Changes from adopted text to adopted text

RemovedP10_TA(2026)0009

AddedP10_TA(2026)0238

Air passenger rights

RemovedCommittee on Transport and Tourism

AddedEuropean Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee

RemovedPE778.081

AddedPE790.161

ChangedEuropean Parliament legislative resolution of 217 JanuaryJuly 2026 on the Council position at first reading withjoint atext viewapproved toby the adoptionConciliation ofCommittee for a Regulationregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air (10015/1/2025(PE-CONS 00039/2026 – C10-0228/2025C10-0144/2026 – 2013/0072(COD))

Changed(Ordinary legislative procedure: secondthird reading)

The European Parliament,

Changed– having regard to the Counciljoint positiontext atapproved firstby readingthe (10015/1/2025Conciliation Committee (PE-CONS 00039/2026 – C10-0228/2025),C100144/2026),

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 July 2013,

– after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

Removed– having regard to the opinion of the Commission (COM(2025)0630),

– having regard to its position at first reading on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0130),

Changed– having regard to theits guidelinesposition ofat thesecond Committeereading on Transport and Tourism of 13 October 2025 pursuant to Rule 74the ofCouncil itsposition Rulesat offirst Procedure,reading,

Changed– having regard to Articlethe 294(7)Commission’s ofopinion theon TreatyParliament’s onamendments to the FunctioningCouncil ofposition theat Europeanfirst Union,reading (COM(2026)0129),

Changed– having regard to Rule 68the ofCouncil itsposition Rulesat ofsecond Procedure,reading,

Changed– having regard to the recommendation for secondArticle reading294(13) of the CommitteeTreaty on Transportthe andFunctioning Tourismof (A10-0001/2026),the European Union,

Change 1

Removed1. Adopts its position at second reading hereinafter set out;

Added– having regard to Rule 79 of its Rules of Procedure,

Removed2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Added– having regard to the report of its delegation to the Conciliation Committee (A10-0191/2026),

RemovedP10_TC2-COD(2013)0072

Added1. Approves the joint text;

RemovedPosition of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 21 January 2026 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2026/... of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air

Added2. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Removed(Text with EEA relevance)

Added3. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

RemovedTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Added4. Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

RemovedHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) thereof,

RemovedHaving regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

RemovedAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,

RemovedHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,

RemovedAfter consulting the Committee of the Regions,

RemovedActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

RemovedWhereas:

Removed(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 have significantly contributed to protecting the rights of air passengers when their travel plans are disrupted by denied boarding, long delays, cancellations or mishandled baggage.

Removed(1a) The Union legislator confirms the aims expressed by Recitals 1 and 4 for EU legislation in the field of air transport to ensure a high level of protection for passengers, to fully take into account the requirements of consumer protection in general and to raise the standards of protection set by this Regulation. This should be done by strengthening the rights of air passengers, by improving legal certainty for both air passengers and air carriers and by codifying the main rulings of the Court of Justice in its interpretation of Regulation No 261/2004, as well as by ensuring that air carriers operate under harmonised conditions in a liberalised market. This also means that standards of protection set by Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 should in no way be downgraded. Accordingly, the full potential of air passenger rights, as protected under Regulations (EC) No 261/2004 and (EC) No 2027/97, should be realised and a more effective, efficient and consistent application of such rights should be ensured across the Union, while taking into account the interests of air carriers and continuing to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers. [Am. 1]

Removed(2) A number of shortcomings, revealed during the implementation of the rights under Regulations (EC) No 261/2004 and (EC) No 2027/97, have however prevented the full potential of those rights in terms of passenger protection from being realised. In order to ensure a more effective, efficient and consistent application of air passenger rights across the Union, a series of adjustments to the current legal framework is required. This was underlined in the communication from the Commission of 27 October 2010 entitled ‘EU Citizenship Report 2010 Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights’ which announced measures to ensure a set of common rights notably for air passengers and the adequate enforcement of these rights.

