Henvendelse af 16/5-25 fra Forbrugerrådet Tænk til transportministeren vedr. forhandlinger om flypassagerers rettigheder

Brussels, 14 May 2025
Five European organisations call on Member States to uphold,clarify and strengthen
Air Passenger Rights — not weaken them
Every day, thousands of European passengers travel by air, hoping to reach their destination
safely and on time. When things do not go according to plan, passengers may need to exercise
some key rights which can prove lengthy, burdensome, and ineffective.
The current revision of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation should solve these issues.
Unfortunately, the current discussions might lead to a significant reduction of important
passengers' rights.
AGE-Platform Europe, BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, the Centre for
Consumer Protection in Europe, host of the European Consumer Centres France and Germany,
the European Passenger Federation (EPF) and European Disability Forum (EDF), recommend,
ahead of the COREPER meeting planned on 21st
May, to ensure that the reform of the Air
Passenger Rights Regulation strengthens passenger rights and their enforcement, and does not
diminish them.
1. Extraordinary Circumstances: alignment with European Court of Justice
(CJEU) case law is fundamental
Too often, airlines use “extraordinary circumstances” to avoid paying compensation. A non-
exhaustive list of such events is needed, but should reflect the settled case law of the Court
of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The current proposal discussed in the Council largely departs
from that jurisprudence.
Airline staff strikes, for example, are not extraordinary, as confirmed by the CJEU1
. They are
inherently linked to the carrier’s operations. Yet if allowed as an exemption, such strikes, which
are increasingly common, would leave thousands of passengers unprotected.
1
See Cases C-195/17 Krüsemann and Others, C-28/20 Airhelp, C-613/20 Eurowings and
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=c-195/17
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?lgrec=fr&td=%3BALL&language=en&num=C-28/20&jur=C
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-613/20
Offentligt
KOM (2013) 0130 - Bilag 12
Europaudvalget 2013
Moreover, given the major consequences for consumers, vague language like "circumstances
deemed to affect the flight" must be replaced with stricter criteria such as "incompatible with the
operation of the flight”.
Finally, carriers should proactively provide passengers with the reason behind the disruption
in writing within 14 days, and not only upon their request.
2. Compensation after a 3-hour flight delay should remain the rule
Current rules grant passengers compensation for long delays of 3 hours or more, based on key
CJEU rulings (Sturgeon, Nelson, Folkerts). This has become a cornerstone of passenger
protection. Raising the threshold to 5 and 9 hours — depending on flight distance — would
strip over 75% of currently eligible passengers. This is an unacceptable step back from the
current level of protection.
3. Choosing a refund should not deprive passengers of their compensation
rights
When a flight is cancelled or significantly delayed, passengers have the right to a refund or
rerouting - and in both cases, to compensation.
However, the proposed revision would remove theright to compensation for passengers who
choose a refund instead of rerouting. This is unfair. Passengers who cancel their journey still
suffer losses — time, money, and opportunities (e.g. missed events or business meetings), —
which compensation is meant to address.
In some cases, for consumers, rerouting may simply not be the adequate solution when their
entiretripbecomesobsoletedueto a flightdisruption.Suchproposal wouldcreate a difference
of treatment between passengers facing the same disruption and would undermine the goal
of the Regulation — ensuring a high level of protection for passengers.
4. Expanding the scope of the Regulation must not erode protection for
“connected flights”
We support extending the scope of application of the Regulation, but not at the expense of the
existing protection for connected flights. About 25% of complaints involve missed connections.
These journeys must continue to be covered, even if a flight segment is operated by a non-EU
airline outside the EU, in line with CJEU case law.
Instead of diminishing protection, non-EU carriers and intermediaries should be required to
appoint legal representatives in the EU, to ensure fair treatment between EU and non-EU
carriers, and better enforcement of passenger rights.
5. Better information obligation shall not lead to legal loopholes
We welcome the proposal to introduce a pre-contractual obligation for intermediaries to inform
consumers of whether they are protected on connected flights or not. However, imposing the
same obligation to airlines risks creating a legal loophole as they will be able, via a simple
disclaimer, to circumvent connected flights protections (right to refund, rerouting care and
assistance, compensation etc.)
6. Rerouting and Reimbursement: passengers must have a real right to choose
Under current rules, rerouting must be offered "at the earliest opportunity". However, unclear
language and weak enforcement allow airlines to delay or avoid this duty.
The new proposal would allow airlines to offer any rerouting — even via long detours or
inconvenient alternatives — with no obligation to further consider the passenger’s needs. The
choice of transport (same route, different route, other airline, or even a bus) would be up to the
airline.
