’s objectives? 

Provisions lacking legal clarity 

Stakeholders indicated that most provisions of the Regulation are easy to understand and 
implement,  however  there  are  some  provisions  which  lack  legal  clarity  and  raise 
questions of legal interpretation. 

NEBs, airlines and airports found in particular problematic the following notions: 

-  The  definition  of  PRM  (Article  2(a))  does  not  clarify  whether  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation  extends  to  obese  or  pregnant  passengers  and  parents  travelling  with 
young children.  

-  The Regulation does not provide a definition of a “recognised assistance dog”96, 
consequently  carriers  are  left  without  guidance  to  determine  when  a  particular 
dog  should  be  considered  as  a  recognised  service  animal  which  can  create 
disputes between airlines and passengers intending to travel with their assistance 
dogs.  

-  The  Regulation  does  not  specify  what  is  a  mobility  equipment97  and  what  is  a 

medical equipment98 that airlines have to carry free of charge. 

Legal gaps 

While the Regulation allocates most PRM assistance tasks clearly between airports and 
airlines, the precise allocation of handling PRMs’ hand luggage and mobility equipment 
is missing. Article 7 of the Regulation does not provide sufficient clarity on whether the 
PRM  or  the  airport  staff  assisting  the  PRM  is  responsible  for  hand  luggage.  This  is  an 
important concern for airports, as it appears that some passengers book assistance so that 
they can get help with their hand luggage. Stakeholders also indicated that the annexes of 
the Regulation are silent about whether ground-handlers (working for the airline) or PRM 
assistants (working for the airport) are responsible for carrying wheelchairs to the aircraft 
hold when left at the aircraft door by the passenger. 

96 The Regulation refers to recognised assistance dogs in Article 7(2), Annex I and Annex II. 
97 The Regulation refers to mobility equipment in Article 4(3), Article 12, Annex I and Annex II. 
98 The Regulation refers to medical equipment in Annex II. 

40 

 
                                                 
5.1.5. What have been the positive and negative effects of the Regulation? Were there 
any unintended or unexpected effects? Could the changes observed since the adoption 
of the Regulation be credited to the Regulation? 

As  explained  in  point  5.1.1  the  two  major  positive  effects  of  the  Regulation  are  the 
improved  service  quality  and  the  reduction  in  denied  boarding:  both  quantitative  and 
qualitative  evidence  suggests  that  the  treatment  of  PRM  improved,  in  particular  the 
quality  of service is  better compared to  the time when the Regulation was adopted and 
there are less cases when PRM are denied boarding. 

Several airlines and airports participating in the stakeholder consultation indicated that an 
unintended negative effect of the Regulation was the increase of PRM assistance requests 
from passengers who do not have a genuine disability or reduced mobility. As a result, 
genuine PRM may end  up receiving lower quality or slower  assistance than they  could 
receive if such misuses  would not take place. The gravity of the problem is difficult to 
assess as there is no quantitative data available.  

5.1.6. Which factors have contributed to/hindered the achievement of the Regulation’s 
objectives? 

A number of factors have contributed to the successful achievement of the Regulation’s 
objectives: 

•  Even  before  the  Regulation  became  applicable,  airlines  and  ground-handlers  on 
behalf  of  airlines  already  provided  PRM  assistance  in  Europe.  While  the 
Regulation  changed  the  allocation  of  roles  and  responsibilities  between  airlines 
and airports (in the past assistance of PRM was the sole responsibility of airlines) 
it built on an existing framework of service provision, and the Regulation did not 
introduce a completely new approach with which the industry was unfamiliar. 
It  was  acknowledged  by  all  stakeholders  that  airports  and  airlines  realised  the 
need for the inclusion of PRM and embraced the challenge of providing them the 
necessary assistance.  

• 

•  Following  the  approach  adopted  for  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004,  the 
Regulation  obliged  Member  States  to  establish  an  institutional  framework  for 
monitoring and enforcement of PRM rights. Most of the 31 countries designated 
the same body as NEB to enforce both Regulations, while in some Member States 
(i.e.  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta  and  Romania)  separate  bodies  have 
been designated as  NEBs responsible for Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the 
Regulation. However, regardless of the arrangements applied in a given Member 
State, the fact that in  each Member State specific authorities were designated to 
monitor  and  enforce  the  Regulation  has  contributed  to  some  degree  to  its 
effectiveness. 

41 

 
 
 
•  Although the Regulation is silent about many technical issues, experts from NEBs 
have, with the continuous update of the ECAC Doc 30 guidance, been developing 
a  common  harmonised  guidance  on  the  processes  for  delivering  and  assessing 
service  quality.  The  Commission’s  interpretative  guidelines  on  the  Regulation99 
have  also  contributed  to  the  harmonised  application  of  the  Regulation  by 
clarifying  issues  that  were  interpreted  differently  by  NEBs,  airports  and  airlines 
during the first years of the Regulation’s application. 

•  The  expansion  of  digitalisation  and  greater  accessibility  of  online  services  has 
also  contributed  to  better  PRM  services:  for  instance  real-time  information  on 
websites/apps  may  help  hearing  impaired  passengers  and  specific  apps  were 
developed to help the orientation for persons with visual impairments at airports. 

At the same time, there were also factors that hindered the full achievement of the aims 
of the Regulation: 

•  Neither  the  Regulation  nor  any  other  EU  legislation  imposes  an  obligation  to 
make  airport  infrastructure  or  aircrafts  physically  more  accessible  for  PRM. 
Infrastructural  constraints  and  the  lack  of  investment  in  airport  and  aircraft 
accessibility for PRM have limited the effectiveness of the Regulation: if aircrafts 
are  not  physically  accessible100,  airlines  can  refuse  transporting  PRM  and 
accessibility issues at an airport might discourage PRM to travel from or to that 
airport. 

•  Poor  communication  between  PRM  and  airlines  or  between  PRM  and  travel 
agents,  tour  operators  negatively  affects  the  organisation  of  assistance.  If  the 
special needs of PRM are not recorded properly by airlines, travel agents or tour 
operators  or  they  are  not  forwarded  to  airports  on  time  it  will  be  more  difficult 
and sometimes even impossible to tailor the assistance to the individual needs of 
PRM. 
In  addition,  very  few  NEBs  monitored  pro-actively  compliance  with  the 
Regulation  and  imposed  sanctions  for  non-compliance,  so  airlines  and  airports 
had limited financial incentives to comply with the Regulation.  

• 

99 See SWD(2012) 171 final. 
100 PRM representatives indicated at the stakeholder consultation that there are some cases where airlines 
cannot  place  certain  electric  wheelchairs  in  the  cargo  hold  of  the  aircraft.  The  PRM  concerned  often 
renounce from travelling if they cannot do so with their mobility equipment.  

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.2.  Efficiency 

Evaluation questions  

5.2.1.  What types of benefits have been achieved for the different stakeholder groups? 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  stakeholders  explained  the  types  of  benefits  that 
they  have  achieved  from  the  Regulation,  however  they  were  not  able  to  quantify  those 
benefits.  

PRM 

PRM  benefit  from  free  assistance  the  cost  of  which  is  distributed  between  all  air 
passengers  paying  a  specific  extra  charge  included  in  their  ticket  fare.  Before  the 
Regulation became applicable, some airlines imposed significant charges to PRM for the 
provision of those services.  

As  mentioned  in  the  subchapter  on  effectiveness,  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  also 
contributed  to  the  improvement  of  service  quality  standards  across  Europe  which  also 
benefitted PRM travellers.  

Airports, airlines, NEBs and some PRM representative organisations consider that PRM 
feel more empowered and they have more confidence to travel by air, at least within the 
EU.  As  a  result,  their  demand  for  air  transport  has  significantly  increased,  creating 
benefits to other stakeholders such as airlines, airports, travel agents or tour operators. 

When PRM consider that their rights granted by the Regulation were not respected by the 
airlines  or  airports,  they  are  entitled  to  submit  a  complaint.  In  case  they  are  unable  to 
settle  the  complaint  amicably,  they  have  the  right  to  submit  a  formal  complaint  to  a 
NEB.101 

PRM also benefit from time saving in planning their journeys as there is now one set of 
rights  applied  across  Europe  and,  in  principle,  free  assistance  when  travelling  by  air  is 
available for them. However, the need to pre-notify airlines to ensure that the requested 
assistance  is  provided  continues  to  complicate  journey  planning.  In  addition,  the  time 
needed  for  resolving  complaints  depends  on  the  different  approaches,  processes,  and 
languages  used  by  different  NEBs  (e.g.  it  might  take  more  time  to  seek  redress  if  the 
NEB to  which a complaint is submitted cannot take a decision which is  binding on the 
parties or if the complainant does not speak the language used by such NEB). 

Other passengers 

Passengers  in  general  benefit  from  greater  sense  of  fairness  and  societal  equity  by 
ensuring that PRM have opportunities to use air transport comparable to other citizens. In 
addition,  when  as  a  result  of  an  illness  or  an  accident  their  mobility  is  temporarily 
reduced, they can also benefit from PRM assistance. 

101 Support study, Stakeholder Consultation Report, Para 3.26 

43 

 
                                                 
NEBs 

NEBs indicated that they do not have any direct benefit from the Regulation, however the 
harmonised rules at EU level allow them to develop a better understanding of airlines and 
airports  processes.  Most  NEBs  who  replied  to  this  question  in  the  consultation 
indicated102  that  their  respective  Member  States  benefitted  indirectly  from  the  benefits 
enjoyed  by  PRM,  including  through  improved  service  quality  as  well  as  greater 
propensity to travel, confidence when travelling and societal equity.  

Airports 

Airports noted that they derive some benefits from process efficiencies as a result of the 
standardisation of PRM services across Europe, and from the increased demand of PRM. 
A track record of providing good quality assistance to PRM can result in some positive 
reputational  benefits  for  airports;  conversely,  where  PRM  experience  poor  quality 
service, there is a risk of negative reputational effects. 

Airlines 

Similarly, airlines can derive benefits from the standardisation of PRM services and from 
the increased demand from PRM. If the quality of PRM assistance they provide is good, 
they can also benefit from reputational benefits. 

Other stakeholders 

The  stakeholder  consultation  questionnaire  was  sent  to  other  stakeholders  (e.g.  travel 
agents,  tour  operators  and  ground-handlers)  as  well,  however  they  did  not  reply  to  this 
question. 

5.2.2. What have been the costs associated with the Regulation? How significant have 
they  been  and  what  are  they  influenced  by?  How  are  they  distributed  among  the 
stakeholders? 

The  Regulation  places  the  economic  burden  of  providing  PRM  assistance  services  on 
airlines and airports, who pass it on to all passengers through a special charge in the price 
of airline tickets.  

PRM 

The assistance is free of charge for the PRM passenger who benefits from it. However, it 
does not mean that PRM will not have any costs. They accrue costs from the obligation 
to  pre-notify  their  assistance  needs  (e.g.  calling  charges,  loss  of  time),  and  often  have 
additional costs related to issues not addressed properly by the Regulation.  For instance, 
in  cases  where  an  airline  declines  to  transport  them  due  to  safety  reasons,  they  might 
need  to  bear  the  costs  of  an  alternative  flight  and  possibly  the  costs  of  extra 
accommodation.  They  can  have  further  costs  if  their  mobility  equipment  is  lost  or 

102  The  Belgian,  German,  Estonian,  Irish,  Spanish,  Croatian,  Italian,  Lithuanian,  Dutch,  Austrian,  Polish, 
Portuguese, Slovenian, Finnish, Swedish, UK, Icelandic and Swiss NEBs. 

44 

 
                                                 
damaged  and  the  costs  of  reparation  or  replacement  are  higher  than  the  compensation 
limit  stipulated  in  the  Montreal  Convention  (provided  that  the  airline  does  not  wave 
voluntarily  this  compensation  limit)103.  In  addition,  as  many  NEBs  cannot  take  legally 
binding  decisions,  PRM  may  also  have  additional  costs  if  they  will  need  to  take  legal 
action to remedy the injuries they suffered as a result of the breach of the Regulation by 
an airline or airport. 

According to the stakeholder consultation the benefits achieved by PRM overweight the 
costs that they accrue as a result of the Regulation. 

Other passengers 

As mentioned above, every passenger has to pay a special charge in the ticket price for 
the assistance of PRM. The average cost of this charge was  EUR 0.55 per passenger in 
2019, a value low enough not to impact air ticket prices significantly.  

Airports 

Providing assistance to PRM at airports has an average cost which ranges from EUR 0.06 
per  passenger  at  the  cheapest  airport  (Palanga,  Lithuania)  to  EUR  1.53  at  the  most 
expensive  (Catania,  Italy).  The  overall  cost  envelope  is  difficult  to  estimate  as  PRM 
assistance  numbers  are  not  available  for  all  European  airports.  However,  eight  airport 
operators (namely Paris-CDG, Frankfurt, Riga, Copenhagen, Rome-Fiumicino, Shannon, 
Zurich and Heathrow) indicated the costs for PRM assistance, which amounts to around 
EUR 180 million annually for all eight airports.  Such costs can be passed to airlines in 
the form of PRM charges. 

Airlines 

Airlines did not provide detailed information about their costs and benefits related to the 
Regulation, but the support study estimated the costs incurred. 

Airlines incur two types of cost arising from provision of assistance to PRM:  

•  Direct costs when PRM travel on their services, including costs linked to booking 
assistance and transmitting information, having suitable equipment on board and 
having suitably trained personnel on the ground and on-board. An airline with a 
higher share of PRM among total passengers will incur more direct costs than an 
airline with a lower share; and  
Indirect  costs  as  a  result  of  the  direct  costs  incurred  by  airports  being  passed 
through to airline passengers via the PRM fee, which is added to the ticket price. 
This  is  independent  from  the  number  of  PRM  passengers  an  airline  transports 
each  year.  It  shall  be  shared  among  all  airlines  using  the  airport  in  question  in 
proportion to the total number of all passengers that each carries to and from that 
airport. 

• 

103 See in more detail under point 5.4.3, where the Regulation’s coherence with the Montreal Convention is 
analysed. 

45 

 
                                                 
The  airport  managing  body  is  entitled  to  set  the  PRM  charges,  but  it  has  to  cooperate 
with the airport users (airlines) using the airport when setting it. The PRM charge must 
be reasonable, cost-related and transparent104. 

The cost-benefit analysis of the support study estimates that between the period of 2008 
and 2018 the Regulation resulted in a net cost of EUR 3 251 million for airlines105. 

Airline representatives argued at the stakeholder consultation that many airports set their 
PRM  charges  in  a  non-transparent  manner,  the  charges  are  not  always  cost-related  and 
the PRM assistance service quality is often not commensurate to the level of the charge. 

Although  NEBs  or  other  specific  bodies  designated  for  this  specific  purpose  shall 
monitor the imposition of PRM charges by airport managing bodies106, according to the 
PRM charges case study of the support study,107 many NEBs seem not have the necessary 
expertise to do so or they are unwilling to do so. 

On the other hand, some NEBs indicated to actively participate in setting PRM charges: 
the Portuguese NEB itself sets the PRM charge while the Greek and Italian NEBs have to 
be consulted and they can refuse or approve the PRM charges set by airports. 

NEBs 

NEBs  have  regulatory  costs  in  the  form  of  enforcement  costs  as  a  result  of  the 
Regulation. These costs are relatively low in most Member States, ranging between the 
costs  of  0.25  and  3  FTEs.  Variation  across  Member  States  can  be  explained  by 
differences  in  the  number  of  PRM  carried  from/to  the  Member  State  concerned,  NEB 
powers  and  areas  of  competence,  the  volume  of  complaints  received  and  the  extent  of 
pro-active monitoring, and the number and size of airports supervised.  

