Intervention strategies enforcement area Aviation Specific

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

1: Almost insignificant

2: Less significant

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning SMS system and/or a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender is aware of the violation(s) but is not taking action.

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.
• The offender is involved in criminal activities.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.
• The offender has intentionally kept the action(s) out of their books or records.
• The offender is actively targeting violations.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The law is unclear.
• There is a functioning SMS-system.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• Aviation safety is at risk.
• The actions fall outside of the scope of the permit/license.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

The Inspectorate SZW / Bound to international interventions according to the Basic Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (interventions level 1, 2 and 3).

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.

B: Reactive

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Not applicable.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Criminal prosecution and transfer to the Intelligence and Investigation Service (IOD) or Aviation Police.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

1: Almost insignificant

2: Less significant

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning SMS system and/or a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender is aware of the violation(s) but is not taking action.

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.
• The offender is involved in criminal activities.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.
• The offender has intentionally kept the action(s) out of their books or records.
• The offender is actively targeting violations.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The law is unclear.
• There is a functioning SMS-system.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• Aviation safety is at risk.
• The actions fall outside of the scope of the permit/license.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

The Inspectorate SZW / Bound to international interventions according to the Basic Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (interventions level 1, 2 and 3).

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.

B: Reactive

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Not applicable.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Criminal prosecution and transfer to the Intelligence and Investigation Service (IOD) or Aviation Police.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

1: Almost insignificant

2: Less significant

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning SMS system and/or a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender is aware of the violation(s) but is not taking action.

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.
• The offender is involved in criminal activities.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.
• The offender has intentionally kept the action(s) out of their books or records.
• The offender is actively targeting violations.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The law is unclear.
• There is a functioning SMS-system.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• Aviation safety is at risk.
• The actions fall outside of the scope of the permit/license.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

The Inspectorate SZW / Bound to international interventions according to the Basic Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (interventions level 1, 2 and 3).

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.

B: Reactive

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Not applicable.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Criminal prosecution and transfer to the Intelligence and Investigation Service (IOD) or Aviation Police.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

1: Almost insignificant

2: Less significant

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning SMS system and/or a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender is aware of the violation(s) but is not taking action.

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.
• The offender is involved in criminal activities.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.
• The offender has intentionally kept the action(s) out of their books or records.
• The offender is actively targeting violations.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The law is unclear.
• There is a functioning SMS-system.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• Aviation safety is at risk.
• The actions fall outside of the scope of the permit/license.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

The Inspectorate SZW / Bound to international interventions according to the Basic Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (interventions level 1, 2 and 3).

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.

B: Reactive

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal

• Level 1: Shutting down the aircraft, process and/or (part of the) organisation in case of direct threat to aviation safety.
• Level 2: Warning with redress period. The length of this period is determined by urgency. Delay in compliance may mean escalation to level 1.
• Level 3: Informing, warning without redress period.
• Increased surveillance.
• Suspending or revoking permit/license.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Not applicable.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Criminal prosecution and transfer to the Intelligence and Investigation Service (IOD) or Aviation Police.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning SMS system and/or a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance and there have been no reports of non-compliance in the last 2 years.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender does not comply with relevant rules and regulations and only takes correcting measures when the passenger files a complaint with the relevant national body (NEB), engages an agency to do so on their behalf or addresses another source such as the European Consumer Centre (ECC).

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally non-compliant with the regulation and has not or insufficiently organised their operations.
• The offender is misleading passengers by providing no or incorrect information on passenger rights or having non-working systems on its website.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The application of the law is unclear in this case.
• Passenger rights are normally upheld.
• It was a unique situation and the airline could not know how to comply.
• The refusal to board originated in mistakes in the IATA Timatic database.
• Local limitations at the airport in question prevented passenger rights from being upheld.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• The offender is intentionally misleading passengers.
• The airline is not responding to passengers.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

International agreements between the European Commission and inspectorates as laid down in the following Commission guidelines:

• General: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004
• Covid-19: Guidelines on EU passenger rights regulations in the context of Covid-19
• Disability/reduced mobility: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006

Or check the full overview of EU passenger rights.

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures of their own accord.