This is not acceptable, and passengers should be offered the fastest and most reasonable
possible alternatives.
 Cap on “self-rerouting” refundable costs is unacceptable
When airlines fail to reroute passengers after a 3-hour delay, consumers should be free to
find their own solution and be reimbursed in full. The proposed cap (e.g. 400% of the ticket
price) is inadequate, especially for low-cost flights. Studies estimate that the rerouting and
assistance costs can amount to €770 on average per disrupted booking. Passengers should
not be penalised for opting for self- rerouting.
 Right to choose between rerouting and refund must be preserved
The proposed rules would allow airlines to strip passengers of their right to choose a
reimbursement once the airline offers them rerouting at the earliest opportunity. This
severely undermines the current situation. Real choice requires full information, sufficient
time to decide, and meaningful alternatives.
 Refund deadlines should stay at 7 days
Extending the reimbursement period to 30 days is unjustified. Airlines should continue to
refund within 7 days as currently required.
7. “No-Show” clauses are unfair and should banned, not legitimised
No-show clauses penalise passengers who miss one leg of their journey by cancelling the rest of
the ticket. These clauses have already been declared unfair by supreme courts in Germany,
Austria, and Spain. Instead of banning these practices, the current proposal would legitimise
them — so long as consumers are told about them in advance. This is not acceptable.Passengers
who pay for a return ticket should be able to use it, even if they missed the outbound leg.
8. Rights of passengers with disability and reduced mobility
The signatories would also like to recall that passengers with disabilities and reduced mobility
still do not get full compensation when their mobility equipment is lost or damaged. The Air
Passenger Regulation proposal (Article 6a, Regulation 2027/97) addressed this by requiring
airlines to offer passengers the possibility to make a special declaration of interest to raise the
liability to the actual value of the mobility equipment. While the Commission proposal required
airlines to offer such declaration ‘free of charge’ the current Council wording requires it ‘without
an additional fee’. The wording of Article 6a must be sufficiently clear that passengers cannot be
charged any sum for raising the liability for their mobility equipment.
From a procedural standpoint, we would also like to raise awareness among Member
States of the consequences of adopting a first reading rather than a General Approach as is
usually the case. Such a choice would impose strict and compressed deadlines for inter-
institutional negotiations, which could be detrimental to the quality of the debate, to the in-depth
analysis of the two positions of each institution, which is fundamental to find the best possible
compromises possible in the interest of all passengers.
Signatories:
Maciej Kucharczyk
Secretary General
Age Platform Europe
Agustín Reyna
Director General
BEUC
Catherine Naughton
Executive Director
European Disability Forum
Josef Schneider
Chairman
European Passengers’ Federation
Christian Tiriou
Director General
The Centre for Consumer Protection in Europe,
host of the European Consumer Centres
France and Germany


Ryesgade 3A, 2. th, DK-2200 København N, T +45 7741 7741, www.taenk.dk
Transportminister Thomas Danielsen (min@trm.dk)
cc: Europaudvalget (euu@ft.dk)
16. maj 2025
Vedr. forhandlinger om flypassagerrettigheder i EU
Kære Thomas Danielsen
Forhandlingerne om flypassagerforordningen i EU er på vej ind i en afgørende fase.
Vi er i Forbrugerrådet Tænk blevet bekendt med, at Ministerrådet lægger op til kraftigt at svække Europa-
Parlamentets indflydelse i forhandlingerne. Fremgangsmåden fra Ministerrådet er højst usædvanlig og
ikke set de seneste 10 år, jf. vedlagte brev fra forkvinden for Europa-Parlamentets transportudvalg,
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, til det polske formandskab.
Forslaget kan potentielt fratage 85 pct. af de europæiske passagerer retten til kompensation og dermed
hvert år flytte et stort milliardbeløb fra passagererne til flyselskaberne. Derfor skal de folkevalgte
parlamentarikere ganske enkelt have den samme indflydelse her, som de normalt har på lovgivningen.
På vegne af Forbrugerrådet Tænk håber jeg derfor, at du som dansk transportminister vil bruge din
stemme i Ministerrådet til at arbejde for, at man følger den normale procedure for forhandling for
lovforslag.
Derudover vil Forbrugerrådet Tænk fortsat - på vegne af de danske forbrugere og flypassagerer - gøre
opmærksom på vigtigheden af, at passagerrettighederne præciseres og styrkes – ikke svækkes.
I vedlagte erklæring, der er underskrevet af fem europæiske organisationer, herunder vores europæiske
forbrugerorganisation, BEUC, oplistes de vigtigste prioriteter for at sikre flypassagererne rimelige
rettigheder.
