EU Air Passenger Rights: Assessment of the Proposal of the European Commission for the Amendment of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 and of Regulation (EC) 2027/97
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eight years after the entry into force of Regulation 261/2004, and following the struggles of the industry, national enforcement bodies and courts with the interpretation and application of the Regulation, as also evidenced by several referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union and by discussions between the Commission and national enforcement bodies and stakeholders, the Commission has finally proposed the long-awaited amendment of the Regulation. This article will examine the Commission's proposal in detail and, while acknowledging improvement in certain aspects, it will point out possible complications in the application of some of its provisions, with a view to drawing the attention of the lawmakers to possible implications if these clauses are not amended or abandoned during the legislative process. The author urges the European legislator to avoid overregulation and to allow air carriers to compete in the field of passenger services, including assistance and compensation in case of flight irregularities. The author also suggests that the legislator should pay careful attention to the legal obligations of the Member States to each other and to the non-EU Member State Parties to the Montreal Convention 1999 as set forth in the Convention. Otherwise the proposed Regulation will, in the many instances covered, place the air carriers in conflict with these obligations. The primary focus of the Article is the amendment of Regulation 261/2004,but some of the proposals for the amendment of Regulation 2027/97 will also be assessed. Reference will be made to previous CJEU judgments, but the analysis of such rulings falls outside the scope of this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.099 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".