• No sanctions.

B: Reactive – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures, but not of their own accord.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating – Only acts to implement a solution after enforcement agency's notice.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal – Deliberate action or inaction which leads to a violation

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Administrative fine according to Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 or Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Not applicable.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning SMS system and/or a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance and there have been no reports of non-compliance in the last 2 years.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender does not comply with relevant rules and regulations and only takes correcting measures when the passenger files a complaint with the relevant national body (NEB), engages an agency to do so on their behalf or addresses another source such as the European Consumer Centre (ECC).

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally non-compliant with the regulation and has not or insufficiently organised their operations.
• The offender is misleading passengers by providing no or incorrect information on passenger rights or having non-working systems on its website.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The application of the law is unclear in this case.
• Passenger rights are normally upheld.
• It was a unique situation and the airline could not know how to comply.
• The refusal to board originated in mistakes in the IATA Timatic database.
• Local limitations at the airport in question prevented passenger rights from being upheld.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• The offender is intentionally misleading passengers.
• The airline is not responding to passengers.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

International agreements between the European Commission and inspectorates as laid down in the following Commission guidelines:

• General: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004
• Covid-19: Guidelines on EU passenger rights regulations in the context of Covid-19
• Disability/reduced mobility: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006

Or check the full overview of EU passenger rights.

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures of their own accord.

• No sanctions.

B: Reactive – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures, but not of their own accord.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating – Only acts to implement a solution after enforcement agency's notice.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal – Deliberate action or inaction which leads to a violation

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Administrative fine according to Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 or Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Not applicable.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning SMS system and/or a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance and there have been no reports of non-compliance in the last 2 years.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender does not comply with relevant rules and regulations and only takes correcting measures when the passenger files a complaint with the relevant national body (NEB), engages an agency to do so on their behalf or addresses another source such as the European Consumer Centre (ECC).

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally non-compliant with the regulation and has not or insufficiently organised their operations.
• The offender is misleading passengers by providing no or incorrect information on passenger rights or having non-working systems on its website.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The application of the law is unclear in this case.
• Passenger rights are normally upheld.
• It was a unique situation and the airline could not know how to comply.
• The refusal to board originated in mistakes in the IATA Timatic database.
• Local limitations at the airport in question prevented passenger rights from being upheld.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• The offender is intentionally misleading passengers.
• The airline is not responding to passengers.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

International agreements between the European Commission and inspectorates as laid down in the following Commission guidelines:

• General: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004
• Covid-19: Guidelines on EU passenger rights regulations in the context of Covid-19
• Disability/reduced mobility: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006

Or check the full overview of EU passenger rights.

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures of their own accord.

• No sanctions.

B: Reactive – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures, but not of their own accord.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating – Only acts to implement a solution after enforcement agency's notice.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal – Deliberate action or inaction which leads to a violation

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Administrative fine according to Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 or Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Not applicable.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning system for correct slot usage.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender is aware of the violation(s) but is not taking action.

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.
• The offender is involved in criminal activities.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.
• The offender has intentionally kept the action(s) out of their books or records.
• The offender is actively targeting violations.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• A situation out of the offender's control.
• An emergency.
• There is an exception (2-minute-margin rule).

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• Aviation safety is at risk.
• Noise category S1 to S7.
• Aircraft category ICAO aircraft codes A to F.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

Slot enforcement code (to be published).

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures of their own accord.

• No sanctions.

B: Reactive – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures, but not of their own accord.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating – Only acts to implement a solution after enforcement agency's notice.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal – Deliberate action or inaction which leads to a violation

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Administrative fine (after expected amendment to Netherlands Aviation Act and the Guideline on Slot Misuse Enforcement at Coordinated Airports (to be published)).

Punitive criminal sanctions

Not applicable.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning system for correct slot usage.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender is aware of the violation(s) but is not taking action.

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.
• The offender is involved in criminal activities.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.
• The offender has intentionally kept the action(s) out of their books or records.
• The offender is actively targeting violations.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• A situation out of the offender's control.
• An emergency.
• There is an exception (2-minute-margin rule).

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• Aviation safety is at risk.
• Noise category S1 to S7.
• Aircraft category ICAO aircraft codes A to F.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.

Agreements with enforcement partners

Slot enforcement code (to be published).

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures of their own accord.

• No sanctions.

B: Reactive – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures, but not of their own accord.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating – Only acts to implement a solution after enforcement agency's notice.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal – Deliberate action or inaction which leads to a violation

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Administrative fine (after expected amendment to Netherlands Aviation Act and the Guideline on Slot Misuse Enforcement at Coordinated Airports (to be published)).

Punitive criminal sanctions

Not applicable.

Consequence(s) to transport, infrastructure, environment and housing

3: Significant

4: Substantial, high-risk and/or irreversible

Type of offender

A: Well-meaning

• There is a functioning system for passenger rights.
• The offender has a proven record of compliance and there have been no reports of non-compliance in the last 2 years.
• The finding(s) is/are the result(s) of unintended actions.
• The offender has a proven high regard for following applicable rules and regulations.

Possible grounds:

• The offender has discovered the violation themselves.
• The offender has operated proactively by implementing correcting and preventative measures.
• The offender's relevant management systems are in order.
• The offender has only shown good intentions during recent inspections.
• The offender has consistently operated proactively and constructively with regards to correcting and preventative measures in the past.

B: Reactive

• The offender cannot be clearly characterised.
• The offender has an indifferent or reactive attitude and has little care for the inspectorate's findings or the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unfamiliar with relevant rules and regulations.

C: Calculating

• The offender is actively hindering the inspector(s).
• The offender is acting in a conscious and deliberate manner, indifferent to the consequences of their actions.
• The offender is unintentionally operating outside of the scope of their permit/license.

Grounds:

• The offender has a lax attitude towards taking correcting measures.
• The offender does not comply with relevant rules and regulations and only takes correcting measures when the passenger files a complaint with the relevant national body (NEB), engages an agency to do so on their behalf or addresses another source such as the European Consumer Centre (ECC).

D: Actively and consistently breaking the rules/criminal

• The offender is intentionally non-compliant with the regulation and has not or insufficiently organised their operations.
• The offender is misleading passengers by providing no or incorrect information on passenger rights or having non-working systems on its website.

Possible grounds:

• Violations occur systematically and consistently.

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (-):

• The passenger's reservation was not made (correctly) or in another manner (within 48 hours).
• The airline has taken the initiative to prevent the violation's recurrence.
• The airline has resolved the refusal to travel to the satisfaction of the passenger.
• Passenger rights regarding Passengers with Restricted Mobility (PRMs) are upheld.
• It was a unique situation and the airline could not know how to comply.
• The refusal to travel was caused by inaccuracies.
• There is a proven Just culture throughout the organisation.

Aggravating circumstances (+):

• The airline is misinforming passengers.
• The airline is not responding to passengers.
• Management is not committed/involved.
• ILT or its inspector has previously explicitly explained what is expected of the company in this area.
• The company is already under surveillance.
• Reoffending.
• The passenger was not offered alternative travel.
• Harm was done to the passenger.

Agreements with enforcement partners

International agreements between the European Commission and inspectorates as laid down in the following Commission guidelines:

• General: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004
• Covid-19: Guidelines on EU passenger rights regulations in the context of Covid-19
• Disability/reduced mobility: Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006

Or check the full overview of EU passenger rights.

Aggravating aspects

• Obtained economic benefit (profit or savings).
• A financial sanction is unlikely to have any effect.
• A combination with another relevant violation or any criminal offense such as forgery.
• Aviation safety has been at risk.

Types of interventions

Administrative redress sanctions

Depending on the type of offender:

A: Well-meaning – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures of their own accord.

• No sanctions.

B: Reactive – Has corrected the violation(s) and taken preventive measures, but not of their own accord.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

C: Calculating – Only acts to implement a solution after enforcement agency's notice.

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

D: Actively and consistently/criminal – Deliberate action or inaction which leads to a violation

• Increased surveillance.
• Cease and desist order.
• Order for administrative coercion.

Punitive administrative sanctions

Administrative fine according to Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 or Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006.

Punitive criminal sanctions

Not applicable.