Explanatory Memorandum to SWD(2014)156 - Complaint handling and enforcement by Member States of the Air Passenger Rights Regulations

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Contents

1.

Brussels, 7.5.2014 SWD(2014) 156 final


COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Complaint handling and enforcement by Member States of the Air Passenger Rights

Regulations

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Complaint handling and enforcement by Member States of the Air Passenger Rights

Regulations

Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4

2.

1. Complaint handling and enforcement .................................................................................... 4


3.

2. Quantitative Data on Delay and Cancellation ........................................................................ 5


Complaint handling and enforcement by Member States of the Air Passenger

Rights Regulations ................................................................................................ 8

1. Complaint handling by the NEBs responsible for the enforcement of Regulation 261/2004 ....................................................................................................................... 8

4.

1.1. Complaint handling 2010 ............................................................................................. 9


5.

1.2. Complaint handling 2011 ........................................................................................... 14


6.

1.3. Complaint handling 2012 ........................................................................................... 19


7.

1.4. Evolution of the total number of complaints received by NEBs in 2007-2012 ......... 24


8.

1.5. Evolution of distribution between grounds for lodging complaints in 2010-2012 ... 24


1.6. Evolution of the total number of complaints received by different NEBs in 2007-2012 ............................................................................................................................ 25

9.

1.7. Designation of NEBs .................................................................................................. 27


10.

1.8. Sanctions .................................................................................................................... 30


11.

1.8.1. National legislation on enforcement and sanctions .................................................... 30


12.

1.8.2. Type and level of sanctions which may be imposed .................................................. 33


2. Complaint handling by the NEBs responsible for the enforcement of Regulation 1107/2006 ................................................................................................................... 35

13.

2.1. Complaint handling 2010 ........................................................................................... 36


14.

2.2. Complaint handling 2011 ........................................................................................... 40


15.

2.3. Complaint handling 2012 ........................................................................................... 43


16.

2.4. Evolution of the total number of complaints received in 2010-2012 ........................ 51


17.

2.5. Evolution of distribution between grounds for lodging complaints in 2010-2012 ... 52


2.6. Evolution of the total number of complaints received by different NEBs in 2010-2012 ............................................................................................................................ 53

18.

2.7. Designation of NEBs .................................................................................................. 55


19.

2.8. Sanctions .................................................................................................................... 56


20.

2.8.1. National legislation on enforcement and sanctions .................................................... 56


21.

2.8.2. Type and level of sanctions which can be imposed ................................................... 58


Annex I - Quantitative Data on Delay and Cancellation ........................................ 60

1. Comparison of all delays ................................................................................... 60

1.1. Proportion of total flights departing from EU airports that experienced long delays at departure in 2007-2012 .............................................................................................. 61

1.2. Proportion of departing flights of less than 1 500 km (short-haul) that were delayed in 2007-2012 .............................................................................................................. 62

1.3. Proportion of departing flights between 1 500 and 3 500 km (medium-haul) that were delayed in 2007-2012 ................................................................................................. 62

1.4. Proportion of departing flights of more than 3 500 km (long-haul) that were delayed in 2007-2012 .............................................................................................................. 62

2. Comparison of cancellations ............................................................................ 63

Executive Summary

In its Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation and the results of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights1, the Commission committed to ensure that citizens can effectively exercise their right to mobility when travelling by air and, at the same time, to promote fairer competition among operators across the EU, amongst other things by encouraging the publication of sanctions imposed and/or operators' overall performance in complying with the Regulation. In line with this objective, the Commission has also carried out several information campaigns to raise awareness of passengers about their rights when travelling2.

The first document on complaint handling and enforcement by EU Member States was published in 20113. It covered the period from 2007 to 2009 and related to Regulation (EC) No 261/20044 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation 261/2004'). The present document reflects the period from 2010 to 2012 (by comparing data, where possible, with the previous reporting period) and makes a step forward by also providing data related to 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 air5 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation 1107/2006').

The present statistical document responds to the continuous calls from various sources (inter alia the European Parliament, Member States and air transport industry) for statistics on complaint handling and enforcement. The Commission services have taken over the task to present such data in the absence, in the current legislation, of reporting obligations. It thus reflects quantitative complaint handling data provided by the national enforcement bodies (NEBs) for the period from 2010 to 2012. It further provides information on the structure of NEBs as well as on the legal aspects of sanctioning, both for Regulation 261/2004 and Regulation 1107/2006.

1. Complaint handling and enforcement

Over the period reported (2010-2012), NEBs received a total of 201 879 complaints under Regulation (EC) 261/2004:

• In 2010, a total of 91 726 complaints were received. The high number of complaints in that year can partly be explained by the impact of the volcanic ash cloud crisis. Only in 1% of these cases (971) did NEBs start sanctioning procedures on infringing air carriers in line with their enforcement obligations under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004.. NEBs actually collected sanctions in 14% of the cases they engaged for sanctioning6.

• In 2011, a total of 53 675 complaints were received. With the same percentage of cases where NEB started sanctioning procedures (1%), a significant increase in the actual collection of sanctions (34%) could be identified compared to 2010.

1

22.

2 3 4


5

23.

COM(2011)174 final


ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger-rights/en/index SEC(2011)428 final OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1 OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 1

• In 2012, NEBs received a total of 56 478 complaints. The percentage of cases engaged for sanctioning by NEBs doubled (2%) compared to 2011, however, the actual collection of penalties decreased by 14 percentage points.

The numbers recorded show that sanctioning as a means to ensure compliance with the Regulation was not widely made use of. NEBs applied sanctions rather as an exceptional remedy. Moreover, even where sanctions were imposed, Member States had difficulty in collecting them, partly owing to time consuming administrative and/or legal procedures.

As regards Regulation 1107/2006, the number of complaints recorded during the period covered is relatively low (a total of 514 complaints):

• In 2010, NEBs received 128 complaints and, in addition, 93 information requests on the matter of travel of persons with disabilities and/or reduced Mobility (PRMs). The percentage of cases closed is rather high (74%). Only in one case out of 128 (less than 1%) NEBs started sanctioning procedures.

• In 2011, NEBs received 111 complaints and 81 information requests on the matter. The percentage of the cases closed is 81%, however only in one case (less than 1%) NEBs started sanctioning procedures.

• In 2012, the number of complaints more than doubled: NEBs received 275 complaints and 188 information requests. This increase can be explained by the fact that in that year, the United Kingdom started providing the European Commission with its statistical data on the Regulation. The percentage of closed cases reaches 90% and cases where NEBs started sanctioning procedures 8%. However, the increase in the number of sanctions is directly related to the broad interpretation of sanctions taken by the UK.

The fact that the number of complaints reported by NEBs is relatively low might be due to several reasons: firstly, complaints received on the basis of Regulation 1107/2006 do not include those lodged by PRMs falling under the scope of Regulation 261/2004; secondly, complaints under Regulation 1107/2006 in most cases affect individual passengers whereas complaints under Regulation 261/2004 mostly cover incidents experienced by a number of passengers in the same situation, notably in case of delays and cancellations; third, the rate of awareness among PRMs about their rights when travelling is still relatively low; finally, in view of the specific difficulties that PRM passengers are still facing in air transport, complicated and time-consuming complaint handling procedures might dissuade them from lodging a complaint.

2. Quantitative Data on Delay and Cancellation

The statistical document also gives an overview of the quantitative data for delays for the period concerned provided by Eurocontrol. During the period of 2010 to 2012, the total number of flights in Europe was 29.8 million. This is an increase by 28 % compared to the period from 2006 to 2009. In spite of this, data shows that less than 1% of those flights were delayed by more than two hours (1.2% during the period 2007-2009).

In relation to the rights passengers are entitled to under Regulation 261/2004 and considering the different trigger points for different rights7, depending on the duration of the delay in

24.

Right to reimbursement after 5 hours delay, compensation after 3 hours delay under certain


7

relation to the duration of the flight, during the reporting period (including the distinct year of 2010 owing to the volcanic ash cloud crisis) passengers were entitled to:

• care and assistance on 1.23% of all flights;

• reimbursement on ca. 0.71% of long-haul flights compared to less than 0.1% of short-haul flights and 0.31% of medium-haul flights;

• compensation on potentially 1.55% of long-haul flights compared to 0.37% of short-haul and 0.86% for medium-haul flights.

Despite the low values of these percentages, the EU rules on passenger rights represent an average cost of between 0.6% and 1.8% of the airlines' turnover (depending on the proportion of entitled passengers that claim compensation), but for certain airlines it can be more than 5%. This corresponds approximately to between €1 and €3 per one-way ticket. Note, however, that extraordinary events – like the ash cloud crisis in April 2010 – may cause sudden and significant deviations from these averages.

The Commission proposed a revision of air passenger rights legislation on 13 March 20138. This proposal is currently being discussed by the legislators, i.e. the European Parliament and the Council of ministers. The revision mainly aims at confirming and clarifying rights and ensuring a better application of the Regulation. This clarification is needed in the light of the many disputes observed between passengers and airlines. A better coordination of enforcement policies should ensure a more effective and consistent enforcement of these rights across the EU. But the proposal also fine-tunes the existing rights to ensure a more proportionate balance between the interests of passengers and those of the industry.

8

25.

COM/2013/0130 final


Introduction

The present Commission Staff Working Paper related to enforcement and complaint handling by National Enforcement Bodies of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as 'NEBs') aims at showing the Commission's on-going commitment to monitor the implementation of EU legislation on air passenger rights.

The previous document of 20119 covering the period 2007-2009 related to 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 295/9110 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation 261/2004'). The present document reflects the period from 2007 to 2012 and makes a step forward by also covering quantitative data related to 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 air11 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation 1107/2006').

Annex I of the present document gives an overview of the quantitative data on delays for the period concerned.

9 SEC(2011)428 final

10 OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1

11

Complaint handling and enforcement by Member States of the Air Passenger Rights Regulations

In its Communication on the application of Regulation 261/2004, the Commission committed to promote a better level playing field among operators across the EU area, amongst others by encouraging the publication of sanctions imposed and/or operators' overall performance in complying with the Regulation.12

Quantitative complaint handling data for the period covered, the structure of NEBs and information on the legal aspects of sanctioning are provided in the tables below for both Regulation 261/2004 and Regulation 1107/2006.

26.

All the estimations are conducted on the basis of information and data provided by the designated NEBs in charge of the enforcement of these Regulations in the Member States


13

1. Complaint handling by the NEBs responsible for the enforcement of

Regulation 261/2004

The compilation of complaint handling data requested from NEBs is slightly different from the previous statistical document by providing a more detailed overview and thus better reflecting the full particulars of the current situation. Firstly, the closure of cases is subcategorised into those closed by letters sent to complainants after examination of the complaint and those closed by transferring the cases to another NEB for competence; secondly, the data on sanctioning is more comprehensive and subdivided into three categories: the number of cases where NEBs have launched sanctioning procedures in line with their enforcement obligations under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004, the real status of sanctions and the actual collection of sanctions by NEBs14; thirdly, any other measures undertaken to ensure enforcement are displayed.

Information on the structure of NEBs is reflected in the tables below and the differences compared to the previous statistical document are highlighted.

As regards the data provided by NEBs, it is important to point out that not all Member States distinguished between the different natures of complaints owing to their respective complaint handling and data collection mechanisms. There are also some cases where a single complaint covers several incidents. For these reasons the data are not 100% comparable.

27.

Finally, it must be noted that, since the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission has


carried out 3 consecutive information campaigns to raise passengers' awareness of their rights.

The current campaign was launched in June 201315 and covers all modes of transport. These

28.

campaigns linked with other Commission awareness raising activities have certainly


contributed to a greater awareness of passengers about their rights when travelling in the EU16.

29.

COM(2011)174 final


A reference to “Member States” with regard to the Regulation 261/2004 and Regulation 1107/2006 also

30.

includes Iceland, Norway and Switzerland


Data refers only to cases where NEBs applied a sanction, and do not cover cases where passengers have

themselves started legal proceedings to enforce their rights.

ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger-rights/en/index

31.

European Consumer Centres, co-financed by the European Commission, play an important role in


12

13

14

15

16

1.1. Complaint handling 2010

In 2010, a total of 91 726 complaints were received by NEBs. The majority of these complaints (55%) were about cancellations, and 18% were about delays.

Only in 1% of the cases (971) NEBs launched sanctioning procedures. This shows that sanctions were not yet widely applied. Sanctions were actually collected in 14% of the cases engaged for sanctioning. This shows that even where sanctions were imposed, Member States had difficulty in collecting them.

Apart from Spain where 25 013 complaints were related to the bankruptcy of the Spanish air carrier Air Comet17, the United Kingdom received the highest number of complaints (8 843), followed by the Netherlands (8 761) and Portugal (8 328).

In 2010, the NEBs received 177% more complaints when compared to 2009 (33 060 complaints recorded in 2009). This is mostly due to the dramatic increase in complaint numbers received by the Spanish NEB about the Air Comet bankruptcy. Furthermore, in 2010, Switzerland and Iceland started gathering and reporting statistical data which contributed to the overall increase of the total complaints. On the contrary, Bulgaria has not provided information for the year concerned.

Other factors resulting in an increase of passenger complaints in 2010 were numerous industrial actions and severe weather conditions and, without any doubt, disruptions in air traffic caused by the volcanic ash cloud. Even though the exact number of complaints related therewith is unknown, the impact of the ash cloud crisis is significant.

Although the situation for passengers in case of bankruptcy is rather specific, passenger rights under Regulation (EC) 261/2004 still apply, notably as regards the rights to assistance as well as reimbursement of the ticket price and compensation in case of flight cancellations.

17

9

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
AT912139

15%
495

54%
62

7%
216

24%
70218

77%
0

0%
0

0%
0

0%
-0

0%
5
BE2 730----2 247

82%
-----7 inspections
BGNo information provided
CH4 537988

22%
3 110

69%
214

5%
225

5%
4 536

100%
948

21%
0

0%
321

7%
320 closed 1 pending40
CY16546

28%
79

48%
17

10%
23

14%
49519

300%
16

10%
0

0%
0

0%
--7
CZ192111

58%
66

34%
15

8%
0

0%
159

83%
33

17%
0

0%
0

0%
-0

0%
1
DE4 8472 010

41%
2 548

53%
287

6%
2

0%
1 525

31%
785

16%
0

0%
0

0%
--3 audits, 13 conversations with airports, 5 other activities
DK803220

27%
502

63%
27

3%
54

7%
366

46%
314

39%
0

0%
0

0%
---
EE6031

52%
19

32%
7

12%
3

5%
55

92%
5

8%
0

0%
0

0%
-0

0%
0
ES32 651201 907

6%
28 250idem

87%
691

2%
1 803

6%
31 147idem

95%
996

3%
0

0%
62

0%
46 closed30

48%
386 inspections

32.

18 19


20

ca. 77%

An average of 3 letters per complaint, excluding e-mails

33.

25 013 complaints are about Air Comet bankruptcy


10

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
FI294136

46%
145

49%
15

5%
3

1%
202

69%
47

16%
0

0%
27

9%
--3
FR5 347211 803

34%
3 171

59%
373

7%
0

0%
-267

5%
-77

1%
35Concernin g 20 pax 26%10
GR779250

32%
379

49%
30

4%
116

15%
632

81%
4

1%
0

0%
25

3%
---
HU20597

47%
80

39%
11

5%
17

8%
160

78%
45

22%
0

0%
11

5%
closed11

100%
2
IE5 132147

3%
611

12%
36

1%
4 338

85%
2 93 022

57%
542

11%
542

11%
2

0%
OACs complied with Direction-8 Inspections, continuous monitoring of websites, numerous media contacts due to ash, regular engagement with OACs re post-ash complaint handling
IS12946

36%
64

50%
6

5%
13

10%
11623

90%
0

0%
0

0%
0

0%
-0

0%
0

5 to 10% of the complaints recorded fall outside of the scope of the Regulation. In 2010, the French Government has appointed a mediator for the treatment of complaints

34.

regarding the volcanic eruption in Iceland, the Ombudsman dealt with thousands of claims


One case from 2010 remains under investigation. In addition, 2 201 complaints – none of which fell under the scope of the Regulation – were concluded via telephone and

35.

not by means of a closing letter


All cases are closed with communication, decisions are followed

11

21

22

23

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
IT4 1081 487

36%
2 244

55%
307

7%
7024

2%
3 034

74%
188

5%
0

0%
224

5%
2248 25

4%
3930 airport inspections, regular airlines representative meetings, ENAC management press releases
LT8423

27%
36

43%
5

6%
20

24%
57

68%
7

8%
0

0%
2

2%
2 closed1 26

50%
10 inspections at the airports, 68 consultations
LU484

8%
17

35%
0

0%
0

0%
21

44%
27

56%
0

0%
0

0%
---
LV16942

25%
88

52%
15

9%
24

14%
169

100%
51

30%
0

0%
0

0%
---
MT13634

25%
96

71%
5

4%
1

1%
128

94%
16

12%
0

0%
0

0%
-->10
NL8 7612 850

33%
650

7%
83

1%
817

9%
4 400

50%
4 361

50%
0

0%
0

0%
--10 airport inspections, 4 lawyer and customer care meetings, 4 warnings, 4 meetings, with the airline directors
PL1 540324

21%
611

40%
65

4%
54027

35%
1 540

100%
0

0%
0

0%
122

8%
68 pending54

44%
~240 inspections, ~36 media contacts, etc.28

24

25

26

36.

27 28


On grounds of Article 14(2) of Regulation (obligation to inform passengers about their rights)

EUR 72 789 collected (the sanctioning process can last for more than one year to get to the closure (appeal to Court etc.) Therefore, the number of sanctions payment

collected in one year doesn’t match the number of the sanctions per year)

LTL 3 000 (~EUR 876) collected

37.

467 cases were written enquiries sent to CAA by passengers about their air passenger rights


20 inspections and ~3 media contacts, etc./month

12

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
PT8 3281 513

18%
1 965

0%
569

7%
4 281

51%
7 138

86%
81

1%
0

0%
3

0%
2 closed, 1 appellation phase2

67%
7 inspections
RO14018

13%
53

38%
6

4%
63

45%
140

100%
0

0%
0

0%
13

9%
6 closed 2 pending 2 in court6

46%
3 warnings, 6 meetings, 8 media contacts
SE697114

16%
522

75%
18

3%
0

0%
171

25%
43

6%
0

0%
7429

11%
Regarding Art, 14: 74 cases0

0%
~150 media contacts, market survey of 18 airlines’ contract terms
SI526

12%
29

56%
2

4%
15

29%
49

94%
27

52%
0

0%
2

4%
-2

100%
-
SK3711

30%
22

59%
0

0%
4

11%
37

100%
13

35%
13

35%
6

16%
closed4

67%
13 inspections
UK8 8431 977

22%
6 572

74%
274

3%
20

0%
0

0%
1 962

22%
0

0%
0

0%
--31
Total91 72616 334

18%
50 461

55%
3 140

3%
12 668

14%
62 156

68%
10 778

12%
555

1%
971

1%
138

14%

38.

Regarding Art. 14


13

29

1.2. Complaint handling 2011

With an overall 3%30 increase in flights in 2011 compared to the previous year, the total number of complaints received by NEBs decreased by 43% (the 2010 volcanic ash cloud crisis as well as the decrease of industrial actions explain this reduction). Norway started reporting in 2011, and all Member States provided detailed information requested with the exception of Bulgaria.

A total of 52 675 complaints were received by the NEBs in 2011. The division between the grounds for lodging complaints is relatively balanced between delays (36%) and cancellations (34%). With the same percentage of cases where NEBs launched sanctioning procedures (1%), a significant improvement in the actual collection of sanctions by NEBs (34%) can be identified since 2010. Spain received most complaints (10 848), followed by Portugal (6 454) and Germany (4 477). Although a decrease of 43% in the overall complaint numbers is recorded, some NEBs received more complaints than in 2010: AT, FI, HU, IS, IT, LU, PL and RO.

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
AT1 0623644764817486031000-01
34%45%5%16%81%0%0%0%0%
BE1 385----1 191

86%
----020 inspections, 8 warnings
BGNo information provided
CH2 393631

26%
1 282

54%
179

7%
301

13%
2 361

99%
402

17%
0

0%
87

4%
65 closed 32 pending-35

CODA 2011Annual Report www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content">www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content

ca. 81%

14

30

31

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
CY15089

59%
39

26%
5

3%
17

11%
45032

300%
10

7%
0

0%
0

0%
--10
CZ19076

40%
93

49%
19

10%
2

1%
157

83%
33

17%
0

0%
0

0%
-0

0%
2
DE4 4772 403

54%
1 777

40%
293

7%
4

0%
972

22%
486

11%
0

0%
0

0%
--8 audits, 8 conversations with airports, 5 other activities
DK712272

38%
361

51%
25

4%
54

8%
410

58%
85

12%
0

0%
0

0%
---
EE5528

51%
20

36%
5

9%
2

4%
43

78%
7

13%
0

0%
5

9%
Pending (Mar 2012– Dec 2012)0

0%
3
ES10 8484 227

39%
4 695

43%
1 533

14%
393

4%
9 420

87%
1 021

9%
0

0%
110

1%
110 closed35

32%
206 inspections
FI308185

60%
96

31%
21

7%
6

2%
233

76%
16

5%
0

0%
18

6%
--2
FR4 126331 872

45%
1 868

45%
383

9%
3

0%
-214

5%
-82

2%
36Concern ing 49 pax

60%
8
GR556254

46%
153

28%
28

5%
121

22%
478

86%
7

1%
0

0%
32

6%
---
HU23273

31%
93

40%
5

2%
61

26%
176

76%
56

24%
0

0%
48

21%
closed48

100%
2

39.

An average of 3 letters, excluding e-mails


5 to 10% of the complaints recorded fall outside the scope of the Regulation

15

32

33

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
IE4 084303612503 1192 910345045042OACs complied with Direction-10 inspections, 2 meetings with OACs, continuous monitoring of websites, media contacts
7%15%1%76%71%12%12%0,05%as necessary
IS25013147669184200-01
52%19%2%28%74%1%0%0%
IT4 2572 2681 60631469352 122500040401 363504
53%38%7%2%50%12%0%1%3%
LT652721614543022 closed013 inspections at the airports,

3 warnings to air carriers,

4 announcements published in the website of CAA to the passengers of bankrupted air carrier, 72 consultations
42%32%9%22%83%5%0%3%0%
LU52161524331500---
31%29%4%8%63%29%0%0%
LV153326913391532800---
21%45%8%25%100%18%0%0%
MT13247551218131500--4
36%42%9%14%99%4%0%0%

40.

35 36


14 cases from 2011 remain under investigation. In addition 1 160 complaints – none of which fell within the scope of the Regulation – were concluded via telephone and not

41.

by means of a closing letter


On grounds of Article 14(2) of Regulation (obligation to inform passengers about their rights)

EUR 53 363.34 collected (the sanctioning process can last for more than one year to get to the closure (appeal to Court etc.) Therefore the number of sanctions payment

collected in one year doesn’t match the number of the sanctions per year)

16

34

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
NL2 9331 614

55%
416

14%
65

2%
389

13%
2 484

85%
449

15%
0

0%
0

0%
4 reparatory

sanctions

pending

since

31/09/2011
-10 airport inspections, 16 warnings
NO646218

34%
178

28%
0

0%
250

39%
0

0%
49

8%
0

0%
0

0%
-05
PL2 195980

45%
726

33%
62

3%
42737

19%
2 195

100%
243

11%
0

0%
181

8%
99 pending82

45%
~168 inspections, ~36 media contacts38
PT6 4541 231

19%
672

10%
383

6%
4 168

65%
9 213

143%
35

1%
0

0%
4

0,06%
4 pending-9 inspections
RO40642

10%
139

34%
20

5%
200

49%
406

100%
5

1%
0

0%
2039

5%
3 closed 9 pending 3 in court3

15%
5 warnings, 6 meetings 7 media contacts

42.

37 38 39


43.

380 cases were written enquiries sent to CAA by passengers about their air passenger rights


14 inspections and ~3 media contacts/month

44.

15 pecuniary sanctions, 5 warnings


17

CountComplaintsLongCancellationDeniedOtherNumber ofCases transferred to anotherNumber ofStatus ofNumberOther measures
ryreceived in totalDelayBoardingletters sent toNEB as out of jurisdictioncases engaged forsanctions (closed,of sanctions(Number of inspections, warnings, meetings,
Number ofNumber of
passengerscasesconfirmationssanctioningpending)collectedmedia contacts etc.)
closingtransferredwhere
their casestransferring

NEB advised

case closed
SE4391512061422338401340Regarding Art, 14: 2 closed Regarding unfair contract terms: 9 closed, 2 open0~100 media contacts, published report based on market survey in 2010
34%47%3%0%53%19%0%3%0%
SI47191241201000-75 warnings
40%26%9%26%0%21%0%0%
SK35186293517177Closed217 inspections
51%17%6%26%100%49%49%20%29%
UK4 0331 3222 42725430038801010 closed-33
33%60%6%1%0%10%0%0,25%
Total52 67518 89318 1603 7519 95736 9044 674521661227
36%34%7%19%70%9%1%1%34%

45.

Regarding Art 14: 2 cases, regarding unfair contract terms: 11 cases


18

40

1.3. Complaint handling 2012

The total number of complaints received by the NEBs increased by 7% in 2012, when compared to 2011. Numerous industrial actions and cease of operations of several airlines (Spanair on 28/01/2012 and Malev Hungarian Airlines on 03/02/201241) may be considered as contributing factors, but there is no evidence on their direct impact on the total number of complaints recorded.

A total of 56 478 complaints were received by the NEBs in 2012. 38 % of complaints are attributed to delays and 38% to cancellations. The percentage of cases where NEBs launched sanctioning procedures has doubled (2%) since 2011. On the contrary, the actual collection of penalties decreased by 14 percentage points. Considering the fact that the sanctioning process is time consuming and can take several years before sanctions are collected (notably in case of appeals), the collection of sanctions imposed in previous years might improve in 2013. The top 3 countries receiving most complaints remain unchanged: Spain (15 733) where a great proportion of complaints relates to Spanair ceasing operations, Portugal (6 165) and Germany (5 105).

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
AT1 342518

39%
454

34%
53

4%
317

24%
1 06042

79%
0

0%
0

0%
0

0%
-04
BE1 022464

45%
253

25%
60

6%
245

24%
1 020

100%
166

16%
0

0%
0

0%
-024 inspections, meetings, 1 warning
BG16989

53%
24

14%
14

8%
42

25%
118

70%
0

0%
0

0%
0

0%
---
CH2 263854

38%
1 087

48%
197

9%
125

6%
2 118

94%
360

16%
0

0%
75

3%
3 closed 72 pending-35
CY12259

48%
25

20%
18

15%
20

16%
36643

300%
11

9%
0

0%
0

0%
--10

46.

41 42 43


See footnote 16

ca. 79%

An average of 3 letters, excluding e-mails

19

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
CZ197114

58%
68

35%
7

4%
8

4%
148

75%
49

25%
0

0%
1

1%
-1

100%
4
DE5 1053 148

62%
1 615

32%
335

7%
7

0%
1 361

27%
428

8%
0

0%
0

0%
--3 audits, 5 meetings with airports, 5 other activities
DK584243

42%
205

35%
30

5%
106

18%
214

37%
72

12%
0

0%
0

0%
---
EE8749

56%
22

25%
10

11%
6

7%
0%9

10%
0

0%
9

10%
closed8

89%
6
ES15 733453 775

24%
10 250idem

65%
1 423

9%
285

2%
13 432idem

85%
865

5%
0

0%
118

1%
108 closed49

42%
259 inspections
FI286177

62%
88

31%
16

6%
5

2%
331

116%
32

11%
0

0%
91

32%
--3
FR3 491461 906

55%
1 160

33%
414

12%
11

0%
-181

5%
-134

4%
44-10
GR504314

62%
123

24%
21

4%
41

8%
295

59%
5

1%
0

0%
36

7%
---
HU328145

44%
137

42%
6

2%
40

12%
272

83%
37

11%
0

0%
21

6%
15 closed + 6

pending (since 11/2012)
15

71%
0

47.

44 45


CZK 10 000 (EUR 400) collected

The number of complaints regarding Spanair, which have been received and answered by email, are not currently registered in the database (SOTA). The given number is

comprised of the registered complaints, 2 068 Spanair Cartas complaints and 5 915 Spanair Mail complaints

5 to 10% of the complaints recorded fall outside of the scope of the Regulation

20

46

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
IE3 256357

11%
244

7%
46

1%
2 609

80%
2 43 947

75%
298

9%
298

9%
0

0%
--8 inspections, 3 meetings with OACs, continuous monitoring of websites, media contacts as necessary
IS10145

45%
37

37%
1

1%
10

10%
0

0%
8

8%
0

0%
0

0%
-02
IT3 1631 767

56%
1 090

34%
261

8%
45

1%
1 923

61%
247

8%
0

0%
86

3%
863%3080 airport inspections, 5 meetings with stakeholders, continuing information process through free toll phone number, emails, postal mail
LT10051

51%
22

22%
15

15%
12

12%
83

83%
5

5%
0

0%
2

2%
1 closed; 1 pending since 07/09/20121

50%
3 investigations, 1 inspection at airport, 2 warnings to air carriers, 161 consultations
LU5815

26%
16

28%
4

7%
0

0%
35

60%
23

40%
0

0%
2

3%
---

98 cases from 2012 remain under investigation. In addition 719 complaints – none of which fell within the scope of the Regulation – were concluded via telephone and not

48.

by means of a closing letter


EUR 36 694 collected (the sanctioning process can last for more than one year to get to the closure (appeal to Court etc.) Therefore the number of sanctions payment

collected in one year doesn’t match the number of the sanctions per year)

LTL 500 (~EUR 145) collected, the sanctioned person has challenged the sanction in front of the court, but the court did not grant the complaint. Another sanction was

49.

applied in 2012 but actually paid in 2013 and therefore is not reflected in the table


21

47

48

49

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
LV13343

32%
46

35%
21

16%
23

17%
133

100%
15

11%
0

0%
0

0%
---
MT8032

40%
23

29%
13

16%
12

15%
80

100%
2

3%
0

0%
0

0%
---
NL2 6001 034

40%
144

6%
21

1%
351

14%
1 199

46%
656

25%
0

0%
0

0%
4 reparatory

sanctions

pending

since

31/03/2011,

One of the

4 reparatory

sanctions

was

withdrawn

12/2012,

Two were

withdrawn

Jan/Feb

2013
-10 procedures ground handling and airport inspections 9 warnings
NO727149

20%
280

39%
46

6%
252

35%
0

0%
39

5%
0

0%
0

0%
-0

0%
3
PL4 0211 617

40%
1 537

38%
92

2%
77550

19%
3 041

76%
323

8%
0

0%
63851

16%
472 pending166

26%
~228 inspections, ~36 media contacts52

596 cases were written enquiries sent to CAA by passengers about their air passenger rights 144 decisions which are not binding in law yet are excluded 19 inspections and ~3 media contacts/month

22

50

51

52

Count ryComplaints

received in

total
Long DelayCancellationDenied BoardingOtherNumber of letters sent

to passengers

closing their cases
Cases transferred to another NEB as out of jurisdictionNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of

sanctions

(closed,

pending)
Number

of sanctions collected
Other measures

(Number of inspections,

warnings, meetings,

media contacts etc.)
Number of

cases transferred
Number of confirmations

where

transferring

NEB advised

case closed
PT6 1652 020

33%
910

15%
306

5%
2 929

48%
6 992

113%
32

1%
0

0%
3

0%
3 pending0

0%
9 inspections
RO36566

18%
90

25%
19

5%
189

52%
365

100%
1

0%
0

0%
1153

3%
5 closed 1 pending 1 in court5

45%
4 warnings, 3 meetings, 10 media contacts
SE349138

40%
123

35%
15

4%
3

1%
93

27%
89

26%
0

0%
4 54

1%
Regarding unfair contract terms: 4 open0

0%
~100 media contacts, 39 inspections at airports
SI5214

27%
14

27%
1

2%
23

44%
0

0%
13

25%
0

0%
0

0%
---
SK5925

42%
19

32%
2

3%
13

22%
58

98%
18

31%
17

29%
4

7%
1 pending1

25%
8 inspections
UK4 0162 482

62%
1 224

30%
290

7%
20

0,5%
0

0%
451

11%
0

0%
12

0,3%
10 closed-34
Total56 47821 710

38%
21 330

38%
3 757

7%
8 524

15%
37 176

66%
4 435

8%
315

1%
1 247

2%
249

20%

50.

7 pecuniary sanctions, 4 warnings Regarding unfair contract terms


23

53

54

1.4. Evolution of the total number of complaints received by NEBs in 2007-2012

51.

100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0


52.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


1.5. Evolution of distribution between grounds for lodging complaints in 2010-2012

2010

10% 18%

3%

2011

4%

2012

2%

Long Delay

Cancellation

Denied Boarding

Other Unattributed

A trend of decrease in the proportion of complaints about cancellations can be observed. On the contrary, the number of complaints about long delays has been increasing continuously. Although the number of denied boarding situations significantly decreased since the entry into force of the Regulation, the number of complaints about denied boarding more than doubled in 2011 and their proportion remained stable in 2012 (7%). Complaints about incidents other than long delays, cancellations or denied boarding vary between 14% and 19%.

Thus, the proportions shown above do not fully reflect the exact distribution of complaints between causes due to several reasons: firstly, some of the complaints cover several incidents and are therefore reflected in several graphs. Secondly, NEBs do not record all of the complaints they receive, whereas complaints divided between grounds for lodging them do not make up 100% of the total number reported by the NEBs. Therefore such shortcoming in numbers is indicated as 'unattributed' above.

1.6. Evolution of the total number of complaints received by different NEBs in 2007-2012

AT

BE

200

150

100

50

0

Ó> <$ <$ ^ s> O

BG

55

CH

56

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

53.

40000 30000 20000 10000 0


^F^

^ <$ ^ >? O N>

^ „?Q ^ ^ ^ ^X

54.

400 300 200 100


^2Ê

ó> # <$ ^ s> O "f # # # "? ^

# # # K^ Q^ ^

55.

f f f f f f


ES

FI

FR

GR

HU

IE

56.

55 56


Bulgaria did not provide data for 2010 and 2011

300 -

200 -

100 -

0 -
>k
s N
#N

IS

57

IT

LT

LU

LV

150

100

50

0

!S

Q> £§= sS' N? O \>

# # # # -?x #

MT

58

NL

NO

59

PL

57.

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0


<0> ofc c6 NÖ s> <V

$ ^ 4 4* 4 4*

PT

RO

SE

SW

SK

UK

The above charts (in terms of complaints received) indicate the countries most affected by the exceptional natural events that occurred in 2010: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Ireland,

57 Iceland started gathering and reporting data since 2010

58 Malta did not provide data for 2009

59

the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It is likely that a great increase of complaints in Greece is related to the Greek general strike on 5th May 2010.

Whereas the total amount of complaints decreased by 43% in 2011, some Member States witnessed opposite changes – the number of complaints increased in Austria, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland and Romania.

It is probable that the relatively high increase of complaints in Hungary and Spain may be explained by the cease of operations of air carriers important to these countries in 2012.

1.7. Designation of NEBs

CountryOrganisation
In charge of EnforcementIs the NEB a CPC60

authority?
In charge of Complaint handlingIs the NEB an ADR61 or a

mediation body?
ATFederal ministry of transport, innovation and technologyYESCivil Aviation Authority, IV/L1, department passenger rightsYES
BELe Directeur-général de la Direction générale Transport aérien De Directeur-generaal van het Directoraat-generaal LuchtvaartNOSPF Mobilité et

Transports

FOD Mobiliteit en

Vervoer

Direction Générale

Transport aérien

Directoraat-generaal

Luchtvaart
NO62
BG63Civil Aviation

Administration64
YESCivil Aviation Administrationno

information

provided
CHFederal Office of Civil Aviation, FOCANot

applicable65
Federal Office of Civil Aviation, FOCANO
CYDepartment of Civil AviationNODepartment of Civil AviationNO
CZMinistry of Trade and Industry of the Czech RepublicNOEuropean Consumer Centre in the Czech RepublicNO

58.

61 62 63


i.e. a competent authority in the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network established by

Regulation 2006/2004/EC (see also footnote 74 and 75).

59.

Alternative dispute resolution


Not an official mediation body, but does mediation

Information retrieved from Steer Davies Gleave Evaluation of Regulation 261/2004 report prepared for

the European Commission Directorate General Energy and Transport in February 2010

ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/studies

60.

4.pdf


Assisted with complaints handling by the Commission of Trade and Consumers Protection, which is an

agency of the Ministry of Economics, but this is not classified as an NEB

Switzerland is currently neither party to the European Economic Area Agreement nor to a bilateral

60

64

65

CountryOrganisation
In charge of EnforcementIs the NEB a CPC60

authority?
In charge of Complaint handlingIs the NEB an ADR61 or a

mediation body?
DELuftfahrt-BundesamtYESLuftfahrt-BundesamtNO
DK66Danish Transport AuthorityYESDanish Transport Authority
EEConsumer Protection Board of EstoniaYESConsumer Protection Board of EstoniaYES
ESAgencia Estatal De Seguridad Aerea (AESA)YESAgencia Estatal De Seguridad Aerea (AESA)YES
FIThe Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi)67YESThe Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi)NO
Consumer Disputes Board (CDB)68NOConsumer Disputes Board (CDB)YES
Consumer

Ombudsman69
YESNO70
FRDirection générale de l’aviation civileYESDirection générale de l’aviation civileYES
GRHellenic Civil Aviation AuthorityNOHellenic Civil Aviation AuthorityNO
HR71Croatian Civil Aviation AgencyNO
HUNational Transport Authority Aviation Authority (Hungarian CAA) – Nemzeti Közlekedési Hatóság Légügyi HivatalYESHungarian Authority for Consumer Protection /HACP/ -Nemzeti

Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság
NO
IECommission for Aviation RegulationYESCommission for Aviation RegulationNO
ISIcelandic Civil Aviation AdministrationNOIcelandic Civil

Aviation

Administration
NO72

61.

67 68 69


71

72

62.

Information retrieved from Steer Davies Gleave Evaluation of Regulation 261/2004 report prepared for


the European Commission Directorate General Energy and Transport in February 2010

ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/studies

63.

4.pdf


Handles complaints made by business travellers

Handles complaints made by private consumers

Monitors that the marketing, contract terms, passenger notices and commercial practices of airlines

comply with the Regulation insofar as consumers are concerned

Has a possibility to provide legal assistance for individual consumer in court for disciplinary reasons

e.g. to uphold a recommendation of CDB or in order to obtain a precedent. Consumer Ombudsman may

also institute group complaints or class action in the collective interest of a group.

64.

