# C_2017034EN.01016701.xml

| 2.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/167 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/167

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships’

(COM(2016) 369 final — 2016/170 (COD))

(2017/C 034/28)

| Rapporteur: | Tomas ABRAHAMSSON |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Tomas ABRAHAMSSON

Tomas ABRAHAMSSON

| Consultation | European Parliament, 09/06/2016 |
| --- | --- |
| | Council of the European Union, 22/06/2016 |
| Legal basis | Article 100, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union |
| | (COM(2016) 369 final — 2016-170-COD) |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 06/10/2016 |
| Adopted at plenary | 19/10/2016 |
| Plenary session No | 520 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 229/0/3 |

Consultation

European Parliament, 09/06/2016

Council of the European Union, 22/06/2016

Legal basis

Article 100, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union

(COM(2016) 369 final — 2016-170-COD)

(COM(2016) 369 final — 2016-170-COD)

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

06/10/2016

Adopted at plenary

19/10/2016

Plenary session No

520

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

229/0/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC welcomes in general the Commission’s proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships. As the fitness report (REFIT, Adjusting Course: EU Passenger Ship Safety Legislation Fitness Check, COM(2015) 508 final) identifies, Directive 2009/45/EC in some parts lacks clarity in a number of definitions and requirements and has outdated or overlapping requirements, which has led to the inconsistent implementation of the legal framework for passenger ships. The amendments proposed aim to simplify the legislation, remove overlaps and redundancies, and clarify requirements and the scope of application, while preserving the current level of safety. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

The EESC welcomes in general the Commission’s proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships. As the fitness report (REFIT, Adjusting Course: EU Passenger Ship Safety Legislation Fitness Check, COM(2015) 508 final) identifies, Directive 2009/45/EC in some parts lacks clarity in a number of definitions and requirements and has outdated or overlapping requirements, which has led to the inconsistent implementation of the legal framework for passenger ships. The amendments proposed aim to simplify the legislation, remove overlaps and redundancies, and clarify requirements and the scope of application, while preserving the current level of safety.

| 1.2. | Given that 120 million people are transported by domestic passenger ships every year, the EU legislation on passenger ship safety is very important. However, the proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC excludes all small ships below 24 meters from the scope of the directive, while at present, only existing passenger ships are excluded, not new ones. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Given that 120 million people are transported by domestic passenger ships every year, the EU legislation on passenger ship safety is very important. However, the proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC excludes all small ships below 24 meters from the scope of the directive, while at present, only existing passenger ships are excluded, not new ones.

| 1.3. | The rationale given for this proposal is, firstly, that Directive 2009/45/EC currently only applies to 70 out of 1 950 small ships and, secondly, the principle of subsidiarity: these ships are constructed for a wide range of services and establishing a common set of rules will be extremely challenging. As such, Member States would be in a better position to regulate. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

The rationale given for this proposal is, firstly, that Directive 2009/45/EC currently only applies to 70 out of 1 950 small ships and, secondly, the principle of subsidiarity: these ships are constructed for a wide range of services and establishing a common set of rules will be extremely challenging. As such, Member States would be in a better position to regulate.

| 1.4. | The EESC notes the abovementioned rationale, but recommends that the application to new ships below 24 meters in length be retained in the interests of passenger safety. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

The EESC notes the abovementioned rationale, but recommends that the application to new ships below 24 meters in length be retained in the interests of passenger safety.

| 1.5. | The proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC clarifies that, for the purpose of this directive, aluminium is a material equivalent to steel and the corresponding fire safety standards are therefore applicable. At present, not all Member States certify aluminium ships under this directive, which creates an uneven situation. The EESC welcomes this clarification. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

The proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC clarifies that, for the purpose of this directive, aluminium is a material equivalent to steel and the corresponding fire safety standards are therefore applicable. At present, not all Member States certify aluminium ships under this directive, which creates an uneven situation. The EESC welcomes this clarification.

| 1.6. | The EESC warmly welcomes the importance that the current EU rules on passenger ship safety attach to accessibility for persons with reduced mobility (paragraph 17 of the recitals to Directive 2009/45/EC EC) and expresses its satisfaction with the fact that EU standards represent an important added value when compared to international standards, which do not include any mandatory provision in this regard. The EESC highly commends this provision and believes this should apply to all kinds of domestic passenger service ships. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

The EESC warmly welcomes the importance that the current EU rules on passenger ship safety attach to accessibility for persons with reduced mobility (paragraph 17 of the recitals to Directive 2009/45/EC EC) and expresses its satisfaction with the fact that EU standards represent an important added value when compared to international standards, which do not include any mandatory provision in this regard. The EESC highly commends this provision and believes this should apply to all kinds of domestic passenger service ships.

| 1.7. | The EESC welcomes the Commission’s clarification made in new point (za). This point clarifies that ‘equivalent material’ means aluminium alloy or any other non-combustible material that maintains structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable exposure to the standard fire test due to the insulation provided. As some Member States have not been certifying aluminium ships under this directive, the EESC welcomes this clarification in principle. However, the EESC recommends that the corresponding technical standard included in the Annex to Directive 2009/45/EC be further clarified in cooperation with national experts. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s clarification made in new point (za). This point clarifies that ‘equivalent material’ means aluminium alloy or any other non-combustible material that maintains structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable exposure to the standard fire test due to the insulation provided. As some Member States have not been certifying aluminium ships under this directive, the EESC welcomes this clarification in principle. However, the EESC recommends that the corresponding technical standard included in the Annex to Directive 2009/45/EC be further clarified in cooperation with national experts.

2.   Introduction and background

Introduction and background

| 2.1. | Europe’s geographical configuration as a vast peninsula gives an indication of how crucial maritime transport services, including the carriage of passengers, are. More than 400 million people pass through EU ports every year, out of which 120 million are transported by domestic passenger ships. Hence the importance of ensuring the highest safety standards in EU waters, given that ship safety legislation has considerable implications, notably for the environment, labour law, the mobility of EU citizens and the facilitation of trade in passenger vessels, since the latter meet the same standards across the EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Europe’s geographical configuration as a vast peninsula gives an indication of how crucial maritime transport services, including the carriage of passengers, are. More than 400 million people pass through EU ports every year, out of which 120 million are transported by domestic passenger ships. Hence the importance of ensuring the highest safety standards in EU waters, given that ship safety legislation has considerable implications, notably for the environment, labour law, the mobility of EU citizens and the facilitation of trade in passenger vessels, since the latter meet the same standards across the EU.

| 2.2. | Following the Estonia disaster, the International Maritime Organization adopted a series of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), including requirements to improve the stability of ro-ro ships when they are damaged. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Following the Estonia disaster, the International Maritime Organization adopted a series of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), including requirements to improve the stability of ro-ro ships when they are damaged.

| 2.3. | However, incidents continue to occur, which has led Europe in the last two decades to introduce further rules for passenger ship safety, including some specific rules, such as the register of persons on board, alongside SOLAS on international journeys, which also cover journeys between two or more Member States, as well as many more EU rules for national journeys. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

However, incidents continue to occur, which has led Europe in the last two decades to introduce further rules for passenger ship safety, including some specific rules, such as the register of persons on board, alongside SOLAS on international journeys, which also cover journeys between two or more Member States, as well as many more EU rules for national journeys.

| 2.4. | The proposals flow from the REFIT programme being carried out by the Commission in respect of this legislation on passenger ship safety. The abbreviation REFIT stands for Regulatory Fitness and Performance. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

The proposals flow from the REFIT programme being carried out by the Commission in respect of this legislation on passenger ship safety. The abbreviation REFIT stands for Regulatory Fitness and Performance.

| 2.5. | The aim was to simplify and streamline where possible existing European rules on passenger ship safety so as to:






  — | maintain EU rules only where necessary and proportionate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.5.

The aim was to simplify and streamline where possible existing European rules on passenger ship safety so as to:

—

maintain EU rules only where necessary and proportionate;

| — | ensure correct, uniform implementation; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure correct, uniform implementation;

| — | eliminate overlaps and contradictions.
  These aims reflect the EESC’s recommendations concerning REFIT, as set out in the recent exploratory opinion (SC/044, 26 May 2016). |
| --- | --- |

—

eliminate overlaps and contradictions.

These aims reflect the EESC’s recommendations concerning REFIT, as set out in the recent exploratory opinion (SC/044, 26 May 2016).

| 2.6. | This coherent package of proposals serves to achieve these objectives. The package on passenger ship safety includes proposals for reviewing nearly all European safety regulations on passenger ships, excluding of course the purely technical Directive 2003/25/EC on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

This coherent package of proposals serves to achieve these objectives. The package on passenger ship safety includes proposals for reviewing nearly all European safety regulations on passenger ships, excluding of course the purely technical Directive 2003/25/EC on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships.

| 2.7. | The package comprises the following 3 proposals:






  — | to limit and clarify the scope of Directive 2009/45/EC (technical standards for seagoing passenger ships on national routes); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.7.

The package comprises the following 3 proposals:

—

to limit and clarify the scope of Directive 2009/45/EC (technical standards for seagoing passenger ships on national routes);

| — | to improve and clarify reporting obligations arising from Directive 98/41/EC (on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships) in relation to other instruments (Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities and Directive 2002/59/EC on the Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system), as well as removing overlaps with these areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

to improve and clarify reporting obligations arising from Directive 98/41/EC (on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships) in relation to other instruments (Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities and Directive 2002/59/EC on the Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system), as well as removing overlaps with these areas;

| — | to clarify and simplify the EU system of surveys and inspections for ro-ro ferries (ferries capable of transporting cars and trains as well as passengers) and high-speed passenger craft. |
| --- | --- |

—

to clarify and simplify the EU system of surveys and inspections for ro-ro ferries (ferries capable of transporting cars and trains as well as passengers) and high-speed passenger craft.

| 2.8. | It is this first proposal that is the focus of this opinion. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

It is this first proposal that is the focus of this opinion.

| 2.9. | Directive 2009/45/EC, dated 6 May 2009 is a recast of Directive 98/18/EC, which had to be repealed in the interests of clarity. It introduces a uniform level of safety for passenger ships undertaking domestic voyages. However, after 15 years, the Commission deemed it necessary to review this directive after having concluded a fitness check that pointed out the need — strongly endorsed by the EESC — to simplify and clarify the current requirements. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

Directive 2009/45/EC, dated 6 May 2009 is a recast of Directive 98/18/EC, which had to be repealed in the interests of clarity. It introduces a uniform level of safety for passenger ships undertaking domestic voyages. However, after 15 years, the Commission deemed it necessary to review this directive after having concluded a fitness check that pointed out the need — strongly endorsed by the EESC — to simplify and clarify the current requirements.

| 2.10. | The EESC has actively participated in the area of maritime safety legislation by producing several opinions. On the particular issue of the safety of passenger ships, it is worth noting that on 29 May 1996, the Committee delivered an opinion on Safety rules and standards for passenger ships (1), followed on 11 December 2002 by a Committee opinion on The specific stability requirements for Ro-Ro Passenger Ships, and on a revision of Directive 98/18/EC on Safety Rules and Standards for Passenger Ships. Furthermore, it should be noted that more recently, on 16 January 2008, the Committee unreservedly endorsed the proposal on the abovementioned recast of Directive 98/18/EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

The EESC has actively participated in the area of maritime safety legislation by producing several opinions. On the particular issue of the safety of passenger ships, it is worth noting that on 29 May 1996, the Committee delivered an opinion on Safety rules and standards for passenger ships (1), followed on 11 December 2002 by a Committee opinion on The specific stability requirements for Ro-Ro Passenger Ships, and on a revision of Directive 98/18/EC on Safety Rules and Standards for Passenger Ships. Furthermore, it should be noted that more recently, on 16 January 2008, the Committee unreservedly endorsed the proposal on the abovementioned recast of Directive 98/18/EC.

1

| 2.11. | In light of the significance of the review exercise carried out by the Commission today, the EESC wishes to demonstrate the great importance it attaches to the continued improvement in the safety of passenger ships involved in domestic trade. |
| --- | --- |

2.11.

In light of the significance of the review exercise carried out by the Commission today, the EESC wishes to demonstrate the great importance it attaches to the continued improvement in the safety of passenger ships involved in domestic trade.