Removed(3) The study on the current level of protection of air passenger rights in the EU mandated and published by the Commission in 2020 (hereafter ‘the steer study’) showed that passengers’claims that the main priority of passengers is to be provided with assistance in the event of travel disruption and to be offered rerouting so that they arrive at their destination as soon as possible. The To this end, the steer study showedshows that the payment of compensation comes third out of the three options provided in terms of the priorities of passengers’. However, it cannot be inferred from this study that the payment of compensation would rank low in the priorities of passengers, for three reasons. First, the question design already carries a significant bias, narrowing down possible outcomes, as the three options given to the respondents are not comparable in their nature. While two of the options (assistance, rerouting) promise immediate relief from an urgent problem (flight disruption), the third option (compensation) is less immediate and less urgent by its nature. Compensation under this. On the other hand, the Study also showed that the absolute and relative costs incurred by air carriers through the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 have grownseeks to redress damage suffered as a consequence of a disruption, with a payment that helps the passenger in the long run, rather than solving the immediate problem (via assistance or rerouting). It is only natural that the average respondent ranks as third the least urgent and immediate of the three options (compensation). However, it would be logically and statistically invalid to conclude from this ranking that receiving compensation would be of significantly since 2011 which could result in a restrictionlower importance to the passenger. Second, the question design of the Study creates an artificial obligation on the number of routes operated or a reduction in connectivity offered by air carriers torespondent of having to choose between three options and ranking them, while in the current reality of Regulation 261/2004, those three options co-exist without being mutually exclusive in any way. Third, the ranking of the steer study derives from interaction with consumers and passenger organisations and desk research, and is not based on a comprehensive passenger survey. Therefore, in order to escape the bias of the question design and the methodology of the steer study, it is worth consulting further representative polls on air passengers’ opinions with regard to receiving compensation under this regulation. A statistical survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) in 2018 of 10 350 randomly chosen citizens from ten Member States, showed the “right to compensation in the event of cancellations or denied boarding” in second place with 39.6% out of ten options out of which passengers were to select three rights which they “regard as most important”, while the preferred option, being the “right to receive alternative transport in the event of long delays, cancellations or denied boarding”, was only marginally higher, at 41.7 %long term. Given this negligible difference, no real order of preference should be deduced from these two closely ranking options. In a YouGov poll commissioned by a claims agency, conducted in spring 2025, of 3059 citizens in Germany, Spain and Denmark, 70% of respondents insisted on keeping the current compensation rule, stressing that passengers should not lose rights for a marginal cost saving, while only 14% preferred saving an assumed 1 EUR on the ticket price. Even the industry association Airlines for Europe (A4E) concludes from their own YouGov poll, reflecting the views of more than 6,000 consumers in five Member States, that “75% of passengers who have flown in the past 12 months support sticking to current compensation levels”. This evidence supports the decision of the Union legislator in the context of the revision of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 should therefore focus particularly onnot to downgrade any existing passengers’ rights to compensation, along with other equally important rights to assistance and rerouting. Both categories of rights examined in the above evidence, “compensation” and “assistance and rerouting”, have to be considered as whole and must not be artificially opposed one to the other. The, while taking into account economic incentives of air carriers and impactsthe impact on connectivity can be fully taken into account, while at the same time preserving existing air passengers’ rights and a high level of consumer protection. [Am. 2]

Removed(3a) In line with the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, an independent peer-reviewed study from 2023 provides robust evidence that the Regulation in its current form is effective in reducing average flight delay times. It finds that this impact is clearly economically important in magnitude and is independent of air carriers’ decisions on scheduled flight duration. It confirms that statistically, the hypothesis of no impact can be very firmly rejected. It insists that its results hold for other measures of flight punctuality (arrival delay and share of ‘‘ontime flights’’), and is robust to alternative specifications. Moreover, it finds that the current Regulation is most effective at delay reduction on routes where competition is low. It underlines that from an economic perspective, the compensation scheme under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies the principle that liability should be borne by the party best placed to prevent and manage it at the lowest cost. Air carriers, rather than passengers, would retain control over punctuality through scheduling, maintenance planning, crew and aircraft rotations, and disruption-recovery strategies. By tying liability to arrival delay at the final destination, the Regulation would provide necessary economic incentives for air carriers to reduce the occurrence of long delays and cancellations. The findings of this study support the Union legislator's decision to maintain and render explicit the common three-hour threshold for compensation in the event of cancellation or a long delay, the current compensation levels and distance thresholds: ensuring that the current level of protection of passenger rights is not downgraded is effective in increasing connectivity and maintaining economic incentives for air carriers. [Am. 3]

Removed(4) Passengers travelling on a flight covered by Public Service Obligations, either at a full or at a reduced fare, should be subject to the same rights under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.

Removed(5) In order to increase legal certainty for air carriers and passengers, a definition of The concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is needed, which takes into account the judgmenthas been subject to abundant case law of the Court of Justice in Case C-549/07 (Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA) (‘judgment in Case C-549/07’) on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’. Greater clarity should be clarified through non-exhaustive lists of circumstances that constituteprovided on what constitutes extraordinary circumstances to allow air passenger rights to be effectively and consistently enforced. In the light of the case law, events whose origin is ’internal’ should be distinguished from those whose origin is ’external’ to the operating air carrier. Events should be considered external when they arise from circumstances beyond the air carrier’s control and result from a natural event or an act of a third party. Such external events should be generally qualified asor that do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. The CommissionEvents that do not meet these criteria should reviewbe deemed internal and should not be qualified as extraordinary circumstances. Such distinction should be further clarified by means of an exhaustive list of circumstances that are clearly identified as capable of being considered as extraordinary. In order to amend the list of extraordinary circumstances every three years and propose, as, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of making additions, where necessary, to that list. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts,, to the European Parliament and the Council to update that list receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. [Am. 4]

Removed(5a) In accordance with the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The Court of Justice has provided more details on the meaning and limits of the obligation to take “reasonable measures” in its case-law. [Am. 5]

Removed(6) In its judgment in Case C-549/07 the Court of Justice held that an unexpected technical problem did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance, except when the unexpected technical problem arose from a hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft or by a competent authority, or damage to the aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism. However, in the light of experience gained and given the overriding importance of ensuring that the rights granted to passengers under this Regulation are not detrimental to safety, in certain conditions technical issues with certain equipment should constitute extraordinary circumstances. [Am. 6]

Removed(7) In its judgment in Joined Cases C-156/22, C-157/22 and C-158/22 (TAP Portugal v flightright GmbH and Myflyright GmbH) on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the Court of Justice held that an unexpected absence due to illness or even an unexpected death, shortly before the departure of a flight, of a crew member whose presence is essential to its operation did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Nonetheless, even though air carriers have the duty to take all reasonable measures to ensure replacement of the pilot, co-pilot or minimum required cabin crew, ensuring compliance with that obligation in practice outside the air carrier’s home bases requires considerable time and high financial cost. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the unexpected illness or death of a crew member whose presence is essential, for example when it occurs the day before the departure of the flight, outside the home bases of an air carriers should constitute an extraordinary circumstance. [Am. 7]

Removed(8) In its judgments in Cases C-28/20 (Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark – Norway – Sweden), C-195/17 (Helga Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH), C-613/20 (CS v Eurowings GmbH) and in its order in Case C-287/20 (EL and CP v Ryanair DAC) on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the Court of Justice held that strikes by staff of the air carrier did not constitute extraordinary circumstances. Nonetheless, when a strike occurs, certain demands made by airline staff do not fall within the remit of the air carrier and are outside its control, such as changes to the retirement age or to financial contributions that can only be addressed by public authorities. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that certain strikes by airline staff should constitute extraordinary circumstances. [Am. 8]

