In a written answer on 16 June 2026, European Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, Apostolos Tzitzikostas, defended the Commission's guidelines on flight cancellations related to the Middle East crisis, insisting that airlines must provide specific, clear, and verifiable evidence to avoid paying compensation. The answer responds to a priority question from Catarina Martins (The Left, Portugal), who accused the Commission of capitulating to aviation lobbyists by allowing airlines to be exempted from compensation for cancellations caused by local fuel shortages.
The Commission's guidance, issued in May 2026, states that airlines can be exempted from paying compensation if they prove the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances such as a documented local fuel shortage. In his answer, Tzitzikostas stressed that high fuel prices alone do not qualify as extraordinary circumstances, and that airlines must demonstrate a direct causal link between the cancellation and the local fuel shortage for each cancelled flight. If they fail to do so, passengers whose flights are cancelled less than 14 days before departure remain entitled to compensation, unless a valid re-routing exception applies.
The answer contains no new concrete proposals or numerical targets, but reaffirms the Commission's existing legal framework and monitoring mechanisms. Tzitzikostas noted that national enforcement bodies are responsible for monitoring compliance and can cross-check cancellations against objective data. The Commission supports these bodies and cooperates with them to ensure passenger rights are respected.
The policy orientation is one of maintaining the status quo: the Commission defends its guidance as a strict interpretation of existing EU law, rejecting claims that it weakens consumer protection. The answer signals that no legislative revision is imminent, and that the Commission expects national authorities to enforce the rules rigorously. Stakeholders most impacted include passengers, who may face hurdles in obtaining compensation if airlines can provide sufficient evidence; airlines, which gain clarity on when they can avoid compensation but face strict evidentiary requirements; national enforcement bodies, which bear the burden of monitoring and investigation; and consumer rights groups, which may view the guidance as insufficiently protective.