However,  as  mentioned  earlier,  many  NEBs  deploy  little  resources  (1  FTE  or  less108) 
towards the enforcement of the Regulation which seems to be insufficient to carry out the 
tasks necessary for the monitoring and enforcement of the Regulation (regular inspection 
of  airlines  and  airports,  monitoring  their  homepages,  supervising  the  setting  of  PRM 
charges, etc.) in addition to handling individual complaints. 

Factors that influence the costs of assisting PRM 

104 See Article 8, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 
105 See Appendix H of the support study. The costs (EUR 3362 million) include the estimated costs of the 
assistance service provided by the airlines and airports, the estimated costs of compensations and sanctions. 
From this amount EUR 111 million of estimated benefits were reduced (the contractor considered that the 
Regulation increased PRMs confidence in air transport and created an extra demand for flights) 
106 See Article 14(2), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 
107 See Appendix C of the support study. 
108 See Annex 4. 

46 

 
                                                 
The  average  cost  of  assisting  one  individual  PRM  is  estimated  at  EUR  75  in  2019109 
which is not trivial, sometimes comparable with, or higher than, an average airline ticket. 

The  costs  of  PRM  assistance  are  influenced  by  the  pre-notification  rate  of  PRM 
passengers and whether  a pre-notification correctly reflects the PRM’s  assistance needs 
and whether it is transmitted properly by travel  agents or airlines to the airports (see in 
more detail below in point 5.2.3). If airlines and airports are correctly pre-notified about a 
PRM’s  special  need  in  due  time  assistance  costs  much  less  for  them  compared  to  a 
situation when they are informed about it only at the last minute.  

The costs of PRM assistance are also influenced by possible misuse of free assistance by 
passengers who are not PRM. 

5.2.3.  Can  the  costs  incurred  by  stakeholders  be  considered  proportionate  to  the 
benefits established? 

PRM 

In  the  absence  of  the  Regulation  PRM  would  have  incurred  higher  costs  in  obtaining 
assistance (to the extent that they travelled at all) and they would have experienced lower 
quality of service (as a result of less regulatory oversight). The Regulation also confers 
societal  benefits  in  the  form  of  greater  equity  arising  from  the  substantially  reduced 
economic burden of travelling for PRM. 

Other passengers 

It  was  not  possible  to  gather  information  whether  the  costs  are  proportionate  for  other 
passengers to the benefits they acquire (e.g. that they could actively contribute to social 
justice and they can also benefit from free assistance if they became temporarily disabled 
or of reduced mobility as a result of an illness or accident), but as mentioned earlier, the 
costs of average PRM charges per flight ticket are relatively low, and allowing PRM to 
travel by air comparable to other citizens brings significant social benefits.  

Airports 

Airports  that  responded  to  the  consultation  indicated  that  the  costs  are  proportionate  to 
the  benefit  they  gain  from  the  Regulation  in  the  form  of  increased  demand  for  air 
transport, reputational benefits for the airport (if they comply with the Regulation), and 
the operational efficiencies derived from the standardisation of PRM assistance services 
across Europe. 

109 The methodology for calculating the total PRM assistance costs between 2008 and 2018 is summarised 
in Appendix H of the support study (point H-10-H.14), the estimated number of passengers receiving PRM 
assistance between 2008 and 2018 is in Figure 1.2. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
Airlines 

Airlines did not provide detailed information about their costs and benefits related to the 
Regulation, therefore it is not possible to answer the question how proportionate were the 
costs  of  the  Regulation  for  them,  taking  into  account  the  distribution  of  associated 
benefits. However, some airlines claimed during the stakeholder consultation that PRM 
charges are not cost related and reasonable in many European airports110. 

NEBs 

The  NEBs  replying  to  the  question  related  to  the  proportionality  of  costs111  confirmed 
that the indirect  benefits  gained by their respective states exceeded the regulatory  costs 
they had enforcing the Regulation. However, as it was indicated already, it must be taken 
into consideration that so far several NEBs seem to dedicate insufficient resources to the 
enforcement of the Regulation. 

5.2.4.  Is  there  any  potential  for  reduction  of  the  costs  for  any  of  the  stakeholder 
groups? 

There are several possible ways to save costs related to PRM assistance.  

First, NEBs and airports participating in the stakeholder consultation indicated that there 
is  a  strong  link  between  pre-notification  rates  and  the  cost  of  the  PRM  assistance 
service.112 This is due to the fact that there is a strong expectation that airports will ensure 
that non pre-notified passengers reach their flight in time (on departure), or are assisted 
promptly (on arrival). However, if part of the passengers who receive PRM assistance do 
not  pre-notify  themselves  in  due  time,  airports  and  airlines  cannot  optimally  plan  the 
provision  of  assistance  services.  They  always  need  to  have  more  assistance  staff  and 
equipment  on  standby  to  be  able  to  meet  the  last  minute  demand  that  would  not  be 
necessary if everybody would notify themselves in due time.  Consequently, higher pre-
notification  rates  would  help  to  save  a  significant  amount  of  money  spent  on  PRM 
assistance. 

Another  potential  cost-saving  for  airports  could  come  from  better  information  about 
PRM’s  individual  needs  which  may  vary  even  during  a  single  journey.  For  example, 
some  PRM  may  only  need  assistance  during  a  specific  part  of  the  journey  and  not 
necessarily  at  all stages. For instance, a PRM  may need  assistance in  a large airport  of 
departure where walking distances are long, whereas assistance may not be necessary for 
the  same  person  at  a  much  smaller  destination  airport.  At  present,  requests  for  airport 
assistance made by PRM and relayed by airlines are taken to apply equally at departure, 
arrival and connecting airports (within the geographic scope of the Regulation) causing a 

110 See support study – Stakeholder consultation report point. 3.19 

111  The  Belgian,  German,  Estonian,  Irish,  Spanish,  Croatian,  Italian,  Lithuanian,  Dutch,  Austrian,  Polish, 
Portuguese, Slovenian, Finnish, Swedish, UK, Icelandic and Swiss NEBs. 
112 See the case study on PRM charges in Appendix C of the support study. 

48 

 
                                                 
waste  of  resources  when  a  PRM  does  not  actually  need  such  assistance  during  all  the 
stages of the journey. 

In  addition,  as  indicated  earlier,  there  are  passengers  who  request  PRM  assistance 
without  having  a  genuine  disability  or  reduced  mobility:  mostly  people  struggling  with 
way-finding, (e.g. they do not speak the languages used at the airport and do  are not to 
orient themselves at a complex setting) seeking priority treatment when queuing or who 
do  not  want  to  carry  their  heavy  baggage  themselves.  Providing  them  special  PRM 
assistance puts an additional financial burden on the airports and airlines concerned.  

However, good practices and experiments show that misuse of PRM assistance could be 
reduced if airports offer wayfinding services in cooperation  with  air carriers for free or 
for  payment  to  passengers  who  feel  confused  by  a  large  and  complex  airport  or  have 
linguistic barriers and therefore fear that they will not be able to find their way113.  

Possible long-term cost savings could also come from increased accessibility of airports 
and aircraft, enabling PRM to travel more independently and requesting less assistance.  

There would also be a smaller demand for PRM assistance if airports would be designed 
having  in  mind  the  easiness  to  navigate  (better  signage  and  wayfinding,  as  explained 
above,  and  limiting  the  distances  to  walk  etc.114),  and  if  passengers  would  be  allowed 
more time to reach their gate: if it would be possible for them to check in earlier and if 
the  information  about  their  departure  gate  would  be  communicated  to  them  as  soon  as 
this information becomes available for the airport/airline and not only a short time before 
the flight departs.  

Finally, as indicated earlier several airlines claimed that PRM charges are not cost related 
and  reasonable  in  many  European  airports.  If  there  would  be  procedural  safeguards  to 
ensure that the airport managing body sets the PRM charge after a genuine consultation 
with airport users (airlines) and NEBs would more actively monitor the setting of PRM 
charges, a significant amount of costs could also be saved. 

5.2.5.  Could  the  use  of other  policy  instruments  or  mechanisms  have  provided  better 
efficiency? 

As the aim of the intervention was to establish uniform rights that citizens can exercise in 
the same way across the Union, therefore it was decided to choose an EU regulation as 
the most appropriate measure. Regulations are directly applicable in all  Member States 
and  binding  in  their  entirety.  Compared  to  directives,  regulations  do  not  need 
implementation  into  national  legislation,  therefore  they  can  be  applied  after  a  shorter 
transition  period  given to  operators and Member States  to  prepare for their application. 

113 Heathrow Airport made experiments in 2019 with ’basic assistance service’ where the participants were 
offered  help  in    wayfinding,  language  difficulties  instead  of  wheelchair  assistance,  and  84%  of  them 
indicated that they would prefer in the future this basic assistance and not a wheelchair assistance which is 
the assistance provided by default to PRM at Heathrow Airport. 
114 ACI – Europe’s guidance document mentioned in footnote [currently 63] provides several tips to make 
airports more accessible and easier to navigate for all. 

49 

 
                                                 
Choosing  a  Directive  could  have  also  created  the  risk  that  Member  States  would 
implement  certain  provisions  differently.  Although  the  Regulation  establishes  uniform 
rights for PRM, at the same time it allows a lot of flexibility for Member States in respect 
of  its  enforcement:  for  instance,  Member  States  can  designate  existing  transport,  civil 
aviation, consumer protection or equality authorities to monitor and enforce compliance 
with the Regulation115, while relying on national sanction regimes.116 

The  advantage  of  this  approach  is  that  the  enforcement  can  be  easily  adapted  to  the 
national  enforcement  systems  existing  in  a  given  Member  State,  but  it  leads,  as  shown 
above, also to an unequal playing field for PRM, airlines and airports. 

5.3.  Relevance 

Evaluation questions  

5.3.1. To what extent did the original objectives of the Regulation prove relevant to the 
particular needs of PRM identified at the outset of the intervention?  

As presented in Chapter 2, the Commission identified the following needs of PRM in its 
legislative proposal: 

•  PRMs were denied boarding for reasons other than safety; 
•  There was no established, consistent process for booking assistance; 
•  Only  limited  rights  had  been  granted  to  PRMs  under  Regulation  (EC)  No 

261/2004; 

•  The  responsibilities  of  airports  and  airlines  to  provide  assistance  were  unclear; 

and 

•  There was no system for imposing sanctions following an infringement of PRM 

rights. 

Most  of  the  above  mentioned  needs  are  met  by  the  establishment  of  rights  in  the 
Regulation, and only three gaps can be identified. 

The  first  gap  is  related  to  the  missing  establishment  of  a  consistent  assistance  booking 
process.  Here  the  issue  of  transmission  of  information  between  airlines  and  airports, 
travel  agents/tour  operators  and  airlines  remains  problematic.  When  PRM  book  with  a 
travel  agent  or  a  tour  operator  these  will  transmit  the  pre-notification  to  airlines,  but 
because of the lack of well-established channels it is difficult for travel agents and tour 
operators  to  transmit  such  information  to  an  airport:  In  absence  of  such  channels  they 
need  to  find  appropriate  contact  points  at  airports,  while  such  contact  points  are  often 
impossible to identify at airports’ websites.117 

115 See Figure 2 under point 3.2.1. 
116 The variety of approaches that Member States took is reflected in Appendix D (Country fiches) of the 
support study. 
117 See support study point 3.115  

50 

 
                                                 
In addition, travel agencies and tour operators do not forward the contact details of PRM 
customers  to  the  airlines.  If  an  airline  needs  to  contact  PRMs  to  clarify  assistance 
requirements or inform them of a relevant operating change, it may then not be able to do 
so directly, but only via the intermediary and depends then on the intermediary that this 
information  reaches  the  PRM  on  time.  Travel  agents  and  tour  operators  refer  to  data 
protection issues and consider contact details of their customers commercially sensitive, 
and are therefore reluctant to share it with airlines (who may compete for their patronage 
directly in the future). 

The other legal gap is related to the limited legal framework as PRM are not entitled to 
receive  full  compensation  in  case  their  mobility  equipment  is  lost  or  damaged.  The 
Commission  has  already  proposed  in  2013  a  legislative  change  in  this  regard  in  the 
context of the review of Regulation (EU) No 261/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 
on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air118. 

Consequently,  it  can  be  concluded  that  in  general  the  needs  of  PRM  identified  at  the 
outset  of  the  intervention  and  the  operational  objectives  of  the  Regulation  match  each 
other and most operational objectives were translated into effective rights. 

5.3.2. Do the original objectives of the Regulation still correspond to the current needs 
of PRM in the aviation sector?  

Most stakeholders responding to the consultation considered that the fundamental needs 
of  PRM,  meaning  being  able  to  travel  irrespective  of  the  type  of  disability  or  reduced 
mobility they have and the type of mobility equipment they use, have not changed since 
the Regulation was adopted.  

Consequently,  the  determination  of  key  rights  and  responsibilities  remains  critical  to 
PRMs  travelling  by  air  and  the  associated  operational  objectives  continue  to  be  highly 
relevant. 

In  addition  to  the  needs  that  existed  at  the  time  when  the  Commission’s  proposal  was 
adopted,  PRM’s  expectations  and  the  way  these  expectations  are  taken  care  of  have 
changed. Today, PRM expect:  

•  Accessible  communication119  (for  example  in  audio  or  tactile  format,  Braille, 

large print, plain language),  

•  To be able to arrive at the airport and take the flight (same as other passengers) 

without the need to pre-notify their assistance need, 

•  To have more control over the assistance provided (they should be able to specify 

their needs, and the assistance should reflect those needs), 

118  See  above  under  point  3.3.3  COM(2013)130  final,  see  footnote  64  above  and  below  in  more  detail 
under point 5.4.2 
119  According  Art.  2  of  the  UNCRPD  “communication”  is  a  very  broad  concept,  its  definition  includes 
languages,  display  of  text,  Braille,  tactile  communication,  large  print,  accessible  multimedia  as  well  as 
written, audio, plain-language, human-reader and augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats 
of communication, including accessible information and communication technology. 

51 

 
                                                 
•  To be able to choose between online interaction and face-to-face interaction with 
airlines and airports (as certain airlines build their business model predominantly 
on online interaction with their passengers which pose challenges to those PRM 
for whom online communication is not possible or too difficult because of their 
disability). 

It can be concluded that the Regulation remains relevant in the context of the travelling 
environment of PRMs. However, while it is largely fit for purpose, the above mentioned 
expectations of passengers are not fully reflected in the Regulation. 

5.3.3. How well is the Regulation adapted to technological or scientific advances that 
may help PRMs travelling by air? 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  significant  technological  and  scientific  advances 
took  place  and  it  is  deemed  that  the  Regulation  has  not  been  an  obstacle  to  those 
developments. 

The Regulation is not explicit as to which technologies should be used for the provision 
of assistance. Therefore, it has not created any barrier to the use of certain technologies 
and the gradual reduced reliance on others. The disadvantage of this approach is that it 
has left operators responsible for some choices provided that they comply with the wider 
regulatory  environment  mandated  by  EASA.  Consequently,  policies  related  to  the 
transport of batteries for electric wheelchairs or oxygen bottles vary between airlines and 
it can be difficult for PRM to understand and interpret them. 

5.4.  Coherence 

5.4.1. To what extent are the provisions of the Regulation coherent and consistent with 
one another? Are there any overlaps, contradictions or inconsistencies?  

The  main  mechanisms  of  the  Regulation  are  consistent  and  set  forth  logically; 
nevertheless,  an  issue  related  to  the  internal  coherence  of  the  Regulation  have  been 
identified:  

There  is  a  lack  of  consistency  between  Recital  17  and  Article  14  of  the  Regulation 
regarding the NEB which shall have the authority to enforce the Regulation with regards 
to  airlines.  Recital  17  states  that  “complaints  concerning  assistance  given  by  an  air 
carrier should be addressed to the body or bodies designated for the enforcement of this 
Regulation  by  the  Member  State  which  has  issued  the  operating  licence  to  the  air 
carrier”.  Article  14  states  that  the  “Member  State  shall  designate  a  body  or  bodies 
responsible for  the enforcement  of  this  Regulation  as regards  flights departing from or 
arriving at airports situated in its territory”. Although the recital is not legally binding, 
these  two  provisions  are  inconsistent,  and  the  Commission120  has  clarified  in  its 

120  Interpretative  Guidelines  on  the  application  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with 
reduced mobility when travelling by air, SWD(2012) 171 final, see reply to Question 16. 