Det er prioriteter, som vi bakker op om og bl.a. omhandler:
1. Kompensation efter 3 timers forsinkelser skal fortsat være udgangspunktet uanset rejselængde
2. Ekstraordinære omstændigheder skal følge eksisterende afgørelser fra EU-domstolen og ikke
slækkes med nye undtagelser, som fx strejker.
3. Passagererne må ikke kunne miste deres rettigheder ifm. med mellemlandinger (connected
flights)
4. Passagererne skal ved aflysning have en reel mulighed at vælge mellem refusion eller ny flyvning
5. ’No show’-klausuler skal forbydes – ikke tillades
Venlig hilsen
Winni Grosbøll
Direktør
Offentligt
KOM (2013) 0130 - Bilag 12
Europaudvalget 2013


Committee on Transport and Tourism
The Chairwoman
TRAN/D/2024/ 12288
Minister Dariusz Klimczak
Minister of Infrastructure
ul. Chałubińskiego 4/6
00-928 Warszawa
dariusz.klimczak@sejm.pl
kancelaria@mi.gov.pl
Subject: Air Passengers’ Rights Revision
Dear Minister,
I am writing regarding the passenger rights package, and in particular the revision of the Air
Passenger Rights Regulation (2013/0072(COD)). First of all, I would like to thank the Polish
Presidency for its ongoing efforts to reach a common position in the Council on this important
file. In particular as this file has been blocked in the Council for far too long, I very much thank
you for the Presidency’s commitment and imminent success towards breaking the deadlock,
in order to quickly start negotiations with Parliament.
However, to our great surprise, Parliament has been informed that the Council may intend to
launch the highly unusual procedure to close the first reading of this file in the coming weeks,
rather than sticking to the usual practice of pursuing the adoption of a General Approach.
Despite the fact that the Treaty provides for this possibility, Council has not closed a first
reading on any piece of EU legislation for the last ten years for very good reasons. The TRAN
Committee views this possible course of action with serious concern.
European Parliament had adopted its first reading position on this file back in February 2014,
in line with the customary practice of finalising mandates before the end of a legislative term
when files remain unresolved. This procedural step, standard across numerous files, was
never intended to preclude or pre-empt future negotiations and it does not put any procedural
pressure on Council. From the outset, it has been expected that this file would be negotiated
in an early second reading, within a mutually agreed timeframe.
From Parliament’s perspective, Council’s possible plans to take the unusual step of closing the
first reading at this stage would not only be unjustified but also counterproductive and politically
highly sensitive. Such a move would place undue pressure on negotiations concerning a highly
significant file and could undermine the overall coherence and quality of the broader Passenger
Rights Package, with consequences for citizens and industry and major media attention.
From a procedural standpoint, launching the first reading now would impose strict and
compressed deadlines for concluding the second and third readings, leaving very limited time
for thorough negotiations to find the best compromises and making it virtually impossible to
maintain a coherent approach across the three interlinked proposals in the package. The
TRAN Committee is currently working to establish mandates for two additional files—the
Enforcement Regulation (2023/0437(COD)) and the Multimodal Regulation
(2023/0436(COD))—both of which were published by the Commission in November 2023. This
is especially pertinent in relation to the Enforcement proposal, given that Article 16 of the Air
Passenger Rights revision directly refers to the enforcement framework for air transport. As a
Offentligt
KOM (2013) 0130 - Bilag 12
Europaudvalget 2013
2
result, Council’s possible decision to close the first reading would most likely lead to lower
quality legislation for EU citizens and industries, while refraining from such a move would allow
both of our institutions to deliver the best possible results, as per our usual practice across all
policy fields.
Parliament is fully committed to the principle of mutual sincere cooperation as laid out in Article
13 of the Treaty on European Union, the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making
and in the Joint Declaration on Practical Arrangements for the Codecision Procedure, as well
as to the principles of transparency, accountability, and efficiency, and intends to advance this
legislative package in that spirit. We would warmly welcome the Polish Presidency’s support
in pursuing this shared approach.
Parliament is confident that a constructive and coordinated solution can be found between our
institutions to ensure that the ongoing negotiations result in a coherent and balanced legislative
package. I would therefore be grateful for your reassurance that Polish Presidency does not
intend to take the very unusual, and in our view institutionally and politically highly problematic
step of closing Council’s first reading on the Air Passenger Rights Regulation. I am sincerely
convinced that together with you we can uphold our partnership approach between our two
institutions and deliver the best possible legislation together, during your Presidency and
beyond.
I thank you for the excellent cooperation of the Polish Presidency with our Committee so far
and remain at your full disposal for any further inquiry.
Yours sincerely,
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Cc.: Mr Apostolos Tzizikostas, Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism