Passenger rights must cover whole journey, EU advisers say
Nov 12, 2026
Category: Uncategorised
Travellers who miss a connection on a cross-border trip should be covered by one set of rules from start to finish, according to three members of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).
Their push for stronger EU passenger rights rests on a simple idea: one journey should come with “one coherent system of rights”.
The call appears in an opinion piece published in Rapporteur. It forms part of the outlet’s special report “Leveraging civil society to build opportunity, security and resilience in the EU”.
The authors are Dumitru Fornea, Mateusz Szymański and Baiba Miltoviča. Each served as EESC rapporteur on a separate opinion, covering rail ticketing, multimodal booking and the protection of passengers with single tickets.
One trip, one rulebook
The EESC backs protection for the entire journey when it is bought in one transaction or through a validated combination of tickets. That cover also applies when tickets are issued separately for technical or administrative reasons.
According to the authors, cross-border and multi-operator trips are increasingly common. Yet passengers can still lose full protection when a delay on one leg makes them miss the next.
Their answer is blunt. When something goes wrong, passengers should know exactly who is responsible.
The committee sets out three priorities. First, it calls for a clear definition of a single ticket that includes validated combinations.
Next is a simple right to continue the journey, backed where possible by automatic compensation and reimbursement, as well as non-digital assistance. Last, the EESC wants effective enforcement that protects competition, smaller market players and the role of social partners.
Escape clauses shrink
Safety features in the argument too. The authors point to recent serious rail accidents as grounds for investment in infrastructure, digital systems and rail safety, though they name no specific incidents.
The committee wants rules on exceptional circumstances and force majeure read narrowly. In its view, those clauses must not be used to restrict fundamental rights.
Whatever causes a disruption, passengers should keep their rights to information, assistance, rerouting and reimbursement, the opinion states.
Tickets without borders
On rail ticketing, the EESC backs an interoperable European framework to replace today’s fragmented systems. The aim is to help passengers plan journeys across countries and services run by different railway companies, with less time spent hunting for offers.
The committee also wants ticket buying to stay open to everyone. It calls for keeping accessible non-digital purchasing options, with identical prices online and offline, including in rural and peripheral regions.
The authors argue that people who do not use smartphones, find apps difficult, or have limited internet access must also benefit from modernisation.
They seek safeguards against excessive commissions and discriminatory rankings. They also target practices through which dominant digital platforms favour their own services.
On governance, the EESC recommends involving railway operators, infrastructure managers, ticket vendors, consumers, passengers, SMEs and social partners. Strong cybersecurity and regular checks on how the system works in practice complete the plan.
Rankings in dock
On multimodal booking, the committee says the European Commission’s proposal must go beyond the digital side of booking interfaces.
The authors describe the problem clearly. Information sits on many websites, prices are hard to compare and booking a whole trip in one transaction is often impossible.
The EESC wants rules on search results and their ranking placed at the centre of the Regulation. It also wants quality information shown alongside results, going beyond the legal minimum to cover punctuality, comfort, connection reliability, and reduced fares and their conditions.
Ranking only works when it draws on the full range of available offers, the committee contends. Operators selling fares, promotions, ancillary services or ticket products through their own channels should share them with multimodal providers, unless clear technical or security reasons prevent it.
Ferries join queue
The committee wants fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to information across all transport modes. Rail already carries certain distribution obligations, and the authors say aviation and maritime should be treated the same, particularly where ferries are essential.
Data must be available on transparent and non-discriminatory terms, according to the opinion.
The EESC also supports common European standards for application programming interfaces (APIs), the digital links between operators’ systems and booking platforms. With shared standards, platforms would no longer need to build and maintain separate connections to every operator.
That change would cut costs and make it easier for smaller companies to compete, the authors write.
Laws shaped like journeys
The three rapporteurs describe today’s system as fragmented, confusing and often unfair. They tie reform to sustainable mobility, territorial cohesion and the single market.
Passengers think about completing a trip, they argue, not about databases, contractual chains or platform business models. In their view, legislation should follow the same logic.
Read together, the three opinions appear to lean on one another. Fair rankings would depend on operators sharing their full offers, while whole-journey cover would hinge on how validated ticket combinations are defined.
For passengers on cross-border routes, the final rules could determine who is responsible for a missed connection and whether compensation arrives automatically. Travellers without smartphones or reliable internet, and those in rural and peripheral regions, have a stake in whether offline options and equal pricing survive.
The market would feel the effects as well. Dominant platforms could face limits on favouring their own services, operators could be required to share offers, and airlines and ferry companies could take on rail-style distribution duties.
Several questions include whether ranking rules sit at the heart of the Commission’s multimodal booking Regulation, how a single ticket is defined, how tightly force majeure is drawn and whether data-access obligations reach aviation and maritime operators.