52 

 
                                                 
interpretative  guidelines  who  is  responsible  for  enforcement.  Since  then,  NEBs  did  not 
report any overlaps, contradictions or inconsistencies relating to these two provisions. 

5.4.2.  To  what  extent  the  Regulation  is  coherent  and  complementary  with  other 
relevant EU legislation and with international obligations? 

EU transport legislation 

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 

Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  imposes  a  general  obligation  on  airlines  to  prioritise  the 
needs of PRM in the case of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, and specifies 
that PRM shall have a right of care as soon as possible in those situations.  

However, it is unclear whether, for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, cases 
of denied boarding  also  include situations  where a PRM is  denied boarding because of 
safety  reasons  in  accordance  with  this  Regulation.  In  case  such  incidents  are  also 
considered  as  denied  boarding  for  the  purposes  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004,  the 
PRM  passenger  can  benefit  from  the  protection  granted  by  the  latter  as  any  other 
passengers who are denied boarding (right to choose between reimbursement, rerouting 
or rebooking, right to care and right to compensation).  

Regulation  No  (EC) No  2027/1997  on air  carrier liability in  respect of  the carriage of 
passengers and their baggage by air  

An  important  gap  in  the  Regulation  relates  to  the  compensation  for  damaged  or  lost 
mobility equipment. According to the Regulation, where mobility equipment or assistive 
devices are lost or damaged whilst being handled at the airport or transported on board 
aircraft,  the  passenger  to  whom  the  equipment  belongs  shall  be  compensated  “in 
accordance  with  rules  of  international,  Community  and  national  law”.  It  is  the 
Convention  for  the  Unification  of  Certain  Rules  for  International  Carriage  by  Air 
(commonly known as the ‘Montreal Convention’) transposed into EU law by Regulation 
No  (EC)  No  2027/1997121,  which  regulates  the  airlines’  liability  for  lost  or  damaged 
mobility  equipment.  According  to  the  Montreal  Convention  compensation  for  lost  or 
damaged personal baggage (which also includes mobility equipment) is subject to limits 
(currently  approximately  EUR  1,365)  and  it  often  does  not  cover  the  true  costs  of 
replacement or repair of a mobility equipment which are made-to–measure and can cost 
the  price  of  a  new  car.  According  to  the  PRM  organisations  responding  to  the  public 
consultation this is one of the most important legal gaps in the Regulation.  

The Montreal Convention allows a passenger to make a special declaration of interest in 
delivery at destination when the baggage is handled over to the airline and, if airline  so 
requires, the passenger has to pay a supplementary sum. In this declaration, the passenger 

121 Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents 
(OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p. 1–3). 

53 

 
 
                                                 
indicates  the  value  of  the  baggage,  and  the  carrier  will  be  liable  to  pay  a  value  not 
exceeding  the  declared  value  of  the  baggage,  unless  it  proves  that  the  value  is  greater 
than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination. This special declaration of 
interest  can  also  be  made  in  case  of  the  transport  of  mobility  equipment.  However, 
making a special declaration of interest can be a complex administrative procedure and 
some airlines charge a high fee for this declaration.  

Many airlines participating in the stakeholder consultation indicated that they voluntarily 
lift  the  compensation  limit  and  pay  full  compensation  for  damaged  or  lost  mobility 
equipment; however, they do not indicate this on their websites in order to avoid possible 
abuses of this policy. 

This  problem  was  recognised  by  the  EU  co-legislators  and  addressed  in  subsequent 
passenger  rights  legislation:  the  rail,  bus  and  coach  and  waterborne  passenger  rights 
regulations  specify  that  a  PRM  is  entitled  for  full  compensation  in  case  their  mobility 
equipment is lost or damaged122. 

In its proposal of 2013 to revise Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 
2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage 
by  air  the  Commission  also  intended  to  solve  the  problem  of  compensation  for  lost  or 
damaged mobility equipment by proposing to compel airlines to automatically offer the 
option  to  make  a  special  declaration  of  interest  laid  out  within  the  Convention,  at  no 
additional cost123. However, this proposal is still pending. 

The  Regulation  is  also  silent  about  the  question  who  shall  pay  this  compensation. 
Although  Annex  I  to  the  Regulation  states  that  airports  are  responsible  for  the  ground-
handling  of  mobility  equipment,  it  does  not  change  the  legal  liability  stipulated  in  the 
Montreal  Convention  in  relation  to  the  handling  of  such  equipment.  Airlines  and  their 
agents  remain  liable  in  case  of  damage  to  mobility  equipment  in  accordance  with  the 
Montreal Convention. 

Passenger  rights  Regulations  dealing  with  other  modes  of  transport  (rail,  waterborne 
and bus and coach) 

As mentioned in the introduction, passenger rights were adopted on a modal basis and the 
differences between them may create confusions for passengers. 

It is worth noting that for the other transport modes (rail, bus and coach and waterborne 
transport),  the  rules  for  PRM  are  integrated  in  the  unique  modal  passenger  rights 
regulation  for  each  mode.  Only  for  air  transport  two  separate  Regulations  exist,  which 
makes it more difficult for PRM to learn about their rights when flying. 

122 Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007, Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 and Article 
17 of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011. 
123 See COM(2013)130 final. 

54 

 
                                                 
In  addition  to  the  difference  between  the  Regulation  and  other  passenger  rights 
Regulations  regarding  the  liability  for  lost  or  damaged  mobility  equipment,  there  are  a 
few other differences. 

First,  the  deadline  to  pre-notify  assistance  needs  is  48  hours  for  the  air  transport,  rail 
transport and waterborne transport124, at  the same time, it is 36 hours in bus and coach 
transport125 and after the new rail passenger rights Regulation becomes applicable it will 
be  only  24  hours  for  rail  transport126.  Although  the  issue  of  pre-notification  was 
mentioned by some PRM representatives, it is less important compared to other modes of 
transport  for  two  reasons:  as  indicated  earlier,  airports  and  airlines  tend  to  make  the 
outmost efforts to provide assistance even if such assistance need is not notified in due 
time and there are very few cases where a PRM cannot fly because of the lack of proper 
pre-notification.  The  second  reason  is  that  PRM,  similar  to  other  passengers,  use  air 
transport  less  spontaneously  than  other  collective  transport  modes  (rail,  bus  and  coach 
and  ship):  they  usually  plan  their  trips  days  in  advance  their  departure  therefore  the 
requirement to pre-notify their needs two days before the journey is less burdensome than 
in case of other transport modes where it often impedes making spontaneous trips. 

Second, if an accompanying person is needed to help the PRM to comply with the safety 
rules, the regulations  related to  the other modes  of transport allow this person to  travel 
free  of  charge127  which  is  not  the  case  for  this  Regulation.  This  is  a  serious  issue  for 
PRM, because in case they do not plan to travel accompanied by someone who can help 
them to comply with the safety rules, this can cause them substantial extra costs128. 

As  regards  complaints,  the  Regulation  does  not  stipulate  any  time  limitation  for 
passengers  to  submit  their  complaints129,  neither  requires  airlines  or  airports  to  reply  a 
complaint within a specific deadline.130 In case of rail passenger rights there is no time 
limitation for the passenger to complain, but there is a deadline for the rail company or 
railway station manager to reply, and for waterborne and bus and coach transport there is 
a  time  limitation  for  the  passenger  to  submit  the  complaint,  but  also  for  the  carrier  or 
terminal operator to reply to the complaint131. 

124 See Article 7(1) of the Regulation, Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 and Article 11(1)(a) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010. 
125 See Article 14(1)(a), Regulation (EU) No 181/2011. 
126 See Article 24(a), Regulation (EU) No 2021/782. However, Member States can postpone the application 
of the 24h pre-notification period from 7 June 2023 (when the recast Regulation becomes applicable) until 
30 June 2026 and apply a 36-hour pre-notification instead. 
127 Waterborne: Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010, Bus: Article 10(4) of Regulation (EU) No 
181/2011, rail: Article 23(1)(b) Regulation (EU) No 2021/782 
128 In addition, some airlines require accompanying persons to pay a fee to be seated next to the PRM. The 
Italian NEB decided that this is contrary to the Regulation (see a recent decision of the Italian NEB in this 
regard:  
https://www.enac.gov.it/sites/default/files/allegati/2021-Lug/GENDISP-
ENAC_Provvedimento_urgenza_DG-16072021-0000063-P.pdf ) 
129 Article 15(1) of the Regulation. 
130 Article 15(1) of the Regulation 
131 Article 27(2) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007, but this has changed under Regulation (EU) No 2021/782, 
see  Article  28(2);  Article  24(2)  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  and  Article  27  Regulation  (EU)  No 
181/2011. 

55 

 
                                                 
Another problem  is  the  protection of PRM on  multimodal  journeys. As the current  EU 
passenger rights acquis is based on modal regulations, PRM are left unprotected at modal 
interfaces. For example, when a PRM passenger combines air and rail transport because 
the airport is a multimodal hub with rail connection, he or she has no right to be assisted 
to reach the airport from the rail station or vice versa.  

Directive 96/67/EC132 (The Ground-handling Directive) 

The  luggage  and  mobility  equipment  of  PRM  is  handled  by  ground-handlers  that, 
depending on the situation, can be airport subsidiaries or the airline or third parties. The 
quality of their work has a significant impact on the PRM’ travel experience. 

A  significant  coherence  issue  arises  as  regards  ground-handling  from  the  difficulty  of 
airport  managing  bodies  to  influence  ground-handling  service  performance,  because  in 
the  majority  of  cases  they  are  not  in  a  contractual  relationship  with  ground-handlers. 
However,  if  they  select  ground-handling  companies  at  a  competitive  bidding  process, 
such  process  may  contain  specific  provisions  concerning  the  quality  of  the  service 
provided for PRM. Furthermore, airport managing bodies can also issue rules of conduct, 
which  are  guiding  principles  for  the  service  providers  at  the  airport.  These  rules  are 
binding  for  ground-handlers  and  their  breach  can  lead  in  extreme  cases  to  a  loss  of  an 
approval to perform ground-handling activities at the specific airport133. 

Aviation safety rules 

Aviation  safety  rules  were  adopted  in  the  form  of  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 
965/2012, on the basis of technical opinions issued by EASA. EASA is also responsible 
for monitoring the uniform application of aviation safety rules and for inspections. EASA 
rules governing the transport of PRM are provided in two documents (Acceptable Means 
of Compliance (AMCs) and Guidance Material (GM))134 which contain specific rules and 
guidance on the carriage of “special categories of passengers” (SCPs), including PRM.  

The  Regulation  does  not  specify  any  requirements  related  to  aviation  safety,  therefore 
there  is  no  coherence  issue  between  the  Regulation  and  EU  aviation  safety  rules. 
However, as explained above,135 it should be noted that vague safety rules of airlines may 
give leeway for different interpretation by airlines and passengers in regards to carriage 
of e.g. oxygen tanks.  

Directive 2009/12/EC136 (Airport Charges Directive) 

The  Airport  Charges  Directive  does  not  apply  to  PRM  charges137,  which  are  treated 
differently  from  other  airport  charges.    There  are  no  coherence  issues  between  the  two 

132 OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36–45. 
133 See Article 15, Directive 96/67/EC. 
134 https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/acceptable-means-of-compliance-and-guidance-materials 
135 See the case study on safety rules of airlines in Appendix C of  the support study  
136  Directive  2009/12/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2009  on  airport 
charges (OJ L 70, 14.3.2009, p. 11–16). 
137 Article 1(4), Directive 2009/12/EC. 

56 

 
                                                 
pieces of EU legislation, but the Airport Charges Directive could serve in two aspects as 
a  model  for  a  future  possible    amendment  of  the  Regulation:  the  Airport  Charges 
Directive establishes stricter requirements for airports to involve airport users in setting 
the  charges:  the  Directive138  mentions  that  before  an  airport  sets  its  charges  it  must 
consult  airport  users    (Article  8(4)  of  the  Regulation  only  states  that  charges  shall  be 
established  “in  cooperation”  with  airport  users)  and  if  a  party  does  not  agree  with  the 
decision, it can appeal it before the independent statutory authority (the Regulation does 
not explicitly mention that airport users may appeal the airport managing body’s decision 
related to PRM charges).  

EU external aviation policy 

Many  horizontal  agreements  between  the  EU  and  third-countries,  as  well  as  the  model 
horizontal agreement, do not include any mention of passenger rights in general, nor of 
the Regulation.  This  is  because horizontal agreements are typically market  agreements, 
including  aspects  such  as  traffic  rights,  taxation  of  fuel,  but  do  not  necessarily  include 
other  important  elements,  although  most  of  them  include  safety  requirements.  Where 
third-countries  have  signed  an  Open  Aviation  Agreement  with  the  EU,  it  includes 
significantly  more  of  the  EU  aviation  legislation,  and  depending  when  it  was  signed  it 
may  also  cover  passenger  rights  legislation,  including  the  Regulation  (for  example  the 
open  aviation  agreement  signed  with  Israel  in  2013  includes  most  of  the  Regulation’s 
requirements). 

EU consumer protection policy and legislation 

All stakeholders agreed that the Regulation was coherent with EU consumer policy and 
did  not  identify  any  inconsistencies,  especially  regarding  Directive  2015/2302/EU  on 
package  travel  and  linked  travel  arrangements  (the  Package  Travel  Directive)139  and 
Regulation (EU) No 2017/2394 on cooperation between national authorities responsible 
for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the CPC Regulation). 

The  CPC  Regulation  provides  for  an  enforcement  cooperation  framework  for  national 
authorities  concerned  with  cross-border  consumer  law  infringements.  It  would  be 
possible  for  NEBs  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  to  use  this 
framework to share best practice, alert each other about malpractices that could spread to 
other  countries  and  ask  for  assistance  in  ending  the  infringement.  However,  NEBs 
indicated that they do not use this opportunity because the enforcement of the Regulation 
requires action from NEBs predominantly within a single Member State.  

138 Article 6, Directive 2009/12/EC. 
139  Directive  2015/2302/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2015  on 
package  travel  and  linked  travel  arrangements,  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive 
2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
(OJ L 326, 11.12.2015, p. 1–33). 

57 

 
 
 
                                                 
Directive 2019/882/EU on the accessibility requirements for products and services (the 
European Accessibility Act) 

When it will  become applicable in  2025, the European Accessibility Act (EAA)140  will 
oblige  airlines  and  airports  to  make  their  homepages,  mobile  apps,  electronic  ticketing 
services,  real-time  travel  information  services,  ticketing  and  check-in  machines 
compliant  with  EU  wide  accessibility  standards  specified  in  the  same  act.  As  the 
Regulation  is  silent  about  accessibility  requirements,  the  EAA  complements  the 
Regulation,  therefore  there  are  no  issues  of  consistency  between  the  two  legislative 
instruments. 

International obligations 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) was adopted 
in  2006  and  entered  into  force  in  May  2008.  The  EU,  its  Member  States  and  the  other 
four countries examined in this evaluation are all parties to the UNCRPD141. Article 9 of 
the UNCRPD imposes a legal obligation on the Member States that have ratified it and 
on the EU to incorporate accessibility requirements in national and EU legislation. 

There  is  no  coherence  issue  between  the  UNCRPD  and  the  Regulation,  but  it  must  be 
noted that the Regulation alone cannot be sufficient to ensure air transport accessibility. 
The Regulation imposes on airlines and airports the obligation to assist PRM, but it does 
not require airports, airlines or Member States to make airport infrastructure and aircrafts 
accessible for PRM. 

The ICAO Convention 

ICAO  has  considered  the  needs  of  PRM  for  many  decades,  and  certainly  before 
Regulation 1107/2006 was drafted.  Annex 9 of the Convention has been in place since 
the 1990s and covers, among others, facilitation of the transport of PRM and focusses on 
the  delivery  of  “special  assistance  in  order  to  ensure  that  they  receive  services 
customarily  available  to  the  general  public”.  It  defines  a  number  of  Recommended 
Practices  for  Member  States142  which  are  very  similar  to  the  obligations  of  the 
Regulation, however those Recommended Practices  are not legally binding on Member 
States and operators. 

140  Directive  2019/882/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  the 
accessibility requirements for products and services (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70–115). 
141https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4&clang=_en 
142 See ICAO Doc 9984 ‘Manual on Access to Air Transport by Persons with Disabilities’ at: 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
ECAC Doc 30 

ECAC  Doc  30143  provides,  among  others,  guidance  on  the  processes  for  delivering 
assistance  services  for  PRM  and  monitoring  service  quality.  Recital  (10)  of  the 
Regulation states that in organising the provision of assistance to PRM and the training 
of their personnel, airports and airlines should have regard to ECAC Doc 30. However, 
since  this  is  guidance  material,  it  is  not  legally  binding  and  is  therefore  not  always 
followed by airlines or airports. 

There is no issue of coherence between the Regulation and the ECAC Doc 30, because 
the  Member  States  in  the  PRM  Facilitation  Subcommittee  carefully  solve  potential 
inconsistencies between the ECAC Doc 30 and the Regulation and rather focus on how 
the former should complement the latter. 

Relevant national health and safety legislation  

There  is  sometimes  a  coherence  problem  with  national  health  and  safety  legislation  as 
PRM  assistance  would  be  only  possible  with  the  manual  handling  of  PRM  or  their 
mobility  equipment,  however  some  national  legislations  prohibit  this  because  of  health 
and safety reasons). This problem can partly be solved with the use of assistance devices, 
however  it  should  be  noted  that  ground-handling  of  mobility  equipment  requires 
significant manual labour even today. 

US PRM Legislation 

Significant  differences  that  exist  between  the  Regulation  and  the  US  PRM  legislation 
(known  as  14  CFR  Part  382),  which  can  cause  difficulties  for  air  carriers:  Part  382 
applies to non-US carriers on flights to/from the US and all other flights that are operated 
as  codeshares  with  US  carriers  (even  if  not  to/from  the  US).  The  most  significant 
differences are: 

•  Part 382 places the responsibility for provision of PRM assistance services on the 
airline, whereas the Regulation places this responsibility on both the airport and 
the airline.  
There is  a conflict  between the US  and EU legislation,  because flights  from the 
EU to the US are covered both by EU and US legislation as well as flights from 
the US to the EU by EU carriers 
This means that US airlines operating transatlantic flights from Europe will want 
to  supervise  PRM  assistance  from  the  entrance  of  PRM  in  the  airport  whereas 
under the Regulation, they have to leave this responsibility to the airport; 

•  Part 382 does not permit carriers to request pre-notification. This means that US 
and other airlines operating to/from the USA (including European airlines) will be 
prohibited  from  actively  requesting  PRM  passengers  to  provide  details  of  their 

143 https://www.ecac-ceac.org/images/documents/ECAC-

Doc_30_Part_1_12th_edition_May_2018_Amendment_4_Nov_2020.pdf 

59 

 
                                                 
assistance  needs  on  these  flights  as  they  find  themselves  in  breach  of  US 
legislation; and 

•  Part 382 does not allow limits on the number of PRM on an aircraft and limits the 

circumstances in which an accompanying passenger may be required. 

The  differences  between  the  two  legislations,144  may  put  PRM  as  well  as  carriers  and 
airports  in  a  difficult  position.  One  stakeholder  stated  that  different  pre-notification 
periods  between  the  EU  and  US  PRM  regulations  has  indeed  caused  confusion  for 
transatlantic passengers. 

5.5.  EU added value 

5.5.1. What  is  the added value of this  Regulation compared to  what  could  have been 
achieved at international level, at national and /or regional level?  

The EU does not have exclusive competence to regulate the rights of PRM, therefore it 
shall  be  considered  whether  the  same  level  of  protection  could  have  been  achieved 
through other intervention at international, national or industry level.  

Before  the  Regulation  was  adopted  in  2006,  there  was  limited  appetite  at  international 
level  to  intervene,  and  the  intervention  was  done  by  non-binding  recommendations. 
ICAO already adopted its “Recommended Practices relating to Persons with Disabilities” 
and ECAC Doc 30 was also published before the adoption of the Regulation. However, 
none of these non-binding guidance documents could grant enforceable rights to PRM to 
non-discrimination  and  to  a  set  of  special  assistance  services  available  for  them  at 
airports and on board of aircrafts.  

At industry level IATA already adopted for the first time in 1952 industry standards in its 
Resolution  700  on  the  acceptance  and  carriage  of  passengers  requiring  assistance, 
including PRM, however the non-binding nature of such standards did not allow to meet 
the objective of the intervention to grant PRM rights to use air transport comparable to 
other citizens.   

Only  eight  Member  States145  had  some  form  of  disability  equality  or  PRM  protection 
legislation, which included to some extent rights for passengers when traveling by air. On 
the one hand, these legislations covered the largest part of the EU aviation market, on the 
other  hand  most  Member  States  did  not  have  any  PRM  protection  legislation  for  air 
transport  at  all.  The  protection  guaranteed  by  the  national  legislations  varied  between 
Member States, with some national legislation having a very limited scope. For instance, 
in  most Member States there  was no specific authority designated to  enforce the rights 
and to handle complaints arising from disputes related to the transport of PRM travellers.  

144 See above under point 3.2. 
145 Germany, Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the UK. The national legislations 
of these eight countries are presented in Appendix F of the support study. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                 
Most  operators  provided  assistance  to  PRM  travelling  by  air  already  before  the 
Regulation, but this was not necessarily organised in a consistent manner. It was usually 
offered by airlines and subcontracted to ground-handlers, and airports were generally not 
involved in the provision of the service. Some airlines offered better services than others. 
The travelling experience of PRM therefore varied considerably, with the offer ranging 
from no service at all to assistance broadly comparable with that currently available. The 
quality of PRM assistance services also  varied  across European  airports, depending  for 
example on the networks operated by the airlines providing assistance. PRM were often 
requested to pay an additional charge for assistance, which sometimes was very high. 

Given the diverse rules at international level, at national and /or regional level across the 
EU  before  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  for  PRM  when  travelling  by  air146,  the 
protection provided to  PRM would have varied  considerably across Europe, potentially 
reducing PRM’s confidence to travel by air and hence the number of PRM travelling by 
air would be much lower147. Some of these passengers would also have faced additional 
financial burdens in the form of a separate charge for the assistance. 

5.5.2. What would be the likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing existing EU 
intervention on air PRM?  

It can be reasonably assumed that PRM would continue to receive assistance even if the 
Regulation  would  be  withdrawn.  As  already  noted,  some  PRM  assistance  services 
existed  before  the  Regulation  was  adopted,  although  they  were  provided  in  a  different 
form  and  with  less  consistency.  The  Regulation  proved  to  be  very  successful  to 
demonstrate  to  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  that  there  is  a  need  to  offer  PRM 
opportunities comparable to other citizens to use air transport. In addition, as mentioned 
earlier,  all  the  31  countries  examined  in  the  evaluation  committed  themselves  to  take 
measures to provide PRM access to air transport when they ratified the UN Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).  

Consequently, it is  likely  that  most Member States, including  many with no legislation 
before 2008, would maintain some requirements to  provide PRM travelling by  air with 
assistance  in  their  national  law.  However,  given  the  different  characteristics  of  the 
aviation  industry  in  Europe  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  Member  States  would  have 
different approaches, therefore the rights of PRM and the obligations of carriers would be 
very different148.  

There  would  also  be  no  guarantee  that  the  PRM  would  continue  to  receive  assistance 
services free of charge as they currently do. This would depend on the choice made by 
Member  States  when  adopting  their  national  legislation  on  the  rights  of  PRM  when 
travelling  by  air.  If  national  legislations  would  revert  to  the  situation  before  the 

146 See above under point 2 
147 As indicated above, both the absolute number of PRM passengers and their share within all passengers 
grew between 2008 and 2019. In 2006 less than 1% of all passengers were PRM in most Member States, 
but until 2018 their share grew to between 1% and 1,25% which is a quite important increase. 
148 It is likely that Member States with large network airlines and hub airports would regulate PRM rights 
differently from Member States that do not have a major flag carrier. 

61 

 
                                                 
Regulation  was  adopted  and  airlines  would  be  solely  responsible  for  the  assistance  of 
PRM,  the  airlines  would  respond  to  commercial  pressures  to  levy  a  separate  charge  at 
least for certain assistance services and reduce the ticket price that all passengers pay.  

5.5.3.  To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  in  the  Regulation  continue  to  require 
intervention at the EU level? 

Aviation  is  a  global  industry.  As  a  consequence,  PRM  derive  added  value  from  a 
coherent  and  unique  European  framework  of  rights:  they  can  expect  to  have  the  same 
rights everywhere no matter where they travel while airlines and airports benefit from a 
level playing field. In addition, airlines and airports do not need to adapt their procedures 
to  the  diverging  requirements  of  the  different  jurisdictions  where  they  operate.  Hence, 
while  in  theory  it  would  be  possible  to  leave  to  Member  States  to  further  develop  the 
legislative  framework,  in  practice  this  would  be  likely  to  expose  both  passengers  and 
operators to regulatory inconsistencies and anomalies. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The Regulation was adopted to provide PRM with opportunities for air travel throughout 
Europe comparable to those of other citizens. In particular, it aimed to ensure that their 
rights  to  non-discrimination  and  mandatory  assistance  were  recognised  by  the  air 
transport  industry.  It  introduced  a  specific,  enforceable  framework  of  rights  for  PRM 
when travelling by air in the European Economic Area.  

This  evaluation,  which  began  in  July  2019,  is  based  on  the  collection  and  analysis  of 
published  pan-European  data  and  information  from  stakeholders  and  other  industry 
sources over a two-year period. Although the quality of contributions from stakeholders 
can be considered good, the lack of detailed data on the air transport market for PRM and 
the profile and share of the population of PRM travellers complicated the analysis. 

The purpose of the evaluation was to analyse the impact of policy changes brought by the 
Regulation.  The  evaluation  addresses  to  a  limited  extent  the  consequences  of  the 
COVID-19 pandemic on PRM assistance.149 

6.1.  Effectiveness 

Evidence  gathered  for  this  evaluation  indicates  that  the  Regulation  has  been  very 
effective in meeting the objectives of the legislation. PRM have more freedom to travel 
by air at no extra cost to them, and barriers that may have prevented them from travelling 
before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation  have  been  substantially  overcome.  PRM 
options for travelling by air are now broadly comparable to those of other citizens. 

149 See above under points 1.2 and 3.5.4. 

62 

 
 
                                                 
All  stakeholders  that  took  part  in  the  consultation,  including  organisations  representing 
PRM, agreed about the Regulation’s overall effectiveness. 

The main improvement in the treatment of PRM can be observed in the following terms:  

•  operators have greater awareness of the needs of PRM; 
•  assistance is available to any passenger who requests it, at all European airports 

and on board of airlines, at no extra charge for the PRM themselves; 
the  treatment  of  PRM  across  airlines,  airports  and  Member  States  has  become 
more consistent; 
in general the quality of PRM services has also improved; 
the number of incidents of PRM being denied boarding declined. 

• 

• 
• 

At  the  same  time,  several  factors  undermined  full  achievement  of  the  aims  of  the 
Regulation: 

•  There  are  no  clear  requirements  for  disability-related  training  of  all  staff  who 
have  a  role  to  play  in  the  delivery  of  a  seamless  travel  experience  for  all 
passengers.  This  applies  in  particular  to  travel  agents  and  tour  operators  (who 
need to understand the impact of different disabilities on air travel and record the 
special  needs  of  PRM  travellers)  and  security  and  immigration  officers  and 
ground-handlers  (who  load  mobility  equipment  on  board  and  can  cause 
significant damage if they do it incorrectly). 

•  Current  pre-notification  procedures  do  not  always  allow  PRM  to  specify  what 

their assistance needs are, so the service cannot be tailored to their needs. 

•  Several  stakeholders  indicated  that  when  the  Regulation  first  began  being 
implemented,  operators  focused  more  on  the  needs  of  passengers  with  reduced 
mobility to the detriment of the needs of passengers with other, often not visible 
disabilities  (people  with  a  hearing  impairment,  visual  impairment  or  intellectual 
or  developmental  disability).  In  recent  years  there  have  been  constructive 
initiatives at a number of airports (e.g. discreet symbols allowing persons with a 
hidden disability to signal their special need) that can be implemented throughout 
Europe. 

•  The  Regulation  contains  several  legal  gaps.  It  does  not  specify  what  ‘mobility 
equipment’,  ‘medical  equipment’  or  type  of  ‘recognised  assistance  dog’  airlines 
have  to  transport  free  of  charge  and  which  can  cause  disputes  between  airlines 
and  PRM.  In  addition,  several  stakeholders  indicated  that  they  were  uncertain 
whether  certain  categories  of  passengers  (e.g.  parents  travelling  with  toddlers, 
pregnant women, obese persons) came within the scope of the Regulation or not.  
to  occur,  and  PRM  representative 
organisations  are  sceptical  about  airlines  refusing  to  transport  PRM  purely  for 
aviation safety reasons (this is particularly the case where certain airlines limit the 
number of PRM, wheelchairs or assistance dogs transported while other airlines 
operating  the  same  flight  with  the  same  aircraft  do  not  have  such  restrictions). 
Safety  rules  and  guidelines  of  airlines  vary  significantly  and  often  there  is 

•  Denied  boarding 

incidents  continue 

63 

 
 
ambiguity  surrounding  their  application.  This  applies  in  particular  to  the  policy 
toward the transport of electric wheelchairs, batteries and oxygen bottles, leaving 
PRM  exposed  to  the  risk  of  being  denied  boarding.  PRM  representative 
organisations  also  point  out  that  some  airlines  request  that  PRM  travel  with  an 
accompanying  person,  even  when  this  is  not  necessary  to  comply  with  safety 
requirements (e.g. to help PRM to eat or drink). 

•  Although in most cases the allocation of tasks between airlines, airport managing 
bodies  and  ground-handlers  is  clear,  in  the  case  of  some  tasks  it  is  not:  for 
example, it is unclear who is responsible for carrying mobility equipment to the 
aircraft  hold  and  for  loss  of  or  damage  to  it  (the  airline,  airport  or  ground-
handling company). 

•  There  is  no  financial  compensation  for  PRM  whose  rights  as  granted  by  the 
Regulation  were  infringed,  except  in  the  case  of  compensation  for  lost  or 
damaged mobility equipment. 

•  One  of  the  most  important  issues  relating  to  effectiveness  concerns  the  liability 
ceiling  for  damaged  or  lost  mobility  equipment.  This  specific  topic  is  not 
regulated by the Regulation (which refers to national, EU or international law) but 
by the Montreal Convention (transposed into EU law under Regulation (EC) No 
2027/97) which currently sets this liability ceiling at approximately EUR 1 365; 
this  ceiling  does  not  reflect  the  real  value  and  replacement  cost  of  some  tailor-
made  mobility  equipment.  This  amount  makes  no  distinction  between  luggage 
and  mobility  equipment  and  as  this  topic  is  regulated  by  the  Montreal 
Convention, changing the rules could involve difficulties. In its 2013 proposal to 
revise  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  2027/97,  the 
Commission  also  aimed  to  solve  the  problem  of  compensation  for  lost  or 
damaged  mobility  equipment  by  proposing  to  require  airlines  to  automatically 
offer PRM the option of making a special declaration of interest laid out within 
the Montreal Convention, at no additional cost.150 However, this proposal is still 
pending. 

•  Many of the NEBs cannot make binding decisions if a PRM passenger submits a 

complaint. 

•  While in principle the Regulation ensures equivalent PRM rights in the different 
Member  States,  in  practice  differences  in  interpretation  among  airlines,  airports 
and NEBs  and inconsistencies in  the approach to enforcement (in terms  of both 
proactive  monitoring  and  sanctioning)  adopted  by  NEBs  across  31  jurisdictions 
continue to prevent PRM from exercising uniform rights throughout Europe. 
•  Several  NEBs  seem  to  deploy  very  low  resources  to  the  enforcement  of  the 
Regulation and their monitoring enforcement and sanctioning is mostly limited to 
reacting to complaints, which does not seem an acceptable approach to effectively 
enforcing the Regulation. 
Infrastructural  constraints  and  lack  of  investment  in  airport  accessibility 
undermines  the  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation;  however,  as  mentioned  above, 

• 

150 COM(2013)130 final 

64 

 
                                                 
the  Regulation  does  not 
accessibility. 

impose  any  obligation  regarding 

infrastructure 

6.2.  Efficiency 

The mechanism within the Regulation designed to ensure the funding of PRM assistance 
free  of  charge  for  passengers  benefiting  from  it  has  worked  efficiently,  at  least  it  did 
before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The cost of PRM assistance is shared across all air passengers. In 2019 it amounted on 
average to  EUR 0.55 per passenger,  a value low enough not  to impact  air ticket  prices 
much. The average cost of assisting one PRM was EUR 75 in 2019, which is not trivial, 
being sometimes comparable with - or higher than - an average airline ticket.  

PRM  assistance  requests  increased  between  2008  and  2019,  as  did  the  overall  costs  of 
providing  assistance,  but  PRM  still  constitute  a  relatively  low  proportion  of  all 
passengers travelling by air. 

Stakeholders that took part in the consultation did not complain about unreasonable costs 
related to PRM assistance. Airlines are conscious of the increase in overall costs because 
of  the  increased  demand  for  assistance,  and  have  called  for  greater  transparency  on 
behalf of assistance providers and airport managing bodies together with more oversight 
from  the  appropriate  authorities  to  ensure  maximum  cost-efficiency.  (Some  airlines 
participating in the stakeholder consultation argued that it was less expensive for them to 
provide  assistance  before  the  Regulation  was  adopted  and  they  could  arrange  the 
provision  of  assistance  themselves.)  NEBs  reported  that  so  far  they  did  not  have 
significant  regulatory  costs as a result of implementation  of the Regulation, although it 
seems that a number of them are understaffed. 

According  to  airlines  and  airports,  PRM  assistance  costs  could  be  reduced  through  a 
higher  level  of  pre-notification  for  assistance  requests  (and  also  by  enabling  PRM  to 
specify their assistance needs in more detail). Some airlines added that increased scrutiny 
of the cost of PRM assistance service provision by establishing procedural safeguards in 
the Regulation when setting the PRM charges, along with more proactive monitoring of 
PRM charges by NEBs, would also reduce PRM assistance costs. Additional savings in 
operational  costs  could  be  made  by  making  airports  and  aircrafts  more  accessible  and 
designing  airports  with  the  needs  of  PRM  in  mind.  This  would  have  to  be  assessed 
against  the  investment  cost  of  such  infrastructure  changes.  Stakeholders  also  indicated 
that costs could be reduced by giving more time for PRM to come to the airport earlier 
and reach their flight independently, and to offer (for free or for a small fee) wayfinding 
services to passengers who misuse PRM assistance because they cannot find their ways 
in complex airports. The Commission has not yet assessed such policy measures. 

65 

 
6.3.  Relevance 

The general objective of the Commission’s proposal in 2005 (i.e. to provide PRM with 
opportunities  for  air  travel  comparable  to  those  of  other  citizens)  and  its  specific 
objectives  (to  provide  increased,  seamless  assistance  at  all  airports  and  to  avoid  giving 
airlines incentives to reduce the number of PRM carried) were aligned with the problems 
identified  at  the  time.  The  needs  of  PRM  have  not  significantly  changed  since  the 
Regulation was drafted and adopted. Without the Regulation, these problems would most 
probably remain, so it can be concluded that the Regulation was relevant at the time of its 
adoption and is still relevant. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation,  significant  technological  and  scientific  advances 
have  taken  place  (notably  in  the  assistance  of  PRM  and  the  mobility  and  medical 
equipment  PRM  wish  to  carry  themselves  also  when  travelling  by  air)  and  it  is 
considered  that  the  Regulation  has  not  been  an  obstacle  to  those  developments.  The 
Regulation  is  not  explicit  as  to  which  technologies  should  be  used  for  the  provision  of 
assistance. Therefore, it has not created any barriers to the use of new technologies. The 
disadvantage  of  such  an  approach  is  that  operators  have  been  left  to  make  key  choices 
(but at the same time they have to comply with the wider safety regulatory environment 
mandated  by  EASA).  This  has  meant  that  safety  policies,  for  example  concerning  the 
carriage of mobility equipment batteries, have varied between airlines and it is difficult 
for PRM to understand and interpret such policies in practice.  

It could be concluded that the Regulation remains relevant in the context of the travelling 
environment for PRM. However, while the Regulation is largely fit for purpose, there are 
a  number  of  new  and  outstanding  technological  issues  (transport  of  batteries,  electric 
wheelchairs, oxygen bottles) which have not been addressed. 

6.4.  Coherence 

The provisions of the Regulation are in general coherent and consistent with each other.  

The  Regulation  is  also  coherent  with  other  EU  legislation  relating  to  air  transport,  and 
with EU consumer rights legislation. 

The  Regulation  relies  on  the  provision  of  assistance  to  PRM  and  it  does  not  oblige 
airlines,  airports  or  Member  States  to  make  airport  infrastructure  and  aircrafts  more 
accessible. Moreover, there is little scope in the European Accessibility Act to progress 
towards  increased  physical  accessibility  of  air  transport,  although  it  should  ensure 
progress  towards  greater  digital  accessibility.  This  means  that,  in  its  current  form,  the 
Regulation  may  need  to  be  complemented  by  other  instruments  than  the  European 
Accessibility Act if the accessibility objectives of the United Nations Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) for travelling by air are to be met in full, 
as the UNCRPD requires that its parties, such as the EU and the Member States, take the 
necessary measures - including adopting legislation - to ensure accessibility. 

66 

 
The Regulation  is  coherent  with  ECAC Doc 30, a document that  provides  guidance on 
the  processes  for  delivering  and  assessing  service  quality.  However,  the  non-binding 
nature of ECAC Doc 30 limits its usefulness. 

The  modal  nature  of  the  EU  passenger  rights  legislation  causes  difficulties  for  PRM 
travelling  on  multimodal  journeys,  as  they  may  not  be  legally  protected  when  they 
transition from one collective mode to the other.  

In addition, often different rules apply in the different modal passenger rights regulations 
for  the  same  situations  (liability  for  mobility  equipment,  pre-notification  deadline, 
transport of accompanying person, procedural deadlines to submit and reply complaints), 
which might confuse PRM passengers. 

6.5.  EU Added value 

Because  aviation  is  an  industry  dominated  by  cross-border  services,  passengers  and 
operators derive added value from a coherent single European framework of rights, while 
airlines and airports benefit from a level playing field.  

Before the Regulation there was no appetite to adopt binding rules at international level 
to regulate this field. Only nine Member States had national legislation in force to protect 
the  rights  of  PRM  when  travelling  by  air,  which  certainly  set  a  positive  precedent; 
however, it did not result in a coherent framework of rights that could be exercised across 
Europe, or in a level playing field for airlines and airports.  

Consequently,  the  Regulation  has  helped  to  ensure  a  better  travelling  environment  for 
PRM,  enabling  them  to  travel  by  air  with  greater  confidence  and  less  risk  of 
discrimination.  

The available evidence indicates that it is very likely that the Regulation contributed to 
the increased demand by PRM to use air services within Europe, but it is not possible to 
draw firm conclusions as to the extent; this is because travel decisions are influenced by a 
wide range of factors other than PRM rights.  

Withdrawing  the  Regulation  would  be  likely  to  result  in  a  return  to  various  different 
approaches  to  the  provision  of  assistance  services,  although  experience  of  European 
legislation on PRM rights would mean that some elements of a common approach would 
persist.  PRM  would  not  enjoy  the  same  benefits:  they  would  probably  receive  less 
comprehensive  and  consistent  assistance  and  would  need  to  pay  for  certain  specific 
services. 

67 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The Directorate-General  for Mobility and  Transport (“DG MOVE”) is  the lead DG for 
the evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament.  

The evaluation was registered in the Decide Planning under reference PLAN/2019/5756. 

2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The ex-post evaluation of the Regulation was launched in with an evaluation roadmap on 
31 July 2019 in  line with the procedural  steps set  forth  under the Commission’s Better 
Regulation  Guidelines.  The  evaluation  roadmap  together  with  the  context,  the  purpose 
and the scope of the evaluation has been published on 11 July 2019. 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  was  performed  in  cooperation  with  other 
interested  Commission  services  coordinated  under  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group 
(“ISSG”),  which  was  established  early  in  the  evaluation  process  for  that  purpose.  
The ISSG consists of representatives from Secretariat General (SG), Legal Service (LS), 
European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS),  Directorate-General  for  Mobility  and 
Transport (MOVE), Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship 
and SMEs (GROW), Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
(EMPL), Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (JUST), Directorate-General for 
Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (NEAR),  Directorate-General  for 
Regional  and  Urban  Policy  (REGIO),  Directorate-General  for  Communications 
networks, content and technology (CNECT).  

The table below describes the milestones of the evaluation phase. 

Table 4. The milestones of the evaluation 

Date 

Activity 

11 July 2019 

Publication of the Evaluation Roadmap on Better Regulation portal  

13 September 2019 

1st meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group: draft ToR, outcome of the 
published roadmap, consultation strategy 

23 October 2019 

Launch of the call for tenders for the support study, under Framework Contract 
MOVE/A3/2017-257 

18 February 2020 

Signature of the contract by external contractor  

20 February 2020 

Kick-off meeting with the contractor  

23 April 2020 

2nd meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group - Inception report 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3 July 2020 

Start of Public Consultation 

18 September 2020 

3rd meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group: - First interim report  

23 October 2020 

End of Public Consultation 

10 November 2020 

Stakeholder workshop  

22 January 2021 

4th meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group – Draft final report 

19 March 2021 

5th meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group – Final report 

27 July 2021 

Submission of the final report of the evaluation study 

29 July – 31 August  
2021  

Inter-service consultation on the Staff Working Document 

3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

None. 

4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  evaluation  assesses  the  Regulation’s  impact  from  the  date  when  it  started  to  apply 
until the beginning of the evaluation in February 2020. The analysis does not specifically 
cover  the  impact  of  COVID-19  pandemic  in  2020  and  2021,  as  it  is  still  premature  to 
assess  all  its  effects.  However,  when  stakeholders  have  made  specific  comments  or 
where  effects  are  already  clear  and  unambiguous  these  points  are  presented  in  the 
evaluation.  The  evaluation  findings  mainly  rely  on  the  support  study  carried  out  by  an 
external contractor, which develops through the analysis of the effectiveness, efficiency, 
relevance, and coherence and EU added value of the Regulation. The external consultant 
gathered  data,  made  desktop  research,  performed  stakeholder  consultation  and  further 
gathered evidence for the study. 

The evaluation was completed with additional information gathered by the Commission 
such  as  knowledge  from  participation  at  workshops  and  conferences,  missions  and 
bilateral meetings with stakeholders and NEBs. 

69 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

This annex presents the results of the stakeholder consultation activities undertaken in the 
context of the ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 aimed at identifying 
the issues arisen since the implementation of the Regulation.  

As  set  out  in  the  consultation  strategy,  the  objective  was  to  gather  the  views  of 
stakeholders  and  collect  evidence  on  the  key  implementation  of  the  Regulation:  both 
qualitative information (opinions, views, suggestions for improvement) and quantitative 
information (data, statistics). 

Before  the  evaluation,  the  Commission  published  a  roadmap  to  inform  citizens  and 
stakeholders  about  the  upcoming  evaluation  to  allow  them  to  provide  feedback  and  to 
participate  in  the  consultation.  Between  11  July  2019  and  06  September  2019  the 
Commission  received  ten  responses  from  both  industry  and  Member  States.  Overall, 
there was great support from stakeholders to the Commission’s intention to evaluate the 
Regulation and all stakeholders were pro-active suggesting areas that could be revised or 
areas to focus on during the evaluation. 

During  the  support  study  an  in-depth  stakeholder  consultation  was  conducted  by  the 
contractor.  A  comprehensive  stakeholder  consultation  report  can  be  found  as  a 
supplement  to  the  support  study.151  Stakeholders  were  identified  by  the  Commission 
together with the external contractor and the Commission participated in workshops and 
guided the external contractor through the entire consultation. 

For  the  evaluation,  several  methods  were  used  such  as  pilot  interviews,  targeted 
interviews, targeted questionnaires, public consultation and a workshop.  

Questionnaires 

Targeted  stakeholder  questionnaires  were  designed  to  obtain  detailed  views  as  well  as 
data from the industry, PRM representatives and NEBs.  

Seven sets of questionnaires tailored to each key stakeholder group (NEBs, airports, EU 
airlines, non-EU airlines, passenger and PRM representatives and passenger associations, 
ADRs  and  ECCs)  were  distributed.  The  questionnaires  addressed  the  following 
evaluation  topics:  relevance,  effectiveness,  cost  efficiency,  coherence  and,  EU  added 
value. 

151 Final report: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d8b8bd04-1b4d-11ec-b4fe-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231259999 

Executive summary: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/621740d2-1b4f-11ec-b4fe-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231261208 

Stakeholder  consultation  report:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/327ffbfa-1b4e-

11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231261449   

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Identified limitations 

It  was  recognised  that  the  questionnaires  were  lengthy  and  time  consuming  for 
stakeholders to complete comprehensively. Therefore, the level and quality of responses 
often  reflected  the  stakeholders’  interest  in  the  Regulation.  Some  participating 
stakeholders (particularly passenger associations not specifically representing PRM), do 
not focus on air transport and thus their experience with and knowledge of the Regulation 
was very limited.  

Interviews 

A total of 26 interviews were conducted with selected stakeholders.  

Table 5. Organisations interviewed for the support study 

MS 

Stakeholder type 

Organisation 

N/A  Airline 

IATA - International Air Transport Association 

N/A  Airline 

ERAA - European Regions Airline Association (Regional 
carriers) 

IE 

Airline 

Hibernian 

N/A  Airline 

A4E - Airlines for Europe 

ES 

Airline 

HU  Airline 

Albastar 

Wizzair 

DE  Airline 

Lufthansa 

NL  Airline 

KLM  

N/A  Airport 

ACI-Europe 

IE 

Airport 

Shannon airport 

UK  Airport 

Glasgow airport 

CY  Airport 

Larnaka airport 

LT  Airport 

Vilnius airport 

ES 

Airport 

AENA (Spanish airport operator) 

UK  Airport 

London Heathrow Airport 

IT 

NEB 

Italian CAA (ENAC) 

71 

 
MS 

Stakeholder type 

Organisation 

NL  NEB 

CH  NEB 

Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT)  

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) 

N/A  Other 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

UK  Other 

OCS Group (ground-handler) 

N/A  Other 

European Travel Agents and Tour Operators Association 
(ECTAA) 

EL 

Passenger 
representative 

Consumer Protection Centre (ΚΕΠΚΑ) 

N/A 

PRM representative 

European Disability Forum (EDF) 

ES 

PRM representative 

Spanish Committee of Representatives of People with 
Disabilities (CERMI) 

N/A 

PRM representative 

EDF 

IE 

Airport 

Dublin Airport 

Source: Steer stakeholder consultation report Tables 2.10 and 2.11 

Candidates for interviews were selected taking into consideration the representativeness 
and diversity of the sample.  

