OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 294(7), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's position 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: 2026-03-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: airline, civil aviation, consumer protection, indemnification, passenger rights, personal effects, reservation, traveller

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.3.2026  COM(2026) 129 final 2013/0072 (COD)  OPINION OF THE COMMISSION  pursuant to Article 294(7), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's position 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) 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 

pursuant to Article 294(7), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's position 

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. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article 294(7)(c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the 
Commission  is  to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  European 
Parliament  at  second  reading.  The  Commission  sets  out  its  opinion  below  on  the  243 
amendments proposed by the Parliament regarding the above-mentioned proposal.  

2. 

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 position of the European Parliament, first reading: 

5 February 2014 

Date of transmission of the amended proposal to the Council: 

N/A 

Date of adoption of the position of the Council in first reading: 

16 September 2025 

Date of European Parliament's amendments in second reading: 

21 January 2026 

3. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION  

The proposal aims to improve enforcement by clarifying key principles and implicit passenger 
rights that have given rise to many disputes between airlines and passengers in the past and by 
enhancing and better coordinating the enforcement policies at national level, while accounting 
for  the  financial  capacities  of  air  carriers.  It  also  aims  at  ensuring  better  enforcement  of 
passenger rights with regard to mishandled baggage. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
 
 
4. 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

4.1. 

Summary of the Commission's position 

The European Parliament adopted 243 amendments. The Commission can accept 115 
amendments as they stand (1 to 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26 to 33, 35 to 39, 
42, 45, 46, 47, 53, 56, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 92, 95, 96, 
98, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 119 to 123, 125 to 128, 130, 135, 137 to 142, 147, 
148, 146, 150, 153, 157, 164 to 167, 169 to 172, 174 to 178, 181, 183, 184, 188, 190, 
195 to 198, 200, 201, 203, 206 to 210, 241 to 243). 

The  Commission  can  accept  92  amendments  in  part,  subject  to  rewording  or 
agreement in principle (9, 10, 11, 16, 20, 22, 23, 40, 43, 44, 49, 51, 52, 70, 74, 84, 
85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100 to 107, 111, 114, , 124, 131 to 134, 136, 143, 
144,  149  to  152,  154,  155,  156,  158,  159,  160, 161,  162,  163,  173,  179,  180,  185, 
187, 189, 192, 193, 194, 199, 205, 211, 212, 215 to 239). 

The Commission cannot support 36 amendments (13, 25, 34, 41, 48, 50, 54, 55, 57, 
58, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 87, 108, 112, 118, 129, 145, 151, 168, 182, 
186, 191, 202, 204, 213, 214 and 240). 

The Commission welcomes the efforts made by the European Parliament to enhance 
the provisions that strengthen the level of protection of passengers and improve the 
enforcement of their rights compared to the initial Council position. 

4.2. 

Parliament's amendments at second reading 

The reasons for the position of the Commission are outlined below, focusing on the 
most significant amendments. 

4.2.1. Amendments accepted 

The Commission accepts amendments 1 to 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26 to 33, 
35 to 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 
89, 92, 95, 96, 98, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 119 to 123, 125 to 128, 130, 135, 
137 to 142, 147, 148, 146, 150, 153, 157, 164 to 167, 169 to 172, 174 to 178, 181, 
183, 184, 188, 190, 195 to 198, 200, 201, 203, 206 to 210, 241 to 243. 

These amendments provide clarifications of definitions, rights of passengers and the 
obligations  of  air  carriers  and  intermediaries.  They  also  improve  the  Council  text 
concerning  in  particular  complaint-handling  by  air  carriers  and  intermediaries,  the 
designation of national enforcement bodies, the exchange of information and cross-
border cooperation between national enforcement bodies, penalties, and cooperation 
between Member States and the Commission. These elements enhance the quality of 
the legal text and constitute improvements in the level of passenger protection,  and 
also ensure further alignment with the rules applicable for other  modes of transport.  

4.2.2. Amendments partly accepted 

Baggage allowances 

Through  amendment  144  the  EP  seeks  to  introduce  provisions  on  hand  baggage  in 
Regulation  (EC) No 261/2004,  while the Commission 2013 proposal  contains  rules 
on carriage of baggage in Article 2 of the proposal, which amends Regulation (EC) 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
No 2027/97, including the responsibility of the national enforcement bodies to ensure 
compliance with this Regulation. 

Amendment  144  provides  for  a  new  Article  11a  (‘Right  to  personal  item  and  hand 
baggage’) comprising three paragraphs: paragraph 1 on ‘personal items’, paragraph 2 
establishing  a  right  to  one  piece  of  hand  baggage  included  in  the  ticket  price,  and 
paragraph 3 on informing about the procedure for retrieving personal items and hand 
baggage forgotten in the aircraft cabin. 

The Commission rejects the suggestion to regulate the right to bring hand baggage at 
no  extra  cost  (paragraph  2  of  the  proposed  new  article)  as  requested  by  the  EP  in 
amendment 144 and in amendment 204 either in (EC) No 261/2004 or in Regulation 
(EC)  No  2027/97.  Such  a  measure  needs  to  be  the  subject  of  a  proper  impact 
assessment  to  avoid  unintended  consequences,  and  this  assessment  is  underway  as 
part  of  the  review  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1008/2008  (see  also  section  4.2.4  under 
hand baggage). 

Regarding  the  remaining  parts  of  amendment  144  the  Commission  considers  that 
paragraph 1 of the new article on the ‘personal item’ would also be better addressed 
as  part  of  the  ongoing  review  of  the  Air  Services  Regulation  (EC)  No  1008/2008 
where the measures on a personal item can be subject to a full impact assessment. 

Alternatively, if this issue (paragraph 1) were to be addressed in Regulation (EC) No 
261/2004,  the  national  enforcement  bodies  would  also  need  to  be  responsible  for 
enforcing  these  rules  (to  note  that  the  European  Parliament  did  not  propose  an 
amendment regarding the NEBs’ responsibilities under Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 
as  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  the  2013  proposal).  In  such  a  case,  the 
Commission could show flexibility as to whether this issue is regulated in Regulation 
(EC) No 261/2004 or in Regulation (EC) No 2027/97. 

The Commission can accept paragraph 3 (on informing passengers about procedures 
if  hand  baggage  is  left  behind  in  the  aircraft  cabin).  This  should  be  regulated  in 
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. 

Mobility equipment-declaration of interest 

Amendment  199  concerns  the  special  declaration  of  interest  which  persons  with 
disabilities or reduced mobility can make to  cover their mobility equipment in case 
of  loss  or  damage  above  the  standard  amount  of  compensation  provided  for  in  the 
Montreal  Convention  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  2027/97.  The  amendment  would 
oblige  the  Commission  to  adopt  a  model  form  for  such  a  special  declaration.  The 
Commission  opposes  this  obligation  as  it  creates  an  undue  administrative  burden 
including  for  the  air  carriers,  since  they  would  be  required  to  use  a  different  form 
than  the  one  customarily  used.  The  Commission  could  support  amendment  199 
subject  to  deleting  the requirement for the Commission  to  adopt implementing acts 
laying down the model form to be used. 

Deadlines 

The European Parliament position differs from that of the Council in relation to the 
various deadlines imposed on air carriers for informing passengers (amendment 88), 
for reimbursing passengers (amendments  114, 124, 131), for allowing an extension 
of deadlines in case of an activated contingency plan (amendments 118 – see below 
under  amendments  rejected  -  and  129),  and  for  receiving  a  complaint  from 
passengers (165 and 180).  

EN 

3 

  EN 

Regarding amendment 88, the Commission agrees with the deadline proposed by the 
European  Parliament  for  passengers  to  be  informed  about  an  event  as  soon  as  the 
information  is  available  and  not  later  than  30  minutes,  as  this  is  in  line  with  the 
Commission’s proposal (see Article 14(5) in COM(2013)130 final).  

As  regards  amendments  114  and  124,  the  Commission  agrees  to  the  deadline  of 
seven days for reimbursements or payments only if intermediaries are not involved. 
If  they  are  involved  extended  deadlines  should  apply  (see  new  draft  Article  8a  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  in  the  proposal  COM  (2023)  753  final).  Concerning 
amendment  124,  the  Commission  is  in  favour  of  extended  deadlines  in  case 
contingency  plans  are  activated  and  therefore  supports  in  this  regard  the  Council’s 
position,  which  proposes  an  extension  to  30  days  for  reimbursements  while  the 
European Parliament proposed in amendment 124 to delete such an extension. 

As  for  amendment  131,  the  Commission  can  agree  with  the  European  Parliament 
regarding  the  deadline  of  seven  days  for  reimbursement  in  case  of  downgrading, 
because this corresponds to the requirement under the current rules. 

Enforcement 

The Commission can support the out-of-court resolution proposed in amendment 40 
and  185  only  in  part,  since  the  Commission  opposes  making  the  participation  by 
airlines  in  the  ADR  procedures  mandatory  and  the  ADR  decisions  binding  without 
prior  assessment.  Mandatory  ADR  with  binding  decisions  imposed  on  all  Member 
States  would involve  additional administrative burden  and has not  been  thoroughly 
assessed.  As  a  reference,  the  recent  agreement  on  the  review  of  the  travel  package 
Directive does not introduce this for package travel either for similar reasons. 

4.2.3. Amendments accepted subject to rewording or agreed in principle 

Extraordinary circumstances 

In amendment 99 the European Parliament introduces a new article on ‘extraordinary 
circumstances  providing  inter  alia  for  an  exhaustive  list  of  circumstances  in  the 
Annex to be regarded as ‘extraordinary’, which can be amended by the Commission 
through  a  delegated  act.  The  Commission  could  accept  amendment  99  if  the 
exhaustive list were replaced by a non-exhaustive list. 

Amendments  86  and  93  provide  for  the  obligation  of  the  air  carrier  to  pay 
compensation for cancellations and delays if it fails to present proof of the existence 
of extraordinary circumstances. However, there is no deadline set for the air carrier 
to  provide  such  proof.  In  order  to  ensure  legal  certainty  and  a  swift  resolution  of 
disputes,  the  Commission  could  support  these  amendments  if  there  was  a  clear 
deadline  added  for  the  submission  by  the  air  carrier  of  proof  of  the  existence  of 
extraordinary circumstances. 

Amendments  215  to  239  concern  various  events  which  constitute  extraordinary 
circumstances.  In  substance,  the  list  of  circumstances  included  by  the  European 
Parliament largely reflects the existing body of case-law of the Court of Justice of the 
European  Union  but  deviates  in  several  instances  from  it.  Without  prejudice  to  its 
position that the list must remain non-exhaustive and subject to future amendment by 
means  of  delegated  powers,  in  order  to  ensure  that  it  remains  updated,  the 
Commission  could  support  the  specific  circumstances  included,  provided  that  they 
are worded in a such a way that they reflect the general approach developed by the 
caselaw. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

Compensation amounts and thresholds 

As  regards  amendments  100,  101  and  102  (amounts  of  compensation  per  distance) 
and  amendments  105,  106  and  107  (thresholds  triggering  compensation)  the 
Commission  could,  to  facilitate  an  overall  compromise,  show  flexibility  regarding 
the thresholds as well as the amounts for delay compensation provided that the final 
agreement  would  most  effectively  and  efficiently  enhance  passenger  rights  while 
taking into account the impact on the financial viability of air carriers. 

Adjustment of compensation amounts 

With  amendment  104  the  European  Parliament  seeks  to  oblige  the  Commission  to 
adjust  every  three  years  the  compensation  amounts  by  delegated  act.  The 
Commission can agree in principle to this proposal subject to an extended period of 
five years for such review in order to limit the administrative burden. 

Pre-filled forms 

Amendments 88, 91, 97 and 111 introduce the obligation  for air carriers to provide 
passengers  with  pre-filled  forms  for  requesting  compensation  and  reimbursement. 
The  Commission  can  accept  the  principle  of  requiring  air  carriers  to  provide  pre-
filled forms in order to ensure that passengers can assert their passenger rights more 
effectively, subject  to  further drafting improvements  regarding i) the content of the 
form and ii) the circumstances in which it must be provided. 

Amendment  156  requires  rewording  as  it  refers  also  to  prefilled  forms  relating  to 
complaints under Article 15a (amendments 164 to 171) which does not mention such 
forms. 

Enforcement 

The Commission accepts in principle the amendments related to complaint handling 
by  air  carriers  and  intermediaries,  complaint  handling  by  national  enforcement 
bodies, alternative dispute resolution, the designation of national enforcement bodies 
and  enforcement  tasks  by  national  enforcement  bodies.  However,  the  following 
amendments  require  redrafting  in  order  to  ensure  clarity,  coherence  and  legal 
certainty: 40, 165, 173, 179 and 180.  

Delegated powers 

Amendment 187 (exercise of delegation) confers the right to adopt delegated acts on 
the  Commission  for  a  period  of  five  years  only,  with  the  possibility  of  extensions. 
The  Commission  could  accept  amendment  187  provided  the  delegation  of  powers 
was conferred for an unlimited period of time. 

Complaints concerning baggage 

With  amendment  194  the  European  Parliament  introduces  specific  provisions  for 
passengers’ complaints regarding damaged or delayed baggage providing for specific 
ways  in  which  airports  shall  make  available  the  complaint  forms.  While  the 
Commission  agrees  in  principle  with  this  amendment  it  calls  for  a  more 
technologically neutral way for the provision of the complaint form.  

Reporting by the Commission 

Amendment  211  provides  for  the  obligation  of  the  Commission  to  report  on  the 
operation  of  the  amended  Regulation.  The  Commission  could  support  amendment 

EN 

5 

  EN 

211 if the deadline of three years was extended to five years from the entry into force 
of the amended Regulation, in order to permit a full analysis of its impact. 

Persons with specific needs 

With  amendment  143  the  EP  seeks  to  make  air  carriers  liable,  in  addition  to 
providing  re-routing  and  assistance,  also  for  compensation  to  persons  with 
disabilities and reduced mobility (PRMs) as well as unaccompanied children if they 
miss  a  flight  due  to  insufficient  assistance  at  the  airport  by  the  airport  managing 
body. The  amendment  mandates the Commission to  detail  the modalities of such  a 
scheme  and  of  the  mechanisms  of  redress  for  the  air  carriers  towards  the  airport 
managing bodies through an implementing act. 

The Commission’s proposal did not contain such a provision, hence the Commission 
did not carry out an impact assessment on this aspect. The Commission notes that the 
Member States reported very few such cases during Council deliberations. 

The Commission also notes that the obligation to assist a passenger with disabilities 
or reduced mobility at an airport falls on the managing body of an airport pursuant to 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006.  A  potential  obligation  for  the  air  carrier  to  pay 
compensation  to  a  passenger  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility  who  was  not 
effectively  assisted  by  the  managing  body  of  an  airport  would  need  to  be  coupled 
with  an  explicit  right  of  the  air  carrier  to  claim  that  compensation  back  from  the 
managing body of an airport. 

The Commission can accordingly accept the principle of amendment  143 subject to 
the inclusion of these important legal safeguards.  

Regarding unaccompanied children,  the amendment provides that  the responsibility 
lies  with  the  air  carrier  which  accepted  to  transport  the  child.  In  such  cases  the 
Commission can agree to a right to compensation.  

The Commission also underlines that an implementing act could only cover genuine 
modalities.  The  right  to  compensation  as  such,  as  well  as  further  rights  of  redress 
should therefore form part of the essential elements of the right itself included in the 
basic act. 

4.2.4. Amendments rejected by the Commission 

Recitals 

Amendment 54 calls for the inclusion of passenger rights protection in international 
agreements. The Commission rejects this amendment since it does not correspond to 
any substantive provision in the text of the Regulation.  

In amendment 55 the European Parliament calls for specific facilities at airports for 
“severely disabled passengers”. The Commission rejects this amendment because the 
matter  should  be  discussed  in  the  framework  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006 
concerning  the  rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility  when 
travelling by air. 

Definitions 

The  European  Parliament  includes  a  new  definition  of  “cost  of  the  air  ticket”  in 
amendment 57. The Commission rejects this amendment because the matter is dealt 
with in the enforcement proposal. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

With amendment 58 the European Parliament adds a definition of “reservation”. This 
term is not used elsewhere in the Regulation and the  definition is thus superfluous. 
The Commission therefore rejects amendment 58. 

With  amendments  62  and  63  the  European  Parliament  deleted  several  lines  of  the 
definition  of  cancellation.  Since  these  elements  were  derived  from  case-law  their 
deletion  leaves  the  definition  incomplete  and  ambiguous.  These  deletions  are 
therefore rejected. 

With  amendment  68  the  European  Parliament  added  text  to  the  definition  of 
“connecting flights” referring to a single contract of carriage. Such a cross-reference 
is not necessary and potentially misleading. This addition is therefore rejected. 

Extraordinary circumstances 

With  amendment  67  the  European  Parliament  deleted  the  definition  of  the  term 
“extraordinary  circumstances”  and  moved  it  to  Article  6c.  For  the  sake  of 
consistency  and  in  line  with  the  legislative  drafting  guidelines1  –  all  definitions 
should be in a single article (Article 2). This deletion is accordingly rejected. 

The Commission rejects amendment 213 and 214 (characterisation of extraordinary 
circumstances  as  “capable  of  being  considered”  as  extraordinary),  since  the 
Commission  believes  that  such  a  characterisation  of  extraordinary  circumstances  is 
unclear and may therefore lead to legal uncertainty and confusion for passengers. 

The  Commission  rejects  amendment  213  also  because  it  seeks  to  change  the  list’s 
status  from  ‘non-exhaustive’  to  ‘exhaustive’.  While  this  may  have  advantages  for 
legal certainty, it is important to avoid the risk that a circumstance which should be 
extraordinary is overlooked and not contained in the list. 

The  Commission  rejects  amendment  240  (deletion  of  the  list  of  circumstances  not 
considered  as  extraordinary).  Such  list  included  in  Annex  1  contributes  to  legal 
clarity as it was originally proposed by the Commission in 2013. 

Scope 

The  European  Parliament  proposes  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  to  flights 
arriving in the Union from those operated by EU carriers to all carriers by deleting 
the  limitation  ‘if  the  operating  air  carrier  of  the  flight  concerned  is  a  Union  air 
carrier’  (amendment  72).  This  would  mean  that  passengers  flying  with  non-EU 
carriers operating flights to EU airports would fall under the Regulation for the first 
time, substantially broadening passenger rights coverage across European airspace. 

The Commission did not propose to amend the scope of the Regulation and has not 
assessed the impact of such a scope extension in its impact assessment. 

While  the  Commission  remains  open  to  review  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  by 
assessing  in  future  the  risks  of  conflict  of  jurisdictions  and  the  difficulties  in 
enforcement  –  as  proposed  in  the  Council’s  first  reading  position  deleted  by 
amendment 191 – the Commission cannot support the immediate extension of scope 
without prior assessment. Therefore, the Commission rejects amendments 48, 72 and 
191.  

1 
in the drafting of European Union legislation, 2015; guideline 14 

Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
Amendments 75 and 76 delete the provisions in the Council’s first reading position 
on  the  application  of  the  Regulation  to  Gibraltar  airport.  Since  these  provisions 
reflect the state of the current discussions on an EU-UK Agreement, the Commission 
opposes these deletions and thus rejects amendments 75 and 76. 

Personal scope 

Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 exempts certain passengers from its scope, 
notably  passengers  travelling  free  of  charge  or  at  a  reduced  rate  not  directly  or 
indirectly available to the public. By amendment 73 the European Parliament deletes 
this exemption. The Commission opposes this deletion since the provision provided a 
justified  (and  limited)  exemption.  The  Commission  accordingly  rejects  amendment 
73. 

Denied boarding 

The Council’s First reading position maintains in the definition of ‘denied boarding’ 
the  reasonable  grounds  listed  in  the  Council  position  (health,  safety,  security  or 
inadequate travel documentation) to justify a denied boarding since those exceptions 
are defined already in Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (Article 2 j). This is in line with the 
current Regulation and the Commission did not propose to amend this definition. 

With amendment 61 the European Parliament seeks to delete the reasonable grounds. 
This  would  mean  that  air  carriers  would  have  to  treat  cases  where  passengers  are 
refused  carriage  for  legitimate  reasons  as  denied  boarding.  In  the  Commission’s 
view, this would place an unreasonable burden on air carriers and cannot be justified. 
Therefore the Commission rejects amendment 61. 

In  case  passengers  are  denied  boarding  against  their  will  they  can  opt  for  a 
reimbursement of the ticket price. Under the current rules the reimbursement has to 
be made within the time limit for reimbursements, i.e. seven days. The EP requests 
that  the  reimbursements  in  case  of  denied  boarding  be  made  immediately 
(amendment 79). The Commission considers this an undue burden on the operating 
air  carrier,  since  the  ticket  price  corresponding  to  the  unused  portions  of  the  ticket 
(flight legs not used) cannot always be established immediately, notably in cases of 
connecting flights. Therefore, the Commission rejects amendment 79. 

Insurance policy/guarantee fund 

Amendments 50 and 87 introduce the obligation for airlines to provide for insurance 
policies and a guarantee fund. The Commission did not propose such rules, nor did 
the  Council.  The  Commission  cannot  support  the  immediate  introduction  of  such 
rules without prior assessment. The Commission thus rejects amendments 50 and 87, 
since  it  is  assessing  the  need  for  such  rules  already  in  the  context  of  the  ongoing 
review of the Air Services Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008. 

Double compensation 

The Commission proposed in 2013 that the right to compensation can only arise once 
when passengers are rerouted at the earliest opportunity to their final destination. The 
Council retained this provision in its first reading position. With amendment 108 the 
EP requires that passengers remain eligible for additional compensation in case they 
experience  further 
journey.  Since 
compensation  should  be  due  only  once  during  a  journey  the  Commission  seeks  to 
retain the balance of its original proposal and accordingly rejects this amendment. 

travel  disruptions  when  continuing 

their 

EN 

8 

  EN 

Form of payment 

The Commission rejects amendment 112 which eliminates the explicit possibility for 
air carriers to agree with the passenger to pay out compensation in other forms than 
cash, such as in form of a voucher. The Commission underlines that this is a useful 
option  for  certain  passengers  and  should  therefore  be  retained  whilst  remaining 
subject to express consent from the passenger. 

Deadlines 

The  European  Parliament’s  position  requires  in  amendment  84  that  air  carriers 
inform  passengers  by  electronic  means  of  the  reasons  for  the  cancellation  no  later 
than 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time. Given the potential complexity of 
the reasons for such cancellations, this timeframe is too short. 

The European Parliament proposes in amendment 118 to delete  an extension of the 
deadline to 30 days for reimbursements in case contingency plans are activated. The 
Commission  is  in  favour  of  an  extended  deadline  for  reimbursements  in  case  of 
activated contingency plans and therefore cannot accept amendment 118. 

The Commission rejects amendment 129, because the three-hour deadline for the air 
carrier  to  fulfil  its  obligation  to  provide  assistance  to  the  passengers  may  not  be 
proportionate in all cases (it could also be less time e.g. if the disruption occurs after 
midnight),  the  establishment  of  an  index  on  prices  for  accommodation  in  Member 
States  causes  high  administrative  burden,  the  index  would  be  needed  also  for  third 
countries,  and  because  an  extension  of  the  deadline  in  case  contingency  plans  are 
activated has been (probably erroneously) left open. 

Transfer of tickets  

The Commission rejects amendment 145 (right to transfer the ticket in case of death 
of  the  passenger  or  a  close  family  member),  as  the  Commission  considers  that  a 
transfer of a ticket to another person would risk creating a black market for second-
hand tickets and as such must be avoided. 

Information requirement in case of combined tickets 

The  Council’s  First  Reading  Position  included  the  obligation  for  air  carriers  and 
intermediaries  to  clearly  inform  passengers  in  case  they  sell  a  ticket  covered  by  a 
combination  of  air  transport  contracts.  The  deleted  text  sought  to  clarify  to 
passengers that if they were not sold tickets under one single contract they would not 
enjoy  the  right  relating  to  compensation,  reimbursement,  rerouting  or  assistance  in 
the case of a missed subsequent flight. 

The Commission rejects amendment 151 which deletes this obligation.  

Enforcement 

The  Commission  rejects  amendment  41  (publication  of  a  list  of  carriers  failing  to 
comply  with  the  regulation  by  the  Commission),  as  the  proposed  recital  does  not 
correspond to any substantive provision in the text of the Regulation. In addition, the 
proposed obligation on the Commission would constitute an excessive administrative 
burden. 

The  Commission  rejects  amendment  168  (deadlines/reaction  to  complaints),  as  the 
proposed  approach  of  considering  the  lack  of  reply  from  the  air  carrier  or 
intermediary  to  a  complaint  as  acceptance  of  the  passenger’s  claims  could  be  far-
reaching and create legal uncertainty. It would also not fit into the legal architecture 

EN 

9 

  EN 

of  complaint  handling  under  this  regulation,  nor  be  consistent  with  complaint 
handling mechanisms under existing passenger rights legislation across all modes of 
transport. 

The Commission rejects amendment 182 (inspections of national enforcement bodies 
by  the  Commission),  as  the  proposed  obligation  could  be  inconsistent  with  the 
principle of subsidiarity and would also have significant administrative and financial 
implications for the Commission. 

The Commission rejects amendment 186 (compliance documents) due to the added 
administrative burden.  

Transparency baggage allowances 

The  Commission  rejects  amendment  202  (transparency/purchase  of  core  travel 
services/additional  charges),  as  the  rules  on  how  these  services  and  charges  can  be 
purchased and have to be displayed for transparency purposes fall within the scope of 
the Air Services Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008. 

Hand baggage 

In amendment 204 the EP requests that hand baggage with a maximum dimension of 
100 cm (sum of width, length and height) and a maximum weight 7kg, be transported 
by the air carrier at  no extra cost to  the passenger.  In particular, it should be taken 
into account that an impact assessment has already been launched on these two issues 
in the context of the review of the Air Services Regulation, where the Open Public 
Consultation closed in December 2025. Stakeholder views are divided on these two 
issues.  In  particular,  the  Commission  is  concerned  about  possible  unintended 
consequences of adopting a standard which is not currently widely used. This could 
raise  the  risk  that  airlines  may  reduce  hand  baggage  allowances  from  their  current 
levels, which are approximated to the IATA recommended maximum (56 x 45 x 25 = 
126cm).  The  Commission  therefore  rejects  amendment  204  and  the  corresponding 
provision in amendment 144. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  support  the  legislative  process  with  a  view  to 
facilitating  a  balanced  and  legally  robust  outcome  that  ensures  effective  passenger 
protection  while  maintaining  a  proportionate  and  workable  framework  for  the 
aviation sector. 

The  Commission  remains  committed  to  constructive  engagement  with  both  co-
legislators in the next stages of the procedure. 

EN 

10 

  EN