COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the position of the Council on the adoption of 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
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, passenger rights, personal effects, reservation, traveller

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2025  COM(2025) 630 final 2013/0072 (COD)  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  concerning the position of the Council on the adoption of 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 (Text with EEA relevance)  
 
2013/0072 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

position of the Council on the adoption of 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 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and 
to the Council 
(document COM(2013) 130 final – 2013/0072 COD): 

13 March 2013. 

Date  of  the  opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee: 

11 July 2013. 

Date of the position of the European Parliament, first reading: 

5 February 2014. 

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: 

N/A 

Date of adoption of the position of the Council: 

29 September 2025. 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION 

The  proposal  aims  to  improve  enforcement  of  passenger  rights.  Firstly,  it  clarifies  key 
principles and corresponding passenger rights that have given rise to many disputes between 
airlines and passengers in the past. Secondly, it improves and coordinates better enforcement 
policies  carried  out  at  national  level.  The  proposal  also  aims  to  better  take  into  account  the 
financial capacities of air carriers as well as to ensure better enforcement of passenger rights 
with regard to mishandled baggage. 

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE POSITION OF THE COUNCIL 

The  position  of  the  Council  as  adopted  at  first  reading  on  29  September  2025  reflects  the 
political agreement  which the Council reached on 5 June 2025. 

The main points of this agreement are the following: 

Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (air passenger rights) 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
 
Compensation thresholds – the Council reduced the number of distance thresholds 
from three to two: one for journeys up to 3 500km and one for journeys above 3 500 
km. In the case of delays, it set the compensation thresholds at 4 hours (for journeys 
up  to  3 500  km)  and  6  hours  (for  journeys  above  3 500  km).  The  amounts  for 
compensation  have  been  adapted  to  EUR  300  and  EUR  500  respectively  to  be 
reviewed in a first report by the Commission 3 years after the date of application of 
the revised Regulation. Those provisions aim to protect passenger rights, while at the 
same time taking into account the financial burden of air carriers. 

The right to compensation in case of flight cancellation is extended to cases where 
passengers  are  informed  of  the  cancellation  less  than  14  days  before  departure  and 
choose reimbursement  or re-routing  at  a later date, at  their  convenience.  In  case  of 
cancellation,  the  airline  must  provide  passengers  with  pre-filled  forms  for 
compensation requests. This strengthens passenger rights. 

The  rights  to  be  reimbursed,  re-routed  and  compensated  are  extended  to  cases  of 
long  delay  at  departure  and  of  missed  connections,  as  proposed  by  the 
Commission. 

Role  of  the  national  enforcement  bodies  (NEBs)  and  out-of-court  bodies:  As 
proposed  by  the  Commission,  the  role  of  the  NEBs  (general  monitoring)  versus 
bodies (out of court resolution of disputes) which deal with individual complaints, is 
clarified. 

However,  the  Council  removed  the  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  ask  the  NEBs  to 
investigate specific suspected practices by one or more air carriers and report its findings 
to the Commission. The strengthening of the NEBs’ role is thus less ambitious than in the 
Commission’s proposal. (The Council did the same with a similar provision proposed for 
passenger rights for the other modes of transport and for multimodal passenger rights in 
its General Approaches regarding COM(2023)752 and 753). 

In the out-of-court resolution of disputes (Article 16a), the choice of mechanism is 
left to the Member States. The Commission considers that it needs to be avoided that 
the  NEB  procedure  is  without  procedural  guarantees.  On  this  point  the  Council 
position falls short of the Commission’s proposal. 

Also,  the  relationship  with  the  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR)  Directive 
2013/11/EU requires further adjustment to ensure that nothing in the Regulation prevents 
the  consumers  from  bringing  their  individual  disputes  before  the  alternative  resolution 
bodies under Directive 2013/11/EU, nor limits  the Member States’ obligation to  ensure 
access to ADR in the air transport.  

Reporting  by  the  NEBs:  The  NEBs  are  obliged  to  report  on  their  activities  only 
every 5 years. This is less ambitious than the annual reporting in the Commission’s 
proposal  and  does  not  allow  the  activities  of  the  NEBs  to  be  monitored  on  a  more 
regular basis. (For the other modes of transport, NEBs have to report every 2 years – 
for the latest details, see the rail passenger rights Regulation (EU) 2021/782). 

Compensation:  Clearer  rules  on  complaints  and  compensation  deadlines  for 
passenger complaints against carriers and intermediaries, with clear deadlines and the 
obligation to communicate these rules to the passengers and to reply to passengers on 
substance. Passengers have up to 6 months to submit a request for compensation or a 

EN 

2 

  EN 

complaint to  the air carrier;  the air carrier must  pay the  compensation or provide a 
substantiated  reply  within  14  days.  This  is  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the 
Commission proposal. 

However,  the  obligation  to  pay  compensation  is  limited  to  the  air  carrier  operating  the 
particular disrupted flight, while under the current rules – as interpreted by the Court of 
Justice of the European Union in Cases C-502/18 České aerolinie, C-367/20 KLM and C-
561/20  United  Airlines  –  passengers  can  claim  compensation  from  any  of  the  carriers 
operating a leg of the journey. This limitation was not proposed by the Commission. 

Extraordinary  circumstances:  The  Council  extended  the  non-exhaustive  list  of 
extraordinary  circumstances  that  can  lead  to  the  exemption  of  air  carriers  from 
paying compensation, and added the requirement for carriers to reply within a certain 
deadline  with  a  clear  and  substantiated  explanation.  The  Commission  would  be 
obliged to review the list every 3 years and propose, as appropriate, an update.  

This  update  can  only  be  adopted  by  ordinary  legislative  procedure  and  not  through 
comitology  as  set  out  in  the  Commission’s  proposal.  This  does  not  allow  the 
interpretation of the list to be quickly clarified or the list to be updated for the purpose of 
legal certainty. Experience shows that the legislative procedure takes usually more than 3 
years  for  air  passenger  rights.  As  a  consequence,  the  Regulation  would  be  constantly 
under revision by the legislator if the list had to be updated every 3 years. 

Tarmac  delay:  After  3  hours  passengers  have  the  choice  between  re-routing  and 
reimbursement  of  the  ticket  as  well  as  the  right  to  disembark.  This  is  a  shorter 
threshold than the 5 hours the Commission had proposed. 

No-show:  There  is  a  full  ban  on  no-show  policies  for  return  flights  (without 
conditions  attached) instead of the  partial  ban proposed by the Commission. Under 
the Commission’s proposal, airlines would be allowed to require passengers to pay a 
fee in order to take a return flight where they fail to show up for the outbound flight. 
The  Commission  opted  against  a  full  ban  on  "no  show"  policies  because  it  would 
impair or weaken the ability of airlines to offer  indirect flights at lower prices than 
direct flights and therefore hurt competition. Still, this provision is acceptable for the 
Commission as it strengthens passenger rights. 

Right to assistance: Passengers’ rights to be cared for while waiting due to a flight 
disruption  have  been  improved;  details  for  the  provision  of  refreshments,  food  and 
accommodation  have  been  added.  This  is  more  passenger-friendly  than  the 
Commission’s proposal. 

Improved  rights  for  passengers  with  specific  needs:  The  rights  of  persons  with 
disabilities  or  reduced  mobility  (PRMs),  but  also  pregnant  women,  children  and 
persons  with  specific  medical  needs,  are  strengthened  significantly.  Denying 
boarding  to  persons  with  specific  needs  is  prohibited.  The  possibility  to  be 
accompanied by recognised assistance dogs is introduced and persons accompanying 
these persons or accompanying a child must be offered, free of charge, the possibility 
to be seated on adjacent seats, subject to availability. This is more passenger friendly 
than the Commission’s proposal. 

Right  to  information:  Information  of  passengers  about  their  rights,  the  obligations  of  air 
carriers  and  intermediaries  in  terms  of  pre-contractual  information  and  information  in  the 
event of disruption are all strengthened. These provisions are more passenger friendly than the 
Commission proposal. 

EN 

3 

  EN 

Correction  of  passenger  names:  spelling  mistakes  made  by  passengers  while 
booking  or  changes  of  names  after  booking  can  be  corrected,  at  no  cost,  up  to  48 
hours  before  departure,  as  set  out  in  the  Commission  proposal;  this  right  has  been 
extended also in the event of an administrative change to those names. 

Where a flight is part of a package under Directive (EU) 2015/2302 it is clarified 
that  compensation  under  Regulation  (EC)  261/2004  can  be  deducted  from 
compensation  received  from  a  package  organiser,  to  avoid  the  passenger  being 
overcompensated.  This  addition  is  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the  Commission’s 
proposal. 

Extension  of  some  deadlines  for  payments:  Reimbursement  -  an  increase  of  the 
refund  period  for  air  carriers  from  (currently)  7  days  to  14  days  (aligned  with  the 
refund  deadline  under  the  Package  Travel  Directive  and  the  bus  passenger  rights 
Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011;  the  deadline  under  the  rail  passenger  rights 
Regulation  is  30  days,  under  the  ship  passenger  rights  Regulation  still  7  days); 
compensation  in  case  of  denied  boarding  –  an  increase  of  the  refund  period  from 
currently  “immediately”  to  7  days.  The  Commission  had  not  proposed  to  change 
these periods which are less beneficial for passengers than the current ones. 

Re-routing on other carriers or modes of transport: before re-routing, air carriers 
must  offer  passengers  different  options  so  they  can  reach  their  destination  at  the 
earliest  opportunity.  Such alternatives  are subject to  the  passenger’s  agreement and 
include  re-routing  on  another  air  carrier  or  via  other  modes  of  transport.  Those 
provisions are in line with the objectives of the Commission proposal. 

Self  re-routing  by  passengers  if  they  are  not  offered  re-routing  by  the  air  carrier 
within 3 hours, with a cost limit of four times the cost of the original booking (if this 
price cap is not acceptable for passengers, they can still insist on being re-routed by 
the carrier). This new provision strengthens the rights of passengers in  the event of 
travel disruption. 

Better  taking  into  account  the  financial  capacities  of  air  carriers  –  As  explained  above 
under  ‘compensation  thresholds’,  the  time  threshold  for  paying  compensation  is  raised  to  4 
hours (for flights  up to 3 500 km  and intra-EU flights) and 6 hours (for flights  above 3 500 
km).  Furthermore,  the  deadline  for  reimbursements  is  raised  from  7  calendar  days  to  14 
calendar  days  and  to  30  days  in  situations  where  contingency  plans  are  activated;  the 
originally proposed list of extraordinary circumstances is extended. In cases of extraordinary 
circumstances,  the  air  carrier  may  limit  the  accommodation  to  be  provided  to  three  nights 
except for persons with specific needs. This is in line with the objectives of the Commission 
proposal. 

The  requirement  for  Member  States  to  inform  the  Commission  regularly  about  the 
national  interpretation  and  application  of  the  Regulation  and  the  possibility  for  the 
Commission to decide on the issues to be addressed in these reports via implementing acts has 
been deleted. On this point the Council position falls short of the Commission’s proposal. 

Revision  of  the  scope  of  the  Regulation:  the  Council  added  in  Article  17(2)(a)  the 
requirement  for  the  Commission  to  include  in  the  first  report  (three  years  after  the  date  of 
application of the Regulation) an assessment regarding the necessity  and the feasibility  of a 
revision  of  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  with  a  view  to  further  enhancing  passengers’ 
protection and the level playing field between Union and Third country carriers. This would 
include a potential extension of the scope to inbound flights operated by non-EU carriers. 