Workshop 

A  full-day  participatory  workshop  with  selected  stakeholders  was  conducted  on  10 
November 2020 to collect views from participants. The discussion was centred on three 
themes:  1)  pre-notification,  2)  the  relationship  between  aviation  safety  and  the  right  of 
PRM  to  transport,  and  3)  how  it  can  be  ensured  that  the  Regulation  remains  fit  for 
purpose.  The  workshop  was  led  and  organised  by  the  contractor,  with  the  European 
Commission as an observer.  

The workshop was attended by the following 28 stakeholders. 

Table 6. Organisations that participated in the workshop 

MS 

Organisation 

Group 

- 

Airport Council International (ACI) -Europe 

DK 

Copenhagen 

Airports 

72 

 
MS 

Organisation 

Group 

UK 

CY 

CZ 

IT 

- 

ES 

UK 

- 

- 

HU 

CH 

DE 

HU 

IT 

Heathrow 

Larnaka 

Prague 

Verona 

Airlines for Europe (A4E) 

Albastar 

EasyJet 

European Regions Airline Association 
(ERAA) 

Airlines 

IATA 

WizzAir 

Swiss CAA (FOCA) 

German CAA (LBA) 

Hungarian Ministry of Innovation and 
Technology 

Italian CAA (ENAC) 

LT 

Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration 

NEBs 

NL 

SE 

UK 

N/A 

IT 

N/A 

Human Environment and Transport 
Inspectorate 

Transportstyrelsen  

UK Civil Aviation Authority 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency 
(EASA) 

Other 

Italian ECC 

European Disability Forum (EDF) 

Passenger and PRM 

73 

 
MS 

Organisation 

Group 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Skywise Solutions (PRM trainer) 

representatives 

European Passengers Federation (EPF) 

European Blind Union 

European Union of the Deaf 

PassePartout (PRM Trainer) 

Source: Steer stakeholder consultation report Table 2.12. 

Public Consultation 

A public consultation was launched on 3 July 2020 and ended on 23 October 2020. 

A  total  of  41  responses  were  received.  The  largest  number  of  responses  was  given  by 
PRM  Representatives  (10)  and  EU  (8)  and  non-EU  (1)  citizens,  making  up  just  under 
one-half (19 of 41) of the sample. A significant number of responses were also received 
airlines (7), airports (5) and their associations.  

Respondents gave the following answers to the five evaluation questions: 

Effectiveness 

In general, a significant majority (30 of 41) stakeholders assessed that the Regulation has 
improved access to air travel for PRM and their opportunities to use air transport is now 
comparable to the opportunities of other citizens –.  

A number of positive and negative impacts of the Regulation were identified. In terms of 
the positive effects, a majority of respondents assessed that:  

•  The Regulation improved PRM’s protection against discrimination; 
•  Airlines and airports are more proactive to satisfy the needs of PRM; 
•  The availability of information for PRM has improved (notably on airline’s safety 

rules ); and 

•  Complaint handling by NEBs has improved. 

With respect  to  the Regulation’s negative  impacts,  views  varied by stakeholder groups. 
Airlines assessed that the definition of who qualifies for  free PRM assistance service is 
too  broad.  PRM  representatives  and  citizens  assessed  that  some  of  the  Regulation’s 
provisions are unclear or open to diverging interpretation by carriers and NEBs.  

EU Relevance 

A majority of stakeholders stated that some of the Regulation’s provisions are obsolete 
(e.g. the rules of transmission of information between travel agents, airlines and airports). 

74 

 
 
Alongside this, most stated that there are issues which the Regulation fails to address, for 
example  whether  certain  categories  of  passengers  like  drunk  passengers  or  pregnant 
women  belong  to  the  definition  of  PRM,  the  definition  of  mobility  equipment,  the 
accessibility of airports and aircrafts). 

This  highlights  that  there  is  still  further  work  required  to  make  progress  against  the 
original  objectives  of  the  Regulation,  although  a  significant  portion  agree  that  the 
Regulation has improved the protection of persons with disabilities and PRM. 

Efficiency 

Most  stakeholders  stated  that  they  had  experienced  difficulties  implementing  the 
Regulation. Airports and airlines stated that the cost of providing the free PRM assistance 
service has risen greatly as more PRM make use of the service. Airports and airlines also 
suggested  that  misuse  of  the  service152  has  also  become  more  common,  although  this 
suggestion was not substantiated. PRM representatives and citizens also stated that pre-
notification  was  inconvenient  and  occasionally  onerous.  VDF,  the  German  national 
association  for  ground  handlers,  stated  that  identifying  appropriate  training  for  staff  to 
comply with the training requirements was difficult. 

EU added value 

The stakeholders did not address the question of EU added value. 

Coherence 

One  stakeholder  stated  that  different  pre-notification  periods  between  the  EU  and  US 
PRM regulations has caused confusion for transatlantic passengers. No other points were 
raised. 

Targeted consultations 

The  targeted  questionnaires  were  designed  to  obtain  data  and  stakeholder  views,  and 
drafted  to  ensure  that  similar  questions  were  posed  to  each  stakeholder  group.  It  is 
important  to  note  that  stakeholder  responses  were  not  analysed  using  statistical 
approaches  due  to  the  highly  qualitative  nature  of  the  responses  received.  Therefore, 
although response rates were closely monitored, the focus was more on the quality and 
detail provided in the responses, rather than the number of responses per se. 

The  majority  of  responses  received  were  generally  well  detailed  and  provided  valuable 
quantitative  and  qualitative  information  for  the  study.  Responses  were  mostly  received 
within the timeframe agreed. Nearly all responses were supplied in English and there is 
no evidence that this affected the quality of the submissions.  

152   E.g.  people  who  do  not  live  with  a  disability,  but  struggling  with  way-finding,  seeking  priority 
treatment  when  queuing  or  who  do  not  want  to  carry  their  heavy  baggage  themselves  request  free 
PRM assistance service. 

75 

 
                                                 
Interviews  proved  effective  to  investigate  gaps  in  the  qualitative  data  and  gave 
stakeholders the opportunity to raise or stress particular points of importance.  

However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  response  rate  of  some  key  industry  participants 
remained  limited.  This  was  particularly  the  case  for  the  ground  handlers  which  were 
particularly  challenging  to  engage  given  the  ultra-competitive  nature  of  the  sector  and 
extreme pressure that COVID-19 brought to their business at the time of the consultation. 
Only  one  ground  handler  (OCS,  a  large  UK  PRM  handler)  participated  at  the 
consultation. This was partially offset, however, by engagement with European airports 
who are principally responsible for the delivery of the PRM service. 

National Enforcement Bodies 

Almost  all  NEBs  (29/31)  provided  response,  however,  there  was  a  large  range  in 
response quality and some questions were often left unanswered.  

With respect to the effectiveness of the Regulation, most NEBs were uncertain whether 
the Regulation had changed the level of protection provided to PRM.  

All  NEBs  to  provide  a  view  (13153)  assessed  that  the  Regulation’s  efficiency  costs  are 
proportionate to the benefits of the Regulation.  

With respect to EU-relevance, NEBs overall assessed that the original objectives of the 
Regulation  are  indeed  relevant  to  the  current  needs  of  PRM  when  travelling  by  air. 
Nevertheless,  they  mentioned  that  the  Regulation  could  be  better  suited  to  some  of  the 
more recent trends (e.g. carriage of lithium-ion batteries for mobility devices and medical 
equipment,  the  use  of  PRM  lifts  and  other  tools  as  a  replacement  for  manual  handling 
into an aircraft of PRM passengers). 

In  terms  of  EU  added  value,  the  main  benefit  highlighted  by  NEBs  was  the  ability  for 
smooth travel for PRM anywhere in Europe and, albeit to a lesser extent, to anywhere in 
the world. 

With  respect  to  coherence,  all  NEBs  judged  that  the  Regulation’s  provisions  were 
coherent and consistent with one another. With respect to other EU legislation, however, 
it was noted that the relationship between Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and Regulation 
(EC)  No  1107/2006  can  be  complex  (for  example  it  is  not  clear  whether  Article  11  of 
Regulation (EC) 261/2004 applies in the context of denied boarding as a result of delays 
in the assistance service).  

153   DK, EE, HR, HU, IS, IT, IE, PT, MT, NL, NO, UK (+ 1 confidential). 

76 

 
 
 
                                                 
Airlines 

All responses received by airlines were detailed with each answering the vast majority of 
questions. 

Similar to NEBs, only few airlines provided a view on the extent to which the Regulation 
had  increased  the  protection  afforded  to  PRM  when  travelling  by  air.  Nevertheless,  of 
those airlines which took position (4), all agreed that protections had improved relative to 
the  time  before  the  Regulation’s  implementation.  Nevertheless,  they  highlighted  that 
airlines have had self-regulation in this  area already decades before the adoption of the 
Regulation  (e.g.  IATA  Resolution  700  on  the  standards  for  the  carriage  of  passengers 
requiring assistance) and many were already committed to improving accessibility before 
the Regulation’s implementation.  

Airlines  did  not  assess  whether  the  intervention’s  regulatory  costs  (compliance, 
administration, etc.) were proportional to its benefits. Nevertheless, two highlighted that 
the Regulation had increased demand for air travel from PRM and had created a common 
legal  framework  for  PRM  assistance  across  Europe,  reducing  compliance  costs.  At  the 
same time some airlines criticised the Regulation claiming that it increased significantly 
their  costs:  they  argued  that  before  the  Regulation  when  it  was  their  responsibility  to 
provide  the  assistance  service,  they  could  do  it  at  a  much  lower  cost  compared  to  the 
system  created  by  the  Regulation  where  airport  managing  bodies  are  responsible  for 
organising the assistance and they impose very high PRM charges.  

In  terms  of  coherence,  one  major  US  flag  carrier  highlighted  that  the  obligations  of 
airlines are different between the European Regulation and its US equivalent.  

On relevance, airlines generally agreed that the original objectives of the Regulation are 
relevant to the priorities of PRM when travelling by air today. Technological changes in 
the  form  of  different  batteries  for  different  mobility  equipment  and  a  wider  variety  of 
assistive  devices  have  generated  challenges,  such  as  tension  with  IATA’s  Dangerous 
Goods Regulations154.  

With respect to EU added value, airlines unanimously assessed that the use of legislation 
at a European level has been beneficial for ensuring fair competition within Europe and 
regulatory  consistency  and  so  lower  compliance  costs  for  airlines  operating  within 
Europe. 

Airports 

Five airports155 which commented on effectiveness noted that the Regulation improved 
the protection for PRM.  

154 See https://www.iata.org/en/publications/dgr/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI98ma48-
87QIVQuztCh3cHAiHEAAYASAAEgJ-0fD_BwE.  
155   Copenhagen Airport, Dublin Airport, Larnarca Airport, Shannon Airport, +1 anonymous airport. 

77 

 
                                                 
With  respect  to  cost  efficiency  7156  airports  responded  that  compliance  costs  are 
proportionate  to  the  benefits  of  the  Regulation.  More,  however,  highlighted  that  costs 
could be reduced by making pre-notification mandatory or obliging PRM to prove their 
disabled status to prevent misuse of free assistance. 

On  relevance,  airports  agreed  that  the  priority  needs  for  PRM  were  safety,  comfort, 
assurance and the preservation of their dignity when travelling.  

In terms of EU added value, as with other stakeholder groups, airports assessed that the 
Regulation  provides  significant  value  by  providing  a  consistent  European  framework. 
Furthermore, the clarity which the Regulation provides ensures that all parties are aware 
of their rights and obligations, leading to a better overall service for PRM. 

Regarding  coherence,  the  majority  of  airports  stated  that  the  provisions  within  the 
Regulation  are  coherent.  Those  who  disagreed  (2157)  asked  to  further  clarify  the 
responsibilities of airports and airlines.  

Passenger and PRM representatives 

On effectiveness, PRM representatives reported that the Regulation had been somewhat 
effective  at  encouraging  a  similar  level  of  protection  for  PRM  when  travelling  by  air 
throughout  the  EU.  In  general,  the  majority  stated  that  the  Regulation  has  helped  to 
ensure that PRM have equal right to air travel, but also highlighted potential practices of 
discrimination and mentioned that travelling by air may still cause disproportionate costs 
to PRM (e.g. cost of accompanying persons, insurance against loss or damage of mobility 
equipment, etc.) and the lack of proper staff training at some airports.  

On  efficiency,  PRM  representatives  shared  a  view  that  more  effective  monitoring  and 
when necessary imposing financial sanctions would dissuade operators (e.g. airports and 
airlines) from breaching the Regulation. They also indicated that if the Regulation would 
allow to grant financial compensation to passengers whose rights were not respected that 
would also act as an additional incentive for operators to comply with the Regulation. 

On relevance, PRM representatives concluded that the current needs of PRM travelling 
by air are similar to their needs when the Regulation was adopted.  

On coherence, one PRM representative commented that the spirit of the Regulation and 
the  safety  derogations  are,  to  an  extent,  conflicting.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  further 
work  is  required  to  ensure  that  the  Regulation  is  coherent  with  the  United  Nations 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

156   Copenhagen  Airport,  Larnarca  Airport,  Prague  Airport,  Shannon  Airport,  Vilnius  Airport,  +2 

anonymous airports. 
157   AENA, Dublin Airport. 

78 

 
 
 
                                                 
European Consumer Centres (ECCs) 

Almost  all  ECCs  to  respond  had  received  no  or  very  few  complaints  relating  to  the 
Regulation, and therefore could not provide a view on the effectiveness of the complaints 
handling process.  

On the point of relevance, a significant majority of ECCs stated  that their decisions are 
not  binding  for  transport  operators  and  they  also  cannot  award  additional  damages  or 
compensation beyond what is stated in the Regulation. 

ECCs made no responses relevant to efficiency and coherence. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) organizations 

As  with  ECCs,  almost  all  ADRs  to  respond  had  received  no  or  very  few  complaints 
relating to the Regulation, and therefore could not provide a view on the effectiveness of 
the complaints handling process.  

ADRs’ had no significant comments relating to relevance, efficiency or coherence.  

Others 

Two  other  stakeholders,  the  European  Travel  Agents  and  Tour  Operators  Association 
(ECTAA)  and  PRM  ground  handler  OCS  have  also  participated  in  the  stakeholder 
consultation. .  

In terms of effectiveness, the ECTAA stated that, according to their survey, two-thirds of 
travel agents provide the option to book assistance via their website.   

OCS  stated  that  the  Regulation  has  been  relatively  effective  in  achieving  its  original 
objectives,  although  PRM  still  faces  issues  regarding  the  consistency  of  the  assistance 
service across airlines and airports.  

None commented directly on the Regulation’s efficiency, although OCS commented that 
cost of assistance is not driven solely by the Regulation. For example, it is common for 
costs to vary across airports depending on passenger demographics, infrastructure, etc. 

On relevance, OCS responded that wayfinding and navigation within the airport (i.e. to 
designated collection and check-in points) is a priority for PRM.  

On coherence, the ECTAA sees no gaps or inconsistencies between the Regulation and 
the Package Travel Directive. OCS noted that there are differences between the EU, US 
and Canadian PRM legislation which require service options to be provided on their part 
to ensure compliance for flights to/from the US and Canada.  

79 

 
 
 
Problematic questions 

Effectiveness 

Many stakeholders did not provide a response on how effective the Regulation had been 
in achieving its general and specific objectives, with most finding it difficult to do so due 
to a lack of data (both quantitative and qualitative) or analysis of such. Data from those 
who  were  able  to  provide  it  was  however  collected,  thus  enabling  an  analysis  of  the 
Regulation’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, of the small number of stakeholders to provide 
a  response,  most  stated  that  the  Regulation  has  been  beneficial  in  bringing  about  the 
realisation of at least some of the Regulation’s objectives.  

EU added value 

Although this question was answered in agreement with the Commissions understanding 
by  the  majority  of  stakeholders,  a  small  minority  misinterpreted  the  question  as  an 
assessment of how much value the Regulation contributed to their Member State or their 
individual  organisation  rather  than  the  EU  as  a  whole,  However,  this  did  not  have  a 
negative  impact  on  the  study  because  those  who  interpreted  the  question  correctly 
responded similarly.  

80 

 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

This Annex is intended to provide detailed information on the approach already described under 
Chapter 4 of the Staff Working Document, as regards the methods and models used throughout 
this evaluation. 

1. Short description of methodology 

The  methodology  of  this  evaluation  has  been  developed  and  structured  in  light  of  the  key 
evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value in order 
to  address  the  24  evaluation  questions  set  forth  by  the  Commission  at  the  design  stage  of  the 
evaluation.  The  evaluation  approach  relies  on  a  series  of  techniques  and  methods  for  the  data 
collection  and  data  analysis  including  evaluation  matrix,  desktop  research,  field  research  and 
case studies.  

Stakeholder consultation 

The  stakeholder  consultation  consisted  of  pilot  interviews,  targeted  interviews,  targeted 
questionnaires, public consultation and a participatory workshop.  

The consultation  targeted the following stakeholder  groups: passenger  and PRM organisations, 
NEBs, carriers and their representative associations, airports and their representative association, 
ADR bodies, ECCs and other relevant stakeholders (disability awareness training providers, the 
association of travel agents and tour operators). 

Case studies  

The  evaluation  included  three  case  studies  which  addressed  the  following  topics:  Safety 
condition applied by air carriers related to the transport of PRMs, Quality standards of airports 
related to PRM assistance and PRM charges applied by airports.  

Table 7 - Case studies 

Choice of case study 

Rationale 

1 

2 

Safety conditions applied by air carriers 
related to the transport of PRMs 

Safety of aviation operations is paramount, but safety can be 
used by air carriers to deny transporting of PRM. The case study 
examined the interplay between aviation safety rules and the 
right of PRM to travel by air. 

Quality standards of airports relating to 
PRMs 

Quality standards for handling PRMs and their luggage are 
essential in ensuring high levels of service quality. The case 
study examined the standards that are in place across Europe, 
how they vary, and how they are implemented. Coherence with 
the Ground handling Directive was also considered. 

81 

 
 
Choice of case study 

Rationale 

3 

PRM charges applied by airports 

PRM assistance is free at EU airports and is paid by all 
passengers as part of their ticket prices. PRM costs are recorded 
separately and charges are set by airports. This case study 
examined how charges are set, how they vary across Europe and 
whether they are monitored by the relevant authorities. 
Coherence with the Airport Charges Directive was also 
considered. 

Support study Table 2.2 

Country-fiches 

Country-specific  information  were  created  for  each  of  the  27+4  countries  included  under  the 
geographic scope of the evaluation. The information provided by the country-fiches focused on 
the description of the national enforcement systems and their SWOT analysis.  

Carrier review 

A review of 32 European airlines’ websites was performed in December 2020 and January 2021 
with the objective to understand their approach to PRM rights and how they present their safety 
rules relevant to PRM passengers. 

Workshop 

A full-day workshop took place on 10 November 2020. 29 stakeholders participated, including 8 
NEBs, 7 PRM  and passenger representatives, 6  airports  and their representative, 7 airlines and 
their representatives and one representative of EASA. 

The  discussion  was  centred  on  three  themes:  pre-notification,  the  interplay  between  aviation 
safety and PRM rights, and ensuring that the Regulation remains fit for purpose.  

Analysis of the evaluation baseline  

The  analysis  of  the  evaluation  baseline  aims  at  assessing  the  impact  of  the  policy  changes 
introduced  by  the  Regulation  over  time  through  comparing  the  actual  recorded  performance 
against  a  potential  scenario  without  policy  intervention.  The  aim  of  the  analysis  was  to  assess 
what  the  situation  would  have  been,  had  the  Regulation  or  any  other  EU-level  legislation  not 
been implemented.  

The situation between 2003 and 2008 was analysed, which preceded the implementation of the 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 and it was assumed that the resulting level of passenger rights in 
each  Member  State  would  have  remained  constant  in  the  “no  European  policy  intervention” 
scenario.  It was assumed that other variables, such as total passengers and passengers by route 

82 

 
 
type  remained  the  same  across  both  scenarios,  with  and  without  policy  intervention.  The 
situation across both scenarios between 2008 and 2019 was then evaluated.  

Cost-benefit analysis 

A cost-benefit assessment was carried out, to estimate the costs and benefits accrued as a result 
of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006.  

The  Standard  Cost  Model  (SCM)  method  was  applied,  which  allows  to  address  the  costs  of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 for Member States (NEBs), industry stakeholders and PRMs. It 
allows for the quantification of actual costs (i.e. financial or monetised time costs) resulting from 
the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006. 

The  model  was  originally  designed  for  the  assessment  of  the  administrative  burdens  of 
competent  authorities,  individuals  and  organisations.  However  both  an  estimation  of  benefits 
derived through better rights of travel for PRMs and the estimated administrative burdens based 
on a complete implementation of the requirements in the Regulation has been used to reinforce 
and complete the approach chosen. 

The  table  below  presents  a  summary  of  all  the  costs  and  benefits  incurred  by  all  applicable 
parties.  

Table 8 - Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation 

I. Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation (EURm, 2018)  
Citizens/ 
Consumers  
Quantitative 
/ monetary 
- 

Quantitative 
/ monetary  
- 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Quantitative 
/ monetary 

-EUR 45 

Airports 

Airlines 

NEBs 

- 

Qualitative 

PRM Passengers 

Quantitative 
/ monetary 

- 

- 

-  

-  

- 

-EUR 3,307 

- 

-EUR 29 
-EUR 0.2 
EUR 637 
EUR 608 

-EUR 55 
-EUR 0.3 
EUR 111 
-EUR3,251 

- 
- 
 - 
-EUR 45 

-  
-  
Very high 
Very high 

-EUR 19 
- 
 - 
-EUR 19 

Administrative 
Service 
provision 
Claims 
Sanctions 
Benefits 
Total 

-EUR 2,699 

- 
- 
- 
-EUR2,699 

Source: Steer analysis and evaluation Support study Appendix H Table H.1 

2. Intervention logic 

The following section will describe the intervention logic, which takes into account the situation 
in  place  in  terms  of  passenger  rights  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation.  It  provides 
analysis  of  the  ex-ante  situation  and  an  overview  of  the  issues  identified  which  led  to  the 
adoption of Regulation (EC) 1107/2006. 

83 

 
  
  
 
 
The legislative proposal 

legislative  proposal 

The 
is  “Proposal  for  a  REGULATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  concerning  the  rights  of  persons  with  reduced 
mobility  when  travelling  by  air”  (COM(2005)  47  final).  At  that  time  no  formal  impact 
assessment  supported  the  legislative  proposal,  however  it  was  proceeded  by  an  Explanatory 
Memorandum based on a public stakeholder consultation. 

Figure  3  summarises  the  ex-ante  intervention  logic  and  supplements  this  with  some  ex-post 
items, drawing on a number of sources including: 

 
 
 

the 2005 legislative proposal; 
the Regulation as adopted; 
the exploratory stakeholder interviews. 

84 

 
Figure 3 - Intervention logic and the five key evaluation criteria – Air PRMs 

Source: Support study Appendix B. Figure B.1 

85 

Objectives•PRMs are not unreasonably denied boarding•Clear notice period, process and information for booking assistance•Clear arrival point in airport•Rights to carry mobility equipment and compensation for loss or damage•Clear duties of airport and airline•Train PRM assistance staff•Create consistent complaints process•Ensure consistent enforcementInputs•Community legislation on rights for air PRMsActivities•National creation of NEBs•National enforcement regimesOutputs•Simple booking and information passed on•Clear meeting points•Less denied boarding•Well-trained assistants•Assistance in airports•Assistance on flights•Compensation process•Complaints process•NEBs are established•Non-compliance is effectively penalisedOther EU policies•Regulation 2027/97 on air passenger liability in accidents•Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rightsExternal factors•Traffic growth•Changing mix of airlines and aircraft•New airport facilities and equipmentResults•Carriers do not discriminate against PRMs•Carriers and airport managing bodies provide coordinated assistance to PRMs at airports and on board•PRMs can file complaints and receive compensation•Member States enforce the RegulationImpacts•PRMs have the same protection as other citizens who travel by airEffectsRelevanceCoherenceEfficiencyEffectivenessEU Added ValueEU InterventionKey:•Ex-ante item•[ex-post item]NeedsAdd to existing air passenger rights:•End unfair PRM denied boarding•Define how to book assistance•Set rights and responsibilities•Set processes for complaints, compensation and enforcement 
 
 
 
General objectives 

The  legislative  proposal  aimed  at  achieving  that  equal  opportunities  for  air  travel  should  be 
available  for  PRM.  PRM  should  be  confident  that  their  needs  will  be  met  throughout  the 
European Community, whatever airline or airport they plan to use. 

Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  on  air  passenger  rights  already  entered  into  force  when  the 
legislative  proposal  was  adopted.  Articles  9,  11  and  14  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  had 
created  limited  specific  rights  for  PRMs.  The  stakeholder  consultation  undertaken  then158 
received 47 contributions, with a consensus that, in addition: 

-  unjustified refusal of carriage of passengers on the grounds of reduced mobility must be 

prohibited; but 
carriers should be allowed to refuse transport for safety reasons; and 

- 
-  PRMs should not be charged for assistance, and the costs should be borne by passengers 

in general. 

There was, in contrast, disagreement over whether airports or airlines should be responsible for 
assistance in airports. It was decided that this should be organised centrally at each airport and 
funded through a charge on each airline proportional to the number of passengers it carries to and 
from the airport. 

Specific objectives 

The proposal set out two specific objectives: 

- 

- 

first, to ensure that assistance was given in an extended and seamless form at all airports; 
and 
second, to avoid giving airlines incentives to reduce the number of persons with reduced 
mobility that they carry. 

Operational objectives 

The specific objectives were not subdivided into more detailed operational objectives, however 
the operational objectives can be reconstructed on the basis of the legislative proposal (see Table 
9 below).  

158  Airlines’  contracts  with  passengers.  Consultation  paper  of  Directorate-General  for  Energy  and  Transport, 

21.6.2002. See also the summary of this consultation, COM(2005) 47 final, p. 3-4. 

86 

 
                                                 
Table 9- Objectives implicit in proposed Regulation for the rights of PRM when travelling by air 

Draft 
Article 

Objective 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Prohibit air carriers or tour operators from refusing PRMs carriage on the grounds of reduced mobility, 
with exceptions and derogations for justified safety reasons established by law. 

Give PRMs the right to a specified package of assistance at airports on departure, on arrival and in transit 
and create provisions on prior notification of the need for this assistance. 

Make the managing bodies of airports responsible for providing this assistance free of charge to PRMs 
and allow them to levy charges on air carriers to fund it. 

Require the managing body of an airport to lay down quality standards for the assistance, after proper 
consultation. 

Require air carriers to provide specified assistance on board aircraft, free of charge to PRMs. 

Require air carriers and tour operators to make certain arrangements on prior notification of the need for 
assistance. 

Forbid the limitation or waiver of obligations created by the regulation. 

Require Member States to designate bodies responsible for enforcement of the regulation and for dealing 
with complaints. 

12 

Require Member States to lay down sanctions for infringements. 

Source: COM(2005) 47 final, articles of Regulation 1107/2006 are numbered differently. 

Issues and drivers 

The issues and drivers set out in the proposal were the following 

  Only limited rights had been granted to PRMs in Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. 
  Denied boarding of PRMs was not being restricted to justified safety reasons. 
  The duties of airports and airlines to provide assistance were unclear. 
  There were no consistent processes for booking assistance, communicating the requirement 

between the relevant parties, enforcement and sanctioning infringements. 

Proposed option 

The  proposal  considered  whether  responsibility  for  assistance  to  PRMs  departing  from  or 
arriving at airports should be given to airports or airlines, 

It concluded that a provision of a seamless service at reasonable cost would be greatly facilitated 
if  only  one  body  was  responsible  at  each  airport,  and  therefore  proposed  that  the  airport 
managing body should be made responsible for organising and financing assistance. 

87 

 
 
3. Evaluation matrix 

For  this  evaluation,  a  number  of  operational  sub-questions  were  identified  to  support  the 
development of response to the main evaluation question set out by the Commission in the terms 
of  reference.  The  evaluation  matrix  has  been  further  specified  and  updated  through  the  whole 
evaluation process.  

This  section  presents  the  updated  version  of  the  evaluation  matrix  as  developed  by  the 
Commission through the input of the contractor. The operational sub-questions are summarised 
in the table below along with the methodology used for each question. 

Table 10 Operational sub-questions 

 Operational sub-questions 

 Methodology 

Effectiveness  

A1.1 

How many PRMs travel by 
air and how does this number 
compare with the extent of 
PRM travel before the 
regulation (taking account of 
any general growth in 
traffic)? 

A1.2 

To what extent do PRMs 
complain of discriminatory 
treatment? What barriers to 
travel continue to exist for 
PRMs? 

  Data gathering through questionnaires from airports 
and airlines on the volume of PRM travel and the 
share of PRMs in total airport passengers for 2019 
and previous years. 

  Comparative analysis of gathered data with data 
from 2010 report. This provided evidence of any 
overall effect on the propensity for PRMs to travel 
by air following implementation of the Regulation. 

  Check of share of PRM travel was made against 
data from the recent Eurobarometer report on 
passenger rights. 

  Comparative analysis was conducted on the 

differences in values reported by airports and 
airlines to determine whether there is any 
relationship between the share of PRM traffic and 
the level of service offered in each case. 

 

Information from airports, airlines, travel agents and 
tour operators (agents), NEBs and PRM 
representative organisations on complaints was 
gathered through questionnaires and interviews to 
identify evidence of discriminatory treatment and/or 
ongoing barriers to PRM travel. 

  Actions by airports, airlines and NEBs was 

monitored and compared to 2010 report to identify 
any key changes. This supported the case study on 
quality standards. 

  High-level review of airline conditions of carriage 
for PRMs for the five largest European airlines 
  Analysis compared to data on denied boarding. 

88 

 
 
 Operational sub-questions 

 Methodology 

A1.3 

What assistance is provided 
to PRMs in practice (by 
airlines and airports)? 

A1.4 

How do PRMs perceive the 
experience of travelling by 
air in Europe? To what 
extent does this differ 
between airlines, airports and 
routes? 

  Comparative analysis of services provided to PRMs 
by airports and airlines based on data gathered 
during consultation period. 

  An analysis of airport and airline quality standards 
for PRMs was made as well as a comparative 
analysis to the 2010 report on parameters such as 
waiting times for pre-booked and non-pre-booked 
passengers, the proportion of airports and airlines 
publishing quality standards, the ease with which 
standards can be obtained (e.g. the number of 
website links that must be followed to view 
standards). 

  An update of the analysis of types of assistance 

from the 2010 report was made identifying changes 
in assistance required. 

  An analysis of training in PRM assistance was made 
on the basis of qualitative information gathered 
during consulting period. 

  Quantitative analysis based on the 2020 

Eurobarometer report on passenger rights, which 
includes information on requests for, and 
satisfaction with, PRM assistance on different 
transport modes, as well as a broader dataset to 
determine how PRMs view other aspects of the 
service compared to other travellers. It was not 
possible to identify any data allowing a systematic 
comparison of the findings of the 2020 
Eurobarometer report with those for an earlier 
period. 

  Questionnaire survey and interviews with PRM 

representative organisations on the experience of 
PRMs travelling by air and how far this has changed 
since the Regulation was implemented. 
Information gathering from airports, airlines and 
NEBs on the experience of PRMs. 

 

89 

 
 
 Operational sub-questions 

 Methodology 

A1.5 

How does the experience of 
travel by air differ between 
PRMs with different 
disabilities? 

A1.6 

A1.7 

A1.8 

How many complaints from 
PRMs are handled and how 
has this changed over time? 

What prevents airlines and 
airports from offering further 
assistance to PRMs? 

What are the channels 
available for making 
complaints? How easy is it to 
make a complaint? To what 
extent does this differ 
between airlines, airports and 
routes? 

  Questionnaires to and data gathering from 

stakeholders, in particular PRM representative 
organisations, to provide any available survey data 
distinguishing between the experiences of PRMs 
with different disabilities and from airports, airlines 
and NEBs to provide, complaint data by type of 
disability or assistance requested. 
Information was asked from stakeholders regarding 
the quality of service provided to different groups of 
PRMs. 

 

  Data gathering to provide evidence on whether the 
Regulation has helped to address the varying needs 
of PRMs and whether there is any evidence that 
airports and airlines have focused on specific groups 
at the expense of others in responding to the 
regulation. 

  Qualitative data gathered through questionnaires on 
the number of complaints received by airports, 
airlines and NEBs.  

  Analysis on potential changes in processing 

concerning handling of PRM based on the 
implementation of the Regulation. 

  Gathering of data from all stakeholders through 

questionnaires and qualitative analysis of the data. 

  Cost-Benefit analysis based on cost-related data 

from airports and airlines to analyse the strength, or 
lack, of commercial incentives on airports to 
improve assistance. 

 

Investigation of complaints channels for five 
airports and five airlines, simulating a mystery 
shopping process (but stopping short of actually 
registering a complaint). For each channel (letter, 
telephone, email, website, app, other) the usefulness 
of any guidance provided and the number of 
languages in which it is provided was analysed. 
  Gathering of qualitative data from NEBs and PRM 

representative organisations on the adequacy and 
quality of channels for making complaints. The 
findings from this exercise were used to cross-check 
the conclusions of own review. 

90 

 
 
 Operational sub-questions 

 Methodology 

A1.9 

A.1.10 

A1.11 

To what extent does the 
Regulation provide clarity on 
obligations towards PRMs in 
extraordinary circumstances 
such as the outbreak of 
COVID-19 and subsequent 
government action to contain 
it? 

Have there been any 
unexpected impacts 
following implementation of 
the Regulation?  

How the requirement for 
non-discrimination is applied 
in practice and how does this 
compare with its 
interpretation in other 
sectors?  

Efficiency 

A2.1 

What is the cost of 
compliance for airlines and 
airports? 

A2.2 

What are the administrative 
costs for NEBs? 

  Questionnaires on stakeholder views on the 

interpretation of the Regulation in extraordinary 
circumstances such as those prevailing following 
the response of national governments to the 
COVID-19 outbreak. 

  Qualitative analysis of responses 

  Questionaries’ and focus interviews to stakeholders 
on their views on whether the Regulation has had 
any unexpected consequences, whether good or bad. 
They were asked to provide evidence of the link 
between specific aspects of the legislation and the 
impacts identified. 

  Questionnaires and interviews with PRM 

representative’s organisations and NEBs focused on 
their views on the extent of discriminatory 
behaviour. These organisations were also asked for 
a view on how application of the non-discrimination 
principle varies between sectors. 

  Gathering of empirical data on the extent to which 
airports and airlines invoke other legislation (for 
example, safety legislation) in order to refuse 
boarding. Airlines were asked to provide data on 
denied boarding broken down by reason. This 
supported the case study on safety conditions 
applied by carriers in accommodating PRMs. 

  Case study on PRM fees. 
  Gathering of qualitative data on the costs of 

compliance with the Regulation from airports and 
airlines. 

  Calculation of cost per PRM passenger value 
  Revision of PRM charges per passenger at a sample 

of airports  

  Gathering of quantitative data from NEBs on 
administrative costs incurred by them in 
implementing and enforcing the legislation. 

91 

 
 
 Operational sub-questions 

 Methodology 

A2.3 

How are costs recovered? 

A2.4 

A2.5 

A2.6 

What additional facilities or 
services for PRMs are 
provided on board aircraft 
and at an airport? 

How are PRMs travelling by 
air protected in countries 
outside Europe? Is the level 
of protection and cost of 
compliance comparable? 

What proposals exist for 
reducing regulatory costs 
while maintaining the level 
of protection? 

  Data gathered for A2.1 also used for A2.3. 
 

Information from airlines and airports on their 
approach to recovery of costs of assisting PRMs, 
including a description of the process for setting any 
charges and of any associated consultation process 
applied in accordance with Directive 2009/12/EC on 
airport charges was gathered and analysed. 

  Case study conducted on PRM charges 

  Analysis on airports’ and airlines’ specific facilities 
and services provided to PRMs that give rise to 
significant additional costs (for example, 
accommodation of mobility equipment and medical 
equipment). 

  Case study conducted on safety 
  Analysis of views on the operational implications of 
meeting the needs of PRMs at each stage of the 
journey. 

  Review of protection provided through relevant 
legislation or voluntary codes of practice in ten 
countries. 

  Gathering of relevant data from relevant regulatory 

authorities, airlines and PRM representative 
organisations. 

  Comparative analysis conducted on the base of 
gathered data on the levels of protection. 

  Gathering of data through questionnaires on 

stakeholders’ views on how costs might be reduced 
while ensuring the same level of protection and/or 
enhanced protection might be provided at the same 
cost. 

  Critical assessment of proposals, for example by 

testing them with different stakeholders during 
follow-up discussions to gauge reactions from a 
passenger and supplier perspective. 

92 

 
 
 
 
Relevance 

A3.1 

What needs do PRMs 
travelling by air currently 
have and how do these 
compare with those 
identified before the 
Regulation?  

A3.2 

What technological advances 
providing general assistance 
of PRMs have there been 
since 2006? To what extent 
have airlines and airports 
made use of these? 

  Gathering of stakeholder views on priority PRM 

needs when traveling by air and on how these have 
changed over the last 15 years including questions 
on whether the requirements of the Regulation are 
still well-aligned with PRM needs. 

  Gathering of views from airports and airlines on 
how the level of protection for PRMs currently 
offered compares with that provided before 
implementation of the Regulation and/or how it has 
changed over time.  

  Analysis of list of needs per PRM provided by 

stakeholders 

  Gathering of data through questionnaires on views 
on (1) how technology has changed the way in 
which PRMs plan and make journeys by air and (2) 
how it has enabled airports and airlines to better 
respond to PRM needs.  

  Analysis of stakeholder responses to a request for 
relevant reports or trade press articles illustrating 
the application of technology to support the desk 
research. 

Coherence 

A4.1 

Is there any evidence of 
difficulties in interpreting 
individual provisions in the 
light of others?  

A4.2 

Are there any aspects of 
PRM travel by air that are 
not addressed by the 
Regulation?  

  Quantitative data received from airports, airlines, 

NEBs and transport ministries on questionnaires to 
indicate any difficulties in interpreting the 
Regulation. 

  Desk research to identify any infringement issues 
that might indicate loopholes or lack of clarity. 
  Systematic analysis of gaps and inconsistencies in 

the legislation was made. 

  Data gathered through questionnaires 
  Gap analysis made based also on responses on 

A1.4, A1.7, A2.5 and A3.1. 

93 

 
 
 
A4.3 

What are the specific 
requirements of the 
international regulatory 
framework applying to PRM 
travel by air? How do these 
compare with the 
requirements of the 
Regulation? 

A4.4 

Have stakeholders identified 
any inconsistencies between 
international rules and the 
Regulation? 

  Data gathering through questionnaire 
  Document review of the following: 

  Other EU legislation, including Regulation (EC) 
No 261/2004, Directive 2006/2004/EC, Directive 
2009/12/EC, Directive 2015/2302/EU and 
Directive 96/67/EU 

  Relevant international regulatory frameworks, 

including IATA resolution 700, Annex 9 (8H) of 
the ICAO Convention, ECAC Doc 30,  the 
Montreal Convention and the UN Convention on 
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

  Desk research into legal commentary on the 

legislation and its relationship with other regulatory 
frameworks. 

  Comparative analysis made on requirements and 
inconsistencies between the Regulation and other 
frameworks.  

  Analysis was made of stakeholder answers to 

questions on inconsistencies between the Regulation 
and the wider international legal and regulatory 
framework. They were also asked to give examples 
of specific cases in which courts have considered 
inconsistencies or other issues of potential relevance 
to the Regulation. 

EU Value added 

A5.1 

To what extent is assistance 
to PRMs now embedded 
within the operational 
practices of airlines and 
airports? 

A5.2 

How important is PRM travel 
to airlines in terms of 
revenue and reputation? 

  Data gathering through questionnaires. 
  Analysis of information on relevant operating 

procedures and training material from airports and 
airlines, as well as material provided from some 
NEBs audits. 

  Findings from A2.4 were analysed in regards to 
how far airports and airlines accommodate PRM 
travel as part of their standard approach to 
passenger care. 

  Airports and airlines were consulted in regards to 
how important they perceived accommodating the 
needs of PRM in establishing their reputation. 
Information obtained under A1.4 was drawn upon 
to gauge the impact of such comment on reputation. 

 

94 

 
 
A5.3 

Was there any national 
legislation in place before the 
Regulation? 

  Data collection from Transport ministries and NEBs 

on national legislation in place before the 
implementation of the Regulation as well as any 
supplementary legislation introduced subsequently. 

  Construction of a baseline scenario. 
  An analysis on to which extent national regulatory 
frameworks in different Member States might 
substitute for the provisions of the Regulation was 
made. 

Support study Appendix 1. Table A.1 

95 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: TABLES AND FIGURES 

The following annex will present tables and figures used in or made for the evaluation.  

Figure 4 shows the PRM traffic growth at selected European airports from 2008 to 2019 

Figure 4: PRM traffic growth at European airports, 2008-2019  

Source: support study Figure 3.9 

96 

-0.2%0.4%0.6%0.8%1.0%1.2%1.4%1.6%1.8%2.0%200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Proportion of passengers requesting assistance, %RigaPragueLarnacaCopenhagenVeronaMilan MXPRome FCOAENADublinParis CDGFrankfurtLondon LHR 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5 shows the proportion of passengers requesting assistance by Member State 
proportionate to the total amount of passengers. 

Figure 5 Proportion of PRM passengers travelling by air by Member State 

Source: Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 1107/2006, 2010, Heathrow airports, Gatwick airport, Study on the current level of 
protection of air passenger rights in the EU, 2020, Steer analysis and modelling 

97 

00.20.40.60.810.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%Proportion of total passengers requesting PRM assistanceExtrapolationBECZDEDKELESFRHUIEISITLTLVNLNOPTROUK 
 
 
 
Figure 6 shows the cost of PRM assistance from seven European airports/hubs in 2018 and 2019 
respectively. 

Figure 6 - Cost of PRM assistance per PRM assisted (latest year available 2019 or 2018) 

Source: Steer analysis of stakeholder consultation material. Data is anonymous because of confidentiality 

Table 11 shows the running costs and perceived benefits of 1107/2006 pr. Member State. The 
data was gathered through the Stakeholder Consultation questionnaires asking the Member 
States their perceived benefits of the Regulation. 

Table 11 - Running costs and benefits according to the NEBs 

MS 

Running costs 

Benefits 

BE 

2.4 FTE for all passenger rights (not just air) 

BG 

2 FTE (For both 261/2004 and 1107/2006) 

CZ 

1 FTE 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (higher service 
quality). 

98 

€ 19 € 43 € 66 € 26 € 52 € 75 € 153 € -€ 20 € 40 € 60 € 80 € 100 € 120 € 140 € 160 € 180 Cost of PRM assistance for PRM assisted 
 
MS 

Running costs 

DK 

1 FTE 

Benefits 

No view 

DE 

8 FTEs for all air passenger rights functions. 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (higher service 
quality) and the sector (reputational 
benefits). 

EE 

2 FTE (it is not clear whether these posts are 
dedicated to all passenger rights Regulations, or 
just 1107/2006) 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

IE 

5 FTEs for all air passenger rights functions. 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

EL 

1 FTE 

ES 

40 FTE’s working in complaints management 
(wider remit than just 1107/2006, also includes 
261/2004) 

FR 

No view 

HR 

4 FTEs for all air passenger rights functions. 

No view 

No view 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
access to information). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

2 FTEs (5 FTEs for all air passenger rights 
functions). 

IT 

CY 

5 FTEs have responsibility for air passenger 
rights, but do not work on air passenger rights 
full time. 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

LT 

0.25 FTEs 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (equal access to 
aviation) and the sector (reputational benefits 
and an increase in passenger demand). 

99 

 
MS 

Running costs 

Benefits 

LV 

0.25 FTEs 2 Cabin Safety Experts, each of 
which 10% of their workload devotes for the 
oversight of Regulation (EC) 1107/2006 
according to their job descriptions    

“Not relevant as no additional costs are 
dedicated for the enforcement of Regulation 
(EC) 1107/2006 within our NEB” 

LU 

No questionnaire response 

HU 

1-3 FTEs 

No view 

MT 

No questionnaire response 

NL 

7 FTEs who spend around 40% of their time on 
Air Passenger Rights 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

AT 

6 FTEs jointly for Regulations 1107/2006 and 
261/2004 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

PL 

There are 15 officers within the Commission on 
Passenger’ Rights Protection, but these officers 
are not dedicated to Regulation (EC) 
1107/2006 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

PT 

1.5 FTEs working on PRM issues 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

RO 

No questionnaire response 

No view 

SI 

2 FTEs working on Air Passenger Rights issues  No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 

SK 

1 FTE 

but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

100 

 
MS 

Running costs 

Benefits 

FI 

2.5 FTE working directly on passenger rights at 
Traficom (although support for certain issues 
can be received from other experts at 
Traficom). The NEB indicated that the resource 
levels available make it challenging to carry out 
its enforcement activities 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider societal benefits through improved 
equality of access to transport. 

SE 

4 FTE, but not dedicated solely to the 
Regulation. Includes 261/2004 activities 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

UK 

(3 FTEs) 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence), airlines (increased 
demand) and airports (reputational benefits). 

IS 

2 FTEs for all air passenger rights functions. 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs (improved 
travel confidence). 

NO 

No questionnaire response 

CH 

5.9 FTEs for all air passenger rights functions 
(majority for Regulation (EC) 261/2004). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, 
but wider benefits for PRMs, airports and 
airlines. 

Source: support study Table 3.7. 

101 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5: TEN CORE PASSENGER RIGHTS 

In  2011  the  Commission  described  a  set  of  core  passenger  rights  that  cover  all  transport 
modes159.  The  principles  are  based  on  three  cornerstones:  non-discrimination;  accurate,  timely 
and accessible information; and immediate and proportionate assistance.  
Table 12 presents these ten core passenger rights. 

Table 12 - Ten core passenger rights 

Core passenger rights  

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Right to non-discrimination in access to transport 

Right to mobility: accessibility and assistance at no additional cost for passengers with disabilities and 
passengers with reduced mobility (PRM) 

Right to information before purchase and at the various stages of travel, notably in case of disruption 

Right to renounce travelling (reimbursement of the cost of the ticket) when the trip is not carried out as 
planned 

Right to the fulfilment of the transport contract in case of disruption (re-routing and rebooking) 

Right to get assistance in case of long delay at departure or at connecting points 

Right to compensation under certain circumstances 

Right to carrier liability towards passengers and their baggage 

Right to a quick and accessible system of complaint handling 

10  Right to full application and effective enforcement of EU law 

Source: COM(2011) 898 final. Annex. 

159 See COM(2011) 898 final. 

102