12. DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION FOR AIR
PASSENGERS
(24096)
15343/02
COM(02)717
|
Amended draft Regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights.
|
| Legal base: | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated: | 4 December 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 16 December 2002
|
| Department: | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 7 January 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None; but see (23121) 5129/02 and (23947) 13312/02: HC 63-ii (2002-03), paragraph 1 (27 November 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared
|
Background
12.1 We have considered several times the proposal to
provide stronger consumer protection to air passengers denied
boarding or subjected to long flight delays or cancellations and
we last reported to the House in November 2002.[37]
European Standing Committee A debated the matter on 18 December
2002[38] and endorsed
the Government's intention to continue to seek better passenger
protection without imposing significant new burdens on the airline
industry.
The document
12.2 The amended draft Regulation is the Commission's
response to amendments proposed by the European Parliament in
its first reading of the original draft. We considered these amendments
in November 2002.[39]
The document is overtaken by the political agreement reached by
the Council on 5 December 2002 and described to European Standing
Committee A by the Minister for Transport, Department of Transport
(Mr John Spellar) in the debate already referred to.
12.3 In his Explanatory Memorandum on this document the
Minister takes the opportunity to summarise the present position
on the proposed Regulation, particularly the key points of difference
between the European Parliament's position and the Council's political
agreement. He says:
"The Commission has accepted 14 of the 40 amendments and
eight partially. Most of these are technical or minor points which
do not substantially alter the impact of the Regulation. Some
of other amendments have been accepted by Member States in the
text on which political agreement was reached at the December
Transport Council. The key issues on which differences still exist
are:
"Levels of Compensation
"The Commission has rejected the European Parliament's proposal
to reduce compensation levels to _200/400/600 depending on distance.
It maintains that levels should be increased to _750/1,500. However,
the Council has agreed amounts which are similar to the European
Parliament's proposal (_250/400/600). It is likely that the European
Parliament will be able to agree the Council's proposal. The European
Parliament did not propose a link between compensation and ticket
price, as the UK had proposed at Council. However, it did propose
that no compensation should be payable if the arrival time of
the alternative flight is no more than one hour after the original
scheduled flight. This was rejected by the Commission.
"'Force Majeure'
"The Commission's original proposal included a clause which
exempted airlines from paying compensation for cancellations which
were made due to exceptional circumstances beyond their responsibility.
It has accepted the European Parliament's proposal to use instead
the term 'force majeure' and also to apply this to the Article
on delays (where airlines are obliged to offer refreshments and
hotel accommodation where required). However, the Council has
instead opted to use the term 'extraordinary circumstances', listing
in the recitals illustrative examples of such circumstances, including
cancellations and delays relating to air traffic control problems.
The Council decided that 'force majeure' was not an appropriate
term if a list of examples was also given (as the European Parliament
has proposed).
"Treatment of Package Tour Passengers
"The Commission has rejected the European Parliament's proposal
to exclude package tour passengers from the scope of the Regulation.
As set out in EM 13312/02,[40]
we believe that the Council's amended proposal has resolved the
UK's original concerns about including such passengers. Provided
this proposal is agreed we can accept the Commission's wish to
include package tour passengers.
"Scope
"The Commission has rejected the European Parliament's proposal
to restrict the scope of the Regulation to flights leaving Community
airports (as in the current Regulation). Community airlines would
welcome the Parliament's proposal as they claim that extending
the Regulation's scope to their flights returning to the Community
would put them at a competitive disadvantage compared to non-EC
airlines.
"Cancellations
"The Commission has accepted that the Regulation should only
cover cancellations made within seven days of departure. The European
Parliament had proposed 48 hours rather than seven days. There
was no time limit in the Commission's original proposal. The Council's
proposal covers cancellations made within two weeks of departure
but also gives passengers an automatic right to compensation rather
than allowing airlines and passengers first to reach an agreement
(which may not necessarily involve compensation), as in the Commission's
proposal."
Conclusion
12.4 We note the Minister's summary of the present
position on this proposal and that the document has been overtaken
by the subsequent political agreement in the Council. We clear
the document.
37
See headnote. Back
38
Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 18 December
2002. Back
39
See headnote. Back
40
See headnote. Back
| 