Croatia was not a MS during the time covered by the present document



66

70

CountryOrganisation
In charge ofIs the NEB aIn charge ofIs the NEB
EnforcementCPC60 authority?Complaint handlingan ADR61 or a

mediation body?
ITItalian Civil Aviation AdministrationYESItalian Civil Aviation AdministrationNO
LTCivil Aviation AdministrationYESCivil Aviation AdministrationNO
LUMinistère de l’Economie et du Commerce extérieur

Direction du Marché intérieur et de la consommation
YESMinistère de l’Economie et du Commerce extérieur Direction du Marché intérieur et de la consommationNO
LVConsumer Rights Protection CentreYESConsumer Rights Protection CentreYES
MTOffice for Consumer Affairs within the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs AuthorityYESOffice for Consumer Affairs within the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs AuthorityYES
NLInspectie Leefomgeving en Transport/Civil Aviation (CAA NL); Ministry of Infrastructure and EnvironmentYESInspectie

Leefomgeving en Transport/Civil Aviation (CAA NL); Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
NO
NON-CAAYESN-CAAYES
PLCivil Aviation AuthorityYESCivil Aviation AuthorityNO
PTInstituto Nacional de Aviação Civil, I.PYESInstituto Nacional de Aviação Civil, I.PNO
RONational Authority for Consumers ProtectionYESNational Authority for Consumers ProtectionYES
SESwedish Consumer AgencyYESNational Board for Consumer DisputesYES
SICivil Aviation AgencyYESCivil Aviation AgencyNO
SKSlovak Trade Inspection (STI)YESSlovak Trade InspectionNO
UKCivil Aviation AuthorityYESCivil Aviation AuthorityNO73

65.

In addition to asking for indication of the authorities designated for the enforcement of Regulation 261/2004 and handling related complaints, the following information was also



73

requested compared with the previous statistical document: whether the NEB is also a CPC authority (i.e. designated as competent authority under Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation)74) and whether the NEB is an alternative dispute resolution body or whether it has a mediation function.

12 Member States have reported that their respective NEBs are also CPC authorities, which, however, does not represent any difference in how complaints are handled in comparison to those, who are not CPC authorities75. Where those bodies are not identical, cooperation between NEBs and CPC authorities has been limited. In 10 Member States, NEBs are also acting as alternative dispute resolution bodies. 3 Member States, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Iceland, noted that although NEBs are not the official mediation bodies, they have competence to mediate.

When compared to the list of NEBs designated for Regulation 261/2004 enclosed in the previous statistical document covering the period 2007-2010, the authorities in charge of enforcement have changed in Malta, and the authorities in charge of complaint handling have changed in the Czech Republic, Malta and the United Kingdom. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have also appointed NEBs for enforcement and complaint handling. Even though Croatia was not an EU Member State during the reporting period, information on its NEB is also provided.

1.8. Sanctions

1.8.1. National legislation on enforcement and sanctions

CountryLegislation
ATDas Österreichische Luftfahrtrecht
BE- Criminal penalties: Article 32 of the Law of 27 June 1937 regarding review of the law of 16 November 1919 concerning the organization of aviation

- Administrative penalties: Article 45 of the Law of 27 June 1937 regarding review of the law of 16 November 1919 concerning the organization of aviation

- Civil penalties: Articles 1382 and 1383 Belgian Civil Code
BGCivil Aviation Act, Art. 16b
CHArt. 91 Abs. 4 Bundesgesetz über die Luftfahrt (Luftfahrtgesetz, LFG)
CYLaw N213/2002 Civil Aviation Law, articles 245 and 246
CZCivil Aviation Act No 97/1997
DE- § 63 d Luftverkehrszulassungsordnung (LuftVZO)

- § 58 section 1 number 13 in conjunction with § 32 section 5a Luftverkehrsgesetz (LuftVG)

- § 108 section 2 LuftVZO in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

- Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz (OWiG), Strafprozessordnung (StPO)
DK76Air Navigation Act, Articles 31(a) and 149(11)

74

75

66.

OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p. 1-11


The CPC Regulation's cooperation mechanisms apply to protect collective economic interests of

consumers from breaches of consumer protection rules laid down in the legislation listed in the Annex

of the Regulation (including Regulation 261/2004). Unlike NEBs, CPCs do not deal with individual

complaints.

67.

Information retrieved from Steer Davies Gleave Evaluation of Regulation 261/2004 report prepared for



76

CountryLegislation
EE- Consumer Protection Act

- Aviation Act
ESAviation Security Law (Law 21/2003), as amended by the Law Establishing the State Programme for Operational Safety in Civil Aviation and modifying Law 21/2003 (Law 1/2011).
FITrafiAccording to the Aviation Act (1194/2009) 16:157 §: The Finnish Transport Safety Agency may, so as to make an order or prohibition issued on the basis of this Act or Community regulations more effective, impose conditional fines or orders of execution or suspension as provided for in the Conditional Fine Act (1113/1990)
CDBAccording to the CDB Act the decisions made by the Board are non-binding and this also applies to disputes involving Regulation No 261/2004
Consumer Ombudsman- Consumer Protection Act (38/1978) chapter 2 sections 16 and 17, chapter 3 section 3

- Act on the Finnish Consumer Agency, s 6

- Act on the Competition and Consumer Authority, section 10

- Act on the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority s 9 (previously s. 5 of the Act on the Finnish Consumer Agency)
FR Code de l’aviation civile
GR- The Ministerial Decision D1/D/13770/980/14-4-2005 which is published in Government Gazette N.529/B/2005

- The Ministerial Decision D1/D/1333/148/16-1-2007
HR77Article 184.a of the Act on Obligatory and Proprietary Rights in Air Traffic (OG 132/98, 63/08, 134/09 i 94/13)
HU- Act CLV. of 1997. on Consumer Protection Article 47. and 47/C.

- Government Decree No 25/1999. (II.12.). on the regulation of passenger airtransport Article 27
IE- Section 45A of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 (as inserted by the Aviation Act 2006)

- Statutory Instrument 506 of 2011
ISAviation act No 60/1998, article 136
ITLegislative Decree 27th January 2006, No 69
LTThe Code of Administrative Violations of the Republic of Lithuania, Article

115(1)
LUArt. L.-311-9 du Code de la consommation
LVSection 155.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code
MTDenied Boarding (Compensation and Assistance to Air Passengers) Regulations – Subsidiary Legislation 378.14
NLWet luchtvaart and General Administrative Law Act (Awb)
NON/A
PLArt. 209b(1) of the Aviation Law (consolidated text Journal of Laws of 2012 item 933 including all later amendments)

ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/studies

68.

4.pdf



77

CountryLegislation
PTDecree-Law No 209/2005, of 29 November 2005 and Decree-Law No 10/2004, of 9 January 2004
ROGovernment Decision No 1912/2006 regarding the establishment of measures in order to ensure the application of 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
SESwedish Act on Air Transport (2010:510) 14-15 §§ in conjunction with the Swedish Marketing Act
SIRegulation on accomplishment of Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and on the annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Official Gazette No 61/2005)
SK Act No 250/2007 Call. of Law on Consumer Protection
UK- The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/975)

- Enterprise Act 2002

The table reflects the legal basis for sanctions and relevant changes in legislation of the respective Member States since the last statistical document.78 The table also includes information regarding Croatia's, Iceland's, Norway's and Switzerland's relevant legislation on sanctions for violations of obligations under Regulation 261/2004.

Indications to different legal basis was received from Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Ireland,


78

1.8.2. Type and level of sanctions which may be imposed

Countr

Type and Level (in case of pecuniary sanctions)

AT BE

HR8

LV

69.

EUR 22 000


- Criminal penalties: imprisonment of 1 year and a fine of EUR 24 000 000 (year 2012)

- Administrative penalties: EUR 24 000 000 (year 2012)

- Civil penalties: the principle for the sanction under civil procedures is integral reparation

BG79EUR 5 000
CHCHF 20 000 (~EUR 16 189)
CY~ EUR 8 500 administrative fine or 10% of an air carrier's annual turnover
CZCZK 5 000 000 (~EUR 194 090)
DEEUR 25 000
DK80Unlimited
EEEUR 3 200
ES- Minor infringements: warning or fine of EUR 4 500 to EUR 70 000

- Serious infringements: fine of EUR 70 001 to EUR 250 000

- Very serious infringements: fine of EUR 250 001 to EUR 4 500 000
FINo maximum amount of sanction, depends i.a. on the size of the company
FREUR 7 500 per infringement (doubling is possible for a subsequent offense within one year); no ceiling per airline
GREUR 3 000 per passenger complaint

- HRK 50 000 (~EUR 6 560) for air carrier or airport operator

- HRK 15 000 (~EUR 1 970) accountable manager in the air carrier/airport operator

- HRK 15 000 (~EUR 1 970) any other person

HUHUF 2 000 000 (~EUR 6 823)
IE- On summary conviction: EUR 5 000

- On conviction on indictment: EUR 150 000
ISISK 10 000 000 (~EUR 60 000)
ITEUR 50 000
LTLTL 3 000 (~EUR 869)
LUEUR 50 000

- For failure to provide air passengers with information: up to LVL 100 (~EUR 143)

- For failure to respect passengers' rights ( including all air passenger laws relating to denied boarding, cancellation or long delay): up to 700 LVL (~EUR 1 000)

- For failure to comply with request for information made in the course of investigating a complaint: up to LVL 10 000 (~EUR 14 300)

MT

70.

EUR 5 000 plus EUR 120-230 fine for every day of continuous non-compliance


71.

80 81


Information retrieved from Steer Davies Gleave Evaluation of Regulation 261/2004 report prepared for

the European Commission Directorate General Energy and Transport in February 2010

ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/studies

72.

4.pdf


idem

79

CountryType and Level (in case of pecuniary sanctions)
NLIf the number of irreparable infringements exceeds 40, within the period of a calendar year, the airline will be sanctioned with an administrative fine of:

- EUR 15 000 of confirmed infringement number 41

- EUR 30 000 of confirmed infringement number 42

- EUR 60 000 of confirmed infringement number 43

- Each EUR 74 000 of confirmed infringement from number 44 and higher
NONo information
PLMaximum amount depends on the range of stated infringement of the rules of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and is different in every single case
PT- Light misdemeanours: EUR 3 000

- Serious misdemeanours: EUR 10 000

- Very serious misdemeanours: EUR 250 000
RORON 2 500 (~EUR 563)
SEThere is no limit
SIEUR 33 383
SKEUR 66 387.84 and up to EUR 165 969.59 for a repeated violation within 12 months
UK82EUR 7 750

The maximum amount of sanctions varies greatly from country to country: whereas they are unlimited in some Member States (Denmark, Sweden), or are justified and applicable on a case-by-case basis (Finland, Poland), in others the maximum amount varies from very high (EUR 24 000 000 in Belgium) to incomparably lower amounts (EUR 563 in Romania and EUR 869 in Lithuania). An average maximum sanction, excluding Belgium and Spain as MS who have maximum sanctions that greatly exceed the next highest maximum sanction, is ~ EUR 43 617.

Compared to the previous statistical document, adaptations in maximum amounts of sanctions (increase or decrease) are recorded in the following Member States: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Information retrieved from Steer Davies Gleave Evaluation of Regulation 261/2004 report prepared for the European Commission Directorate General Energy and Transport in February 2010 ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/studies

82


2. Complaint handling by the NEBs responsible for the enforcement of

Regulation 1107/2006

Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006 came into full effect on 26 July 2008. No statistical information on complaints received related to Regulation 1107/2006 was collected by the European Commission so far.

Regulation 1107/2006 establishes rules to protect disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility (hereinafter referred to as 'PRMs') against discrimination and to provide them with assistance when travelling by air83. In its Report 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 air84, the European Commission proposed a number of axes for improvement within the existing framework, including strengthening the efficiency of the penalties and their supervision by national authorities. In line with this commitment and in order to obtain a full overview of how the rights of PRM are respected, the Commission requested NEBs to provide information on complaints received in 2010-2012 relating to Regulation 1107/2006.

The number of complaints reported by NEBs is relatively low. This might have several reasons: Complaints under Regulation 1107/2006 in most cases affect individual passengers, whereas complaints under Regulation 261/2004 mostly cover incidents experienced by a number of passengers in the same situation and in the same airplane, notably in the case of delays and cancellations. Individual passengers' complaints need first to be addressed directly to the airline company and/or to the airport managing body involved and might already be settled at this level. As a result, they might not even reach the level of NEBs. Another reason for the relatively low numbers is a low rate of awareness among PRMs about their rights when travelling. In this regard, in June 2012, the European Commission published interpretative guidelines to facilitate and improve the application of Regulation 1107/200685 and continues raising awareness by several actions including an Information campaign on passenger rights with particular attention to PRM passengers86. Finally, in view of the specific difficulties that PRM passengers are still facing in air transport, complicated and time-consuming complaint handling procedures might dissuade them from lodging a complaint.

The data show that the use of measures such as monitoring and inspections by NEB is increasing during the reporting period. Although this seems to indicate that some NEBs actively take initiatives to improve the enforcement of PRMs' rights, more needs to be done by the majority of NEBs.

83 Article 1 (1)

84 COM(2011) 166 final

85

73.

SWD(2012)171 final


86

2.1. Complaint handling 2010

In 2010, 128 complaints were received by the NEBs and, in addition, 93 information requests on the matter. A single complaint often covers several incidents and, therefore, the overall number of complaints often does not correspond to the sum of the complaints split by the relevant causes. The most frequent ground for lodging a complaint is 'other at the airport': this covers incidents such as the lack of transmission of pre-notification information to the air carrier, problems with assistance dogs at departure or arrival and other unlisted inconveniences suffered at airports and makes 31% of the overall complaints. Inadequate or lack of assistance at the airport also makes a great proportion of total complaints (18%).

The percentage of the cases closed after examination is rather high (74%). Only 1 case out of 128 (less than 1%) was actually engaged for sanctioning by NEBs in line with their enforcement obligations under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 1107/2006. Some other measures such as audits, airport inspections and provision of information on media were undertaken by the national authorities to enforce PRMs' rights when travelling by air.

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport87
Other with the

air carrier88
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases

engaged

for

sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
AT00000000000--
BE10001000010--
BGNo information provided
CH100001000101 closedAudits, checks, website sweeps, information to press/media, meetings with stakeholders, warnings
CY00000000000-7

36

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport89
Other with the

air carrier90
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases

engaged

for

sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
CZ00000000000-Web sites checks
DE1400111200800-0
DK30003000030--
EE00000000000-0
ES11110203502110--
FI00000000000--
FR1132140100109101lInterviews are given in the press, radio and television regularly, information on the website
GR400121000400-
HU00000000000--
IE213111012120-5 Inspections, on-going monitoring of OAC & Airport Websites
CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport93
Other with the

air carrier94
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases

engaged

for

sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
IS00000000000--
IT451969 9598 96265450-42

37

LT00000000000-6 inspections of airports
LU00000000000--
LV0000000000000
MT05000000000-7
NL10100000000--
PL20002000000--
PT3232100003101711 appeal phase7
RO00000000000--
SE1~10000001010-2 meetings with disability organisations and the industry, inspection of 5 airports, market survey of 18 airlines’ contract terms
SI00000000000--
SK00000000000--
CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport97
Other with the

air carrier98
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases

engaged

for

sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
UK99-------------
Total1289311

9%
25

20%
23

18%
15

12%
9

7%
40

31%
16

13%
95

74%
1

1%

38

2.2. Complaint handling 2011

A slight decrease of complaints falling under Regulation (EC) 1107/2006 in 2011 (13%) is recorded. The same decrease can be observed as regards information requests. The most frequent reason for lodging complaints remains 'other at the airport', e.g. lack of transmission of pre-notification information to the air carrier, problems with assistance dogs at departure or on arrival and similar issues. The second biggest proportion of complaints (20%) is linked to inadequate or lack of assistance at the airport. A single complaint often covers several incidents and therefore the overall number of complaints often does not correspond to the sum of the complaints split according to the relevant causes.

Measures such as monitoring and inspections were used more frequently when comparing 2011 to 2010..

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport100
Other with the

air carrier101
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
AT00000000000--
BE30101100020--
BGNo information provided
CH200101000202 closedAudits, checks, website sweeps, information to press/media, meetings with stakeholders, warnings
CY00000000000-10
CZ1000000000

0%
0

0%
-Web sites checks
DE140262400600-1
DK30201000030--

39

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport102
Other with the

air carrier103
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
EE00000000000-0
ES16161144402160--
FI00000000000--
FR141214101114 1040-3 cases were transferred to another NEB as out of

jurisdiction, interviews are given in the press, radio and television regularly, information on the website
GR00000000000--
HU1100000105

1
010--
IE521013211450-8 Inspections, on-going monitoring of OAC & airport websites
IS00000000000--
IT1971214 106236191Closed14

40

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport107
Other with the

air carrier108
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
LT00000000000-2 inspections at airports
LV00000000000--
LU00000000000--
MT1310000011004
NL30211001130--
PL20002000000--
PT222200000220190--
RO400030100400-
SE1~10000001010-2 meetings with disability organisations and the industry, inspection of 9 airports and 3 air carriers,

published report based on market survey in 2010
SI00000000000-1 inspection
SK00000000000--
109

UK
-------------
Total1118112

11%
13

12%
22

20%
17

15%
8

7%
30

27%
21

19%
90

81%
1

1%

41

2.3. Complaint handling 2012

The significant increase in the number of complaints (by 148%) as well as of information requests received in 2012 is directly related to the fact that in that year, the United Kingdom started to provide the European Commission with its statistical data on the matter. Information was only available since the British Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) took over complaint handling from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on 1 October 2011. Furthermore, Norway started gathering and reporting its statistical data on complaints related to Regulation 1107/2006 in 2012. The remaining number of complaints (having deducted the complaints from the Norwegian and the British NEBs) remains stable in comparison with 2010 and 2011.

In June 2012, the European Commission published Interpretative Guidelines on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006110. The Commission committed itself to providing these guidelines before the start of the 2012 Paralympic Games in London. In view of the fact that the Commission has not been provided with statistical data of complaints received by the UK NEB for the previous years it is impossible to establish whether any increase in the number of complaints was due to the Paralympic Games and to identify the effects that the above guidelines might have had on the exercise of PRMs' rights under the Regulation.

As regards the most frequent causes of complaints, even though inadequate or lack of assistance at the airport (34%) and 'other at the airport' (33%) remain the main causes, the greatest part of the complaints (41%) were lodged for 'other with carrier' reasons, such as lack of 'toll-free' pre-notification tools, lack of transmission of pre-notification information to the airport, refusal to carry assistance dogs etc. A single complaint often covers several incidents and therefore the overall number of complaints often does not correspond to the sum of the complaints split according to the relevant causes.

42

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport111
Other with the

air carrier112
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
AT00000000000--
BE50203000040--
BGNo information provided
CH300001011303 closedAudits, checks, website sweeps, information to press/media, meetings with stakeholders, warnings
CY10011000010-10
CZ00000000000-2 inspections at the airports
DE110024505500-2
DK70213010070--
EE00000000000-0
ES1919310025191931-
FI40111100040-2

43

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport113
Other with the

air carrier114
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
FR196307002119 1150-Interviews are given in the press, radio and television regularly, information on the website
GR100001000100-
HU00000000000--
IE916213211560-6 Inspections, on-going monitoring of OAC & airport websites
IS00000000000--

44

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport116
Other with the

air carrier117
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
IT9811320119002 Airport Managing Body Audits, Adoption of Standards for Airport Managing Body websites, New dedicated leaflet and a new area in the ENAC website, 4 meetings with stakeholders, information day in cooperation with ECC Net at six national airports, Survey through 953 questionnaires conceived and delivered by ENAC Officers at six national airports during two campaigns, institutional box at the PRM dedicated exhibition REATECH Italy, project for an APP about PRMs rights in the air transport field

45

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport118
Other with the

air carrier119
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
LT00000000000-3 inspections of information provided to PRM in the websites of airports, participation in the working group of the Ministry of Transport and Communications preparing the “Guidelines for Improvement of Communication for People with Special Needs”: providing proposals thereto as well as notes to the prepared draft thereof
LV0000000000000
LU00000000000--

46

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport120
Other with the

air carrier121
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
MT1000100000000
NL31000000220--
NO50050000050--
PL10001000000--
PT151500000150100-2
RO30003000000--

47

CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport122
Other with the

air carrier123
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
SE3~5101000120-1 meeting with disability organisations and the industry, updated websites with information to passengers regarding the regulation and the assistance given by air carriers and airports and Swedish

translation of Doc 30, inspections of 10 airports, initiated proceedings against 15 airlines regarding unfair contract terms
CountryComplaints

received in

total
Number of

enquiries /

information

requests
Difficulties

arising

during

booking

(refusal of

reservation,

organising

assistance

etc.)
Lack of assistance/ inadequate assistance (on board

aircraft)
Lack of

assistance/

inadequate

assistance

(at the

airport)
Denied BoardingLoss or damage of

mobility

equipment

(on board/

at the

airport)
Other

at the

airport124
Other with the

air carrier125
Number of cases closedNumber of

cases engaged for sanctioning
Status of sanctions (closed, pending, collected)Other measures

(monitoring, inspections etc.)
SI00000000000--
SK00000000000--

48

UK156118342462886078156204 pending 16 closed35
Total27518849

18%
37

13%
93

34%
20

7%
12

4%
90

33%
113

41%
248

90%
23

8%

49

2.4. Evolution of the total number of complaints received in 2010-2012

127

74.

300 250 200 150 100 50


t-----------------------r

75.

2010 2011 2012


0

2.5.

76.

2010


Evolution of distribution between grounds for lodging complaints in

2010-2012128

77.

2011


78.

2012


2.6. Evolution of the total number of complaints received by different NEBs in 2010-2012129

BE

CH

CY

CZ

DE

DK

ES

FI

FR

GR

HU

IE

IT

MT

3 -
'Ny
1 -
0 -
20 L020112012

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

Disregarding the countries that have received only one complaint on the basis of Regulation 1107/2006 within the period of three years, a continuous increase of complaints can be observed with the exception of Germany, Greece, Poland, Portugal and Romania.

In the overall period covered, the United Kingdom received most of the complaints (156), followed by Italy (73) and Portugal (69).

2.7. Designation of NEBs

CountryOrganisation
ATFederal Ministry of Transport, Innovation & Technology; Civil Aviation Authority - department passenger rights
BE- Belgian Civil Aviation is responsible for enforcement of Regulation regarding Air Carriers and Brussels Airport

- 'Departement Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken' is responsible for enforcement of Regulation regarding the regional airports under the jurisdiction of the Flemish Region

- 'Service public de Wallonie, Direction générale opérationnelle de la Mobilité et des Voies hydrauliques' is responsible for enforcement of Regulation regarding the regional airports under the jurisdiction of the Walloon Region
BGCivil Aviation Administration130
CHFederal Office of Civil Aviation, FOCA
CYDepartment of Civil Aviation
CZCivil Aviation Administration – Legal Department
DELuftfahrt-Bundesamt
DKDanish Transport Authority
EEConsumer Protection Board of Estonia
ESAgencia Estatal De Seguridad Aerea (AESA)
FIThe Finnish Transport Safety Agency
FR- Direction générale de l’aviation civile

- Ministère chargé du tourisme (for travel agencies)
GRHellenic Civil Aviation Authority
HU- In charge of enforcement: National Transport Authority Aviation Authority (Hungarian CAA) – Nemzeti Közlekedési Hatóság Légügyi Hivatal

- In charge of complaints handling: The Equal Treatment Authority – Egyenlő Bánásmód Hatóság
IECommission for Aviation Regulation (responsible for both complaint handling and enforcement)
ISIcelandic Civil Aviation Administration
ITENAC Italian Civil Aviation Organization
LTCivil Aviation Administration
LUDirection de l’Aviation Civile
LVCivil Aviation Agency of Latvia, Aircraft Operations Division Cabin Safety Section
MTCivil Aviation Directorate, Transport Malta
NLInspectie Leefomgeving en Transport/Civil Aviation (CAA NL); Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
NON-CAA
PLCivil Aviation Authority of the Republic of Poland
PTCivil Aviation Authority – INAC, I.P.
RO- Department for Protection of Persons with Disabilities, Department under the coordination of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly Persons – for the Regulations 1107/2006, except the provision of article 8

- Independent administration 'Romanian Civil Aeronautical Administration' – for the provision of article 8 of Regulation 1107/2006
SE- Swedish Consumer Agency
CountryOrganisation
SICivil Aviation Agency
SK- The Slovak Trade Inspection, Central Inspectorate (responsible for enforcement of Regulation regarding airport operators)

- The Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (responsible for enforcement of Regulation regarding air carriers)
UKCivil Aviation Authority (CAA took over complaint handling from Equality and Human Rights Commission on 01/10/2012)

It should be noted that the majority of the Member States have designated the same NEB for the enforcement of both, Regulation 261/2004 and Regulation 1107/2006. However, some countries have appointed different NEBs for Regulation 1107/2006: Czech Republic, Finland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovakia

In some countries, the NEBs designated for Regulation 261/2004 and Regulation 1107/2006 are the same and they are reinforced by several authorities supplementing their powers in respect of Regulation 1107/2006: Belgium (Departement Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken and Service public de Wallonie, Direction générale opérationnelle de la Mobilité et des Voies hydrauliques), France (Ministère chargé du tourisme pour les agences de voyages), Hungary (the Equal Treatment Authority – Egyenlő Bánásmód Hatóság) and Sweden (Swedish Transport Agency).

2.8. Sanctions

2.8.1. National legislation on enforcement and sanctions

CountryLegislation
AT131Art. 169 of the Luftfahrtgesetz (Air traffic Act)
BE- Criminal penalties: Article 32 of the Law of 27 June 1937 regarding review of the law of 16 November 1919 concerning the organization of aviation

- Administrative penalties: Article 45 of the Law of 27 June 1937 regarding review of the law of 16 November 1919 concerning the organization of aviation

- Civil penalties: Articles 1382 and 1383 Belgian Civil Code
BG132- Art. 81a and 143 of the Civil Aviation Act

- Art. 34 and following of the Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act
CHArt. 91 Abs. 4 Bundesgesetz über die Luftfahrt (Luftfahrtgesetz, LFG)
CYLaw N213/2002 Civil Aviation Law, articles 245 and 246
CZCivil Aviation Act No 49/1997
DE- § 63 d Luftverkehrszulassungsordnung (LuftVZO)

- § 58 section 1 number 13 in conjunction with § 32 section 5a Luftverkehrsgesetz

(LuftVG)

- § 108 section 4 LuftVZO in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006

- Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz (OWiG), Strafprozessordnung (StPO)
DKNational regulation No 9-20 of 23 June 2011 regarding sanctions for violation of some EU-Regulations regarding aviation (passenger rights)
EE- Consumer Protection Act

- Aviation Act

Countr

Legislation

ES

- Aviation Security Law (Law 21/2003), as amended by the Law Establishing the State Programme for Operational Safety in Civil Aviation and modifying Law 21/2003 (Law 1/2011).

- Royal Decree 1544/2007 of November 23, regulating the basic conditions of accessibility and non-discrimination access and use of transport modes for people with disabilities

FI

Aviation Act (1194/2009) 16:157 §: The Finnish Transport Safety Agency may, so as to make an order or prohibition issued on the basis of this Act or Community regulations more effective, impose conditional fines or orders of execution or suspension as provided for in the Conditional Fine Act (1113/1990).

FR

Code de l’aviation civile

GR

79.

Aviation Law 1815/1988


HU

PL

- From 01.02.2012: Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative proceedings and services Article 169/I

- Before 01.02.2012: Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and Promotion of Equal Opportunities Article 16

- Government Decree No 362/2004. (XII.26.). on the Equal Treatment Authority and the Detailed Rules of its Procedure Article 14/A.-14/B

IEStatutory Instrument No 299 of 2008
ISAviation Act No 60/1998, article 136
ITLegislative Decree 24th February 2009, No 24
LTThe Code of Administrative Violations of the Republic of Lithuania, Article

115(3)
LULaw of 5 June 2009
LVAdministrative Violations Code
MTCivil Aviation (Rights of Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations – Subsidiary Legislation 499
NLWet luchtvaart and General Administrative Law Act (Awb)
NONorwegian Aviation Act

- Art. 205a par. 1 of the Aviation Law (Journal of Law of 2012 r., item 933 and 951)

- Art. 205b par.2 of the Aviation Law (Journal of Law of 2012 r., item 933 and 951)

- Art. 209b par.1 of the Aviation Law (Journal of Law of 2012 r., item 933 and 951)

PT

80.

Decree-Law No 254/2012, of 28 November 2012


RO

Government Decision No 787/2007 establishing measures to ensure the application of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 regarding the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility travelling by air

SE

- Swedish Act on Air Transport (2010:510)

- Swedish Aviation Act (2010:500) Chapter 12 Section 2

- Swedish Aviation Ordinance (2010:770) Chapter 12 Section 2

SI

Regulation on accomplishment of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (Official Gazzette No 106/2010)

SK

81.

Act No 250/2007 Call. of Law on Consumer Protection


UK

82.

Civil Aviation (Access To Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with


2.8.2. Type and level of sanctions which can be imposed

Country

Type and Level (in case of pecuniary sanctions)

AT

133

83.