Regulation (EC) No 2027/97(air carriers’ liability): 

EN 

4 

  EN 

Clearer  rules  regarding  liability  concerning  PRMs’  mobility  equipment:  As 
regards PRMs, the text includes clearer and enhanced liability provisions in the event 
of destruction of or damage to checked-in mobility equipment, including assistance 
dogs,  as  well  as  air  carriers’  obligations  regarding  the  immediate  provision  of 
temporary/  free  replacements  for  mobility  equipment  and  temporary  solutions  to 
replace assistant dogs. These provisions are more ambitious than the Commission’s 
proposal. 

Easier  access  to  complaint  forms:  Air  carriers  are  required  to  provide  passengers 
with complaint forms in accessible format and make them available also to persons 
not  using  digital  tools,  which  is  an  improvement  for  passengers  compared  to  the 
Commission’s  original  proposal.  However,  the  Commission  had  proposed  physical 
desks for passengers at the airport, which has not been retained by Council. In that 
respect the Council position is less passenger friendly than the Commission proposal. 

Baggage:  The  Council  sets  the  dimensions  of  a  ‘personal  item’  which  passengers 
always have a right to carry into the cabin at no extra cost: it either fits under the seat 
in  front  of  them  or  does  not  exceed  40  x  30  x  15  cm  in  size.  In  addition,  where  a 
personal  item  or  a  piece  of  hand  baggage  cannot  go  in  the  cabin  due  to  specific 
reasons, such as safety reasons, capacity reasons or a change in the type of aircraft, it 
can be put in the hold at no further cost. 

The Commission’s proposal did not regulate the dimensions of hand luggage. In its first 
reading position the Council explicitly refers to hand luggage and defines the dimensions 
of a ‘personal item’. The Commission notes that this is a minimum free allowance, and 
that, in  practice,  many passengers  already enjoy  this size or a larger allowance of hand 
luggage on many airlines. 

Specific  information  requirement  as  regards  PRMs,  including  the  air  carrier’s 
obligations to offer PRMs the right to make, for free, a special declaration of interest 
on  the  value  of  their  mobility  equipment.  This  is  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the 
Commission’s proposal. 

Information  on  baggage  -  more  extensive  information  to  be  provided  by  both  air 
carriers and intermediaries regarding maximum baggage allowances and dimensions, 
specific  conditions  for  valuable/  fragile  items  such  as  musical  instruments  and 
transparency regarding additional charges.  This  is  in  line with  the objectives of the 
Commission’s proposal. 

Right to carry musical instruments in the cabin: Passengers are allowed to carry a 
musical  instrument  into  the  cabin  of  an  aircraft,  subject  to  applicable  security  and 
safety rules and the technical specifications and constraints of the aircraft concerned. 
This is in line with the objectives of the Commission’s proposal. 

The  Commission’s  proposal  required  NEBs  to  enforce  also  the  provisions  of 
Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 concerning rights of passengers regarding delayed, lost 
or  damaged  luggage,  including  complaints  relating  to  mobility  equipment  of 
passengers  with  disabilities  and/or  with  reduced  mobility  (PRMs).  The  Council 
deleted  this  requirement.  In  this  regard  the  Council  position  falls  short  of  the 
Commission’s proposal. 

The  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  regularly  adapt  the  liability  limits 
mentioned  in  the  Montreal  Convention  via  delegated  acts  has  been  replaced  by  a 

EN 

5 

  EN 

dynamic reference to  the limits  set  under the Montreal  Convention, as last  updated 
by  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organization  (ICAO).  This  solution  is  less 
suitable as regards legal certainty. On this point the Council position falls short of the 
Commission’s proposal. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  can  overall  support  the  political  agreement  which  is  reflected  in  the 
Council’s  position  at  first  reading.  While  it  considers  that  the  position  of  the  Council  – 
reached by a qualified majority – does not meet all of the essential aims of its proposal, the 
Commission  considers  it  an  overall  acceptable  basis  for  entering  into  negotiations  with  the 
European Parliament.  

EN 

6 

  EN