Removed(9) In its judgment in Case C-173/07 (Emirates Airlines – Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel) on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the Court of Justice held that concept of a ‘flight’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 was not defined but the Court of Justice interpreted it as consisting essentially of an air transport operation, as a ‘unit’ of such transport, performed by an air carrier which fixes its itinerary. In order to avoid uncertainty and in the light of experience gained, a clear definition of a ‘flight’ should now be provided, as well as the associated notions of a ‘connecting flight’ and a ‘journey’.

Removed(10) In its judgment in Case C-537/17 (Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA) on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the Court of Justice held that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applied to a part of any flight which was part of one journey, regardless of where the flight took place, including flights fully operated outside the Union. Building on this judgement and with the aim of establishing a level playing field, when either the initial point of departure is located in the territory of a Member States to which the Treaties apply, or, when the operating air carrier is a Union operating air carrier, when the final destination of the journey is located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaties apply, this Regulation should apply. [Am. 9]

Removed(11) The Study has shown varying levels of compliance with Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 by air carriers, with Union air carriers generally showing a higher level of compliance than third country air carriers. Therefore, restoring the level playing field between Union and third country air carriers and improving the economic sustainability of Union air carriers will support Union competitiveness and ultimately improve the protection of passengers overall.

Removed(11a) In the interest of fair international competition and in order to ensure that passengers are protected by a uniform and coherent framework of rights, Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 should apply to all journeys within the Union, as well as to all journeys departing from or arriving in the Union. [Am. 10]

Removed(12) Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognises the special characteristics of the outermost regions, in particular due to their remoteness. In light of experience gained with Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, it is necessary to ensure territorial connectivity for the outermost regions and enhance cohesion across the Union, which would ultimately benefit passengers. Due to the specific features of journeys between outermost regions and another territory of a Member State to which the Treaties apply, the amount of compensation should be determined on the basis of the actual distance of the journeys. [Am. 11]

Removed(13) Tickets are issued or authorised by an operating air carrier following the conclusion of an air transport contract with a passenger. They should be identifiable through a unique ticket number and contain a unique reference related to a single air transport contract issued at the time of booking. They should cover one flight or a connecting flight, without taking into account intermediate stops for technical and operational purposes. They should contain several pieces of information regarding that flight or that connecting flight such as the flight date, airports of departure and arrival, the scheduled times of departure and arrival, the passenger’s name, surname, the flight number and the name of the operating air carrier.

Removed(14) In its judgment in Case C-22/11 (Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy) on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the Court of Justice held that the concept of ‘denied boarding’ must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as for operational reasons. Passengers who have presented themselves for boarding and are denied boarding, or who have been informed in advance that they would be denied boarding, against their will, should be reimbursed and compensated without undue delay. [Am. 12]

Removed(15) At the same time, there are reasonable grounds to deny passengers boarding, such as health, safety, security or inadequate travel documentation. Air carriers have also reasonable grounds to deny boarding to passengers displaying unruly behaviour threatening the safety or security of a flight, as referred to in the amended Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft signed in Tokyo on 14 September 1963. In those cases, the operating air carrier should bear the burden of proof. [Am. 13]

Removed(16) In order to improve levels of protection, passengers should not be denied boarding on a return flight on the grounds that they did not take the outbound flight covered by the same air transport contract.

Removed(17) At present, passengers are sometimes charged punitive administrative fees for the correction of spelling mistakes in their names. Reasonable corrections of booking errors, or administrative changes, should be provided free of charge provided the correction or change sought would not result in a change of time of flight, date, itinerary or passenger.

Removed(18) In the case of a cancellation, the choice between receiving reimbursement, continuation of travel by rerouting or travel later on the same day or at a later date should be the decision of the passenger and not that of the air carrier. [Am. 14]