EUR 22 000


BE

NL

- Criminal penalties: imprisonment of 1 year and a fine of EUR 24 000 000 (year 2012)

- Administrative penalties: a fine of EUR 24 000 000 (year 2012)

- Civil penalties: the principle for the sanction under civil procedures is integral reparation

BG134EUR 5 000
CHCHF 20 000 (~EUR 16 189)
CY~ EUR 8 500 administrative fine or 10% of an air carrier's annual turnover
CZCZK 5 000 000 (~EUR 194 090)
DEEUR 25 000
DKNone
EEEUR 3 200
ES- Minor infractions: up to EUR 70 000

- Serious infractions: up to EUR 250 000

- Very serious infractions: up to EUR 4 500 000
FINo maximum amount of sanction, depends i.a. on the size of the company
FREUR 7 500 per infringement (doubling is possible for a subsequent offense within one year); no ceiling per airline
GRUp to EUR 250 000
HUHUF 6 000 000 (~EUR 20 470)
IE- On summary conviction: EUR 5 000

- On conviction on indictment: EUR 150 000
ISISK 10 000 000 (~EUR 60 000)
IT- EUR 120 000 on an airline

- EUR 40 000 on an airport managing body
LTLTL 3 000 (~EUR 869)
LUEUR 10 000
LVLVL 700 (~EUR 1 000)
MTEUR 2 329.37

If the number of irreparable infringements exceeds 40, within the period of a calendar year, the airline will be sanctioned with an administrative fine of:

- EUR 15 000 of confirmed infringement number 41

- EUR 30 000 of confirmed infringement number 42

- EUR 60 000 of confirmed infringement number 43

- Each EUR 74 000 of confirmed infringement from number 44 and higher

NO

84.

None


PL

PLN 8 000 (~EUR 1 910)

PT

- Light misdemeanours: EUR 3 000

- Serious misdemeanours: EUR 10 000

- Very serious misdemeanours: EUR 250 000

RO

RON 2 500 (~EUR 563)

SE

85.

There is no limit


SI

86.

EUR 60 000


SK EUR 66 387.84 and up to EUR 165 969.59 for a repeated violation within 12

Country Type and Level (in case of pecuniary sanctions)

UK

- Article 8(2) – maximum fine of GBP 1 000 (EUR 1 180)

- Articles 4(3), 5(2), 6, 7(1), (2), (3), (5) or (6), 8(6), 9(1) or (3), 10, or 11 – maximum fine of GBP 5 000 (EUR 5 904)

- Articles 3, 4(1) or (4), 5(1), 8(1) or (5) or 13 – either a maximum fine of GBP 5 000 (EUR 5 904) or an unlimited fine depending on which court hears the case

In most of the Member States the penalties laid down in the national laws for infringements of Regulation 1107/2006 are the same as for infringements of Regulation 261/2004 with the exception of Greece (more than eighty times higher for the maximum sanction), Hungary (three times higher for the maximum sanction), Italy (more than twice higher sanction on an airline and a lower sanction on an airport managing body), Luxembourg (five times lower for the maximum sanction), Malta (more than twice lower for the maximum sanction), Poland (definite maximum sanction whereas there is no ceiling for sanctions in respect to the Regulation 261/2004), Slovenia (almost twice higher for the maximum sanction) and the United Kingdom (lower maximum sanction).

The range of maximum sanctions provided for by national legislation (disregarding MS where there is no maximum amount set) reaches from EUR 24 000 000 in Belgium to EUR 563 in Romania and is the same as for Regulation 261/2004.

An average maximum sanction, excluding Belgium and Spain as these MS have maximum sanctions that widely exceed the next highest maximum sanction, is ~ EUR 53 913. This amount exceeds by ~EUR 10 000 the average maximum sanction fixed for infringements of Regulation 261/2004.

Annex I - Quantitative Data on Delay and Cancellation

1.

Comparison of all delays

The data on which the graphics below are based has been provided by Eurocontrol. In order to analyse flight delay data in the light of the relevant provisions of Regulation 261/2004, the number of flights experiencing long delays are divided into short-haul flights (less than 1 500km), medium-haul flights (between 1 500km and 3 500km) and long-haul flights (more than 3 500km).

The total number of flights in Europe in 2010-2012 was 29.8 million135. This number increased on average by 28% when compared to the data of the previous statistical document covering the period 2006-2009.

The table below shows delays of at least 2 hours, at least 3 hours, at least 4 hours and at least 5 hours. These durations reflect the different trigger point related to the different rights passengers are entitled to under Regulation 261/2004136. The chart below thus indicates the point in time when the passengers are actually entitled to certain rights under Regulation 261/2004 in a simplified form.

Figures for delays of at least 2 hours will represent flights delayed by 2 hours or more and will therefore include 3, 4 and 5 hour delays as well. Similarly, figures for delays of at least 3 hours will represent flights delayed by 3 hours or more, and will therefore include 4 and 5 hour delays.

87.

Long-haul


Medium-haul

Short-haul

Reimbursement

Compensation

Care

88.

0123456


delay in hours

1.1. Proportion of total flights departing from EU airports that experienced long delays at departure in 2007-2012

2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%

t


Percentage of flights with departure delay > 2 hours

Percentage of flights with departure delay > 3 hours

Percentage of flights with departure delay > 5 hours

89.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Whereas the period covered by the previous statistical document (2007-2009) showed that on average less than 1.2% of flights potentially fell under the scope of the provisions of Regulation 261/2004 on long delays (i.e. where flights are delayed by at least 2 hours), with the exception of 2010 this proportion has dropped to less than 1% (0.94% in 2011 and 0.90% in 2012). This shows that the overall number of delayed flights decreased in the reporting period and thus indicates a better performance by the air transport industry. 2010 was exceptional due to particularly severe weather conditions and, notably, the ash cloud crisis. Eurocontrol's report 'Ash cloud of April and May 2010: Impact on Air Traffic' indicates that 'the airspace closures in Europe resulting from the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano from 14 April 2010 led to the disruption of some 100,000 flights and 10 million passenger journeys'137. Under the exceptional effect of the above reasons the number of flights falling under the scope of Regulation 261/2004 reached 1.86% in 2010.

These figures include two hour delays on short, medium and long-haul flights. Since the right to care after two hours only applies to short-haul flights (it applies after 3 and 4 hours for medium and long-haul flights respectively), the proportion of total flights triggering obligations under the Regulation is therefore likely to be lower.

Passengers may be entitled to compensation for flights where delay in arrival is 3 hours or more and when the delay is not due to extraordinary circumstances. According to the data available, within the period concerned and again with the exception of 2010, this potentially affected less than 0.4% of all flights in 2011-2012 (those which were delayed for more than 3 hours). In fact, this figure is an overestimate because it represents all delays, including those caused by extraordinary circumstances (in which case the obligation to offer compensation does not apply).

The proportion of flights affected by the obligation of Regulation 261/2004 to offer reimbursement for long delays, including the exceptional year 2010, is on average 0.176% (0.273% for 2010, 0.130% for 2011 and 0.125% for 2012).

1.2. Proportion of departing flights of less than 1 500 km (short-haul) that were delayed in 2007-2012

1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%


/

^

f


n>

ff

\

V

n?

ff

:v

V

90.

Right to care


Right to compensation (€250)

91.

Right to reimbursement


Passengers are entitled to care after 2 hours, to

compensation after 3 hours and

reimbursement after 5 hours

1.3. Proportion of departing flights between 1 500 and 3 500 km (medium-haul) that were delayed in 2007-2012

1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%

92.

Right to care


Right to compensation (€400)

93.

Right to reimbursement


Passengers are entitled to care and

compensation after 3 hours and

reimbursement after 5 hours

^ #* ^ ^ <$> ^

V V 'V °T V 'V

1.4. Proportion of departing flights of more than 3 500 km (long-haul) that were delayed in 2007-2012

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

mm

1^ r^ r^ r^ r^ r^ i

94.

Right to care


Right to compensation (€600)

95.

Right to reimbursement


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

reimbursement after 5 hours

SA #% ^ ^ <S> ^

'v V v °^ 'V 'V


9 (right to care) of Regulation 261/2004. The first graph relates to short-haul flights, the second graph to medium-haul flights and the third graph to long-haul flights. Regarding the right to compensation, it must be noted that only a percentage of the total number of flights listed below actually led to the right to compensation, since all flights whose delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances are excluded from the application of Article 7.

Taking into account the exceptional character of 2010, the following estimations regarding long delays will only concern the period of 2011-2012. From the given data, the respective provisions of Regulation 261/2004 may apply to 0.72% of the short-haul flights (for comparison, 0.91% in 2007-2009 and 1.44% in 2010), 0.65% of the medium-haul flights (0.87% in 2007-2009 and 1.29% in 2010) and 0.78% of long-haul flights (0.98% in 2007-2009 and 1.37% in 2010). Over the period 2010-2012 (including 2010) passengers were entitled to:

- care on 1.23% of all flights;

- reimbursement on at least 0.71% of long-haul flights compared to less than 0.1% of short-haul flights and 0.31% of medium-haul flights;

- compensation on potentially 1.55% of long-haul flights compared to 0.37% of short-haul and 0.86% for medium-haul flights.

However, this should be an overestimate. These graphs present information on all long delays for departing flights based on the available information and therefore include data on flights that may have been delayed due to 'extraordinary circumstances' in case of which carriers do not have to pay compensation. Furthermore, this also captures delay upon departure, yet the right to compensation only applies to three hour delays upon arrival. Some flights that are delayed by three hours upon departure may reduce the length of delay during flight and therefore may, upon arrival, fall outside the scope of the obligation to pay compensation. And inversely, some flights may depart with less than three hours delay and arrive at destination with more than three hours delay (e.g. when the aircraft must circle the destination airport because of air traffic restrictions).

2. Comparison of cancellations

The information on cancelled flights for the previous years is based on estimations by Eurocontrol (comparison of published schedules with recorded scheduled flights). The estimates for the previous periods covered by the previous statistical document varied around 1% of the scheduled flights and increased around three times in 2010 due to the ash cloud crisis and severe weather conditions that mark this particular year138.

Eurocontrol only started in 2011 to collect specific data on cancelled flights. Data is therefore not complete yet. Preliminary data indicate that for the period covered by the present statistical document the cancellation rate ranges around 1-1.5% of the overall flights..