3.   Gist of the Commission’s proposal

Gist of the Commission’s proposal

| 3.1. | Directive 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships applies to ships made of steel and equivalent material, and to high-speed craft, irrespective of their length. Implemented at EU level and applying to domestic voyages only, this directive establishes technical requirements for vessel construction, stability, fire protection and life-saving equipment based both on the provisions of the SOLAS Convention (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended) and on some requirements driven by a number of shipping casualties involving loss of human lives, hence the need to address the somewhat fragmented nature of the legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Directive 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships applies to ships made of steel and equivalent material, and to high-speed craft, irrespective of their length. Implemented at EU level and applying to domestic voyages only, this directive establishes technical requirements for vessel construction, stability, fire protection and life-saving equipment based both on the provisions of the SOLAS Convention (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended) and on some requirements driven by a number of shipping casualties involving loss of human lives, hence the need to address the somewhat fragmented nature of the legislation.

| 3.2. | Following a fitness check carried out in the spirit of the REFIT (European Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme) and Better Regulation agenda, the Commission came to the conclusion that there was scope for further enhancing the level of safety, efficiency and proportionality afforded by the abovementioned directive. The suggested review therefore aimed at simplifying and streamlining the existing regulatory framework which, although meeting its objectives and remaining highly relevant, needs to eliminate some outdated, ambiguous or overlapping requirements and definitions. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

Following a fitness check carried out in the spirit of the REFIT (European Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme) and Better Regulation agenda, the Commission came to the conclusion that there was scope for further enhancing the level of safety, efficiency and proportionality afforded by the abovementioned directive. The suggested review therefore aimed at simplifying and streamlining the existing regulatory framework which, although meeting its objectives and remaining highly relevant, needs to eliminate some outdated, ambiguous or overlapping requirements and definitions.

| 3.3. | The Commission is suggesting a limited number of changes to the current directive in the following areas:






  — | Exclusion of ships below 24 metres in length from the scope of the directive concerned on the grounds that small ships are built mainly from materials other than steel and are already certified under national legislation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.3.

The Commission is suggesting a limited number of changes to the current directive in the following areas:

—

Exclusion of ships below 24 metres in length from the scope of the directive concerned on the grounds that small ships are built mainly from materials other than steel and are already certified under national legislation;

| — | Clarifying the scope of the directive: by specifying that aluminium is a material equivalent to steel (with implications for fire insulation requirements), and by making it clear that offshore service vessels for wind-farms are excluded as is the case for traditional ships; |
| --- | --- |

—

Clarifying the scope of the directive: by specifying that aluminium is a material equivalent to steel (with implications for fire insulation requirements), and by making it clear that offshore service vessels for wind-farms are excluded as is the case for traditional ships;

| — | Clarifying and simplifying the sea areas definition in Directive 2009/45/EC while removing the reference to ‘where shipwrecked persons can land’, as well as the notion of ‘place of refuge’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Clarifying and simplifying the sea areas definition in Directive 2009/45/EC while removing the reference to ‘where shipwrecked persons can land’, as well as the notion of ‘place of refuge’.

| 3.4. | Furthermore, the REFIT report recommends developing guidelines or standards for small vessels and vessels built in non-steel or equivalent materials, based on functional requirements as part of a goal-based standard framework. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

Furthermore, the REFIT report recommends developing guidelines or standards for small vessels and vessels built in non-steel or equivalent materials, based on functional requirements as part of a goal-based standard framework.

| 3.5. | Finally, it is worth noting that the Commission proposal seeks to preserve the current common level of safety established by Directive 2009/45/EC for ships operating on domestic voyages within EU waters, which facilitates the transfer of ships between national registers and allows competition in domestic voyages to take place on an equal footing. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Commission proposal seeks to preserve the current common level of safety established by Directive 2009/45/EC for ships operating on domestic voyages within EU waters, which facilitates the transfer of ships between national registers and allows competition in domestic voyages to take place on an equal footing.

4.   General comments

General comments

| 4.1. | The EESC notes that the fitness check applied to the EU safety rules and standards for passenger ships may well have been affected by the lack of data and therefore asks for better data collection and monitoring systems in future, in order to make EU post-implementation assessments more robust. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

The EESC notes that the fitness check applied to the EU safety rules and standards for passenger ships may well have been affected by the lack of data and therefore asks for better data collection and monitoring systems in future, in order to make EU post-implementation assessments more robust.

| 4.2. | Despite noting the rationale behind the exclusion of small ships (below 24 meters in length) from the scope of the directive, the EESC believes that the application to new vessels below 24 meters in length should be retained. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

Despite noting the rationale behind the exclusion of small ships (below 24 meters in length) from the scope of the directive, the EESC believes that the application to new vessels below 24 meters in length should be retained.

| 4.3. | In the REFIT report, as well as in paragraph 17 of the recitals to Directive 2009/45/EC, it is noted that EU standards provide for access to passenger ferry services in domestic trade for persons with reduced mobility, an element which is recommended but not mandatory in international standards. The EESC highly commends this requirement and believes this should apply to all kinds of domestic passenger service ships. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

In the REFIT report, as well as in paragraph 17 of the recitals to Directive 2009/45/EC, it is noted that EU standards provide for access to passenger ferry services in domestic trade for persons with reduced mobility, an element which is recommended but not mandatory in international standards. The EESC highly commends this requirement and believes this should apply to all kinds of domestic passenger service ships.

| 4.4. | The EESC also believes that it is essential that all passengers on board ships be informed about details concerning safety on board the vessel. It is of vital importance to ensure that these details are also available to persons with a disability. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

The EESC also believes that it is essential that all passengers on board ships be informed about details concerning safety on board the vessel. It is of vital importance to ensure that these details are also available to persons with a disability.

5.   Specific comments on the proposed amendments to Directive 2009/45/EC

Specific comments on the proposed amendments to Directive 2009/45/EC

5.1.   
  Article 2 — Definitions

Article 2 — Definitions

| 5.1.1. | Point (h) — The definition of a ‘new ship’ as a ship, the keel of which was laid or which was at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 July 1998 is outdated; however, no change has been proposed. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.1.

Point (h) — The definition of a ‘new ship’ as a ship, the keel of which was laid or which was at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 July 1998 is outdated; however, no change has been proposed.

| 5.1.2. | Point (u) — The change from ‘host state’ to ‘port state’ is not explained. The EESC recommends that the Commission provide an explanation for this change of terminology and possible change of substance.
  Furthermore, the directive seems in this point not to draw any distinction between EU-flags and non-EU flags, which may have relevance, as the vessels in question are performing maritime cabotage (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage). |
| --- | --- |

5.1.2.

Point (u) — The change from ‘host state’ to ‘port state’ is not explained. The EESC recommends that the Commission provide an explanation for this change of terminology and possible change of substance.

Furthermore, the directive seems in this point not to draw any distinction between EU-flags and non-EU flags, which may have relevance, as the vessels in question are performing maritime cabotage (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).

| 5.1.3. | New point (za) — This point clarifies that ‘equivalent material’ means aluminium alloy or any other non-combustible material that maintains structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable exposure to the standard fire test due to the insulation provided. As some Member States have not been certifying aluminium ships under this directive, the EESC welcomes this clarification in principle. However, the EESC recommends that the corresponding technical standard included in the Annex to Directive 2009/45/EC be further clarified in cooperation with national experts.
  Finally, the EESC believes that the new definition of ‘equivalent material’, especially the reference to ‘any other non-combustible material’, may be confusing as it does not adequately specify which type of material a material must be equivalent to in order to fall under the scope of the amended directive. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.3.

New point (za) — This point clarifies that ‘equivalent material’ means aluminium alloy or any other non-combustible material that maintains structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable exposure to the standard fire test due to the insulation provided. As some Member States have not been certifying aluminium ships under this directive, the EESC welcomes this clarification in principle. However, the EESC recommends that the corresponding technical standard included in the Annex to Directive 2009/45/EC be further clarified in cooperation with national experts.

Finally, the EESC believes that the new definition of ‘equivalent material’, especially the reference to ‘any other non-combustible material’, may be confusing as it does not adequately specify which type of material a material must be equivalent to in order to fall under the scope of the amended directive.

| 5.1.4. | New point (zd) — The proposed definition of ‘pleasure yacht/craft’ reads ‘a vessel carrying no cargo and not more than 12 passengers not engaged in trade regardless of the means of propulsion’. The EESC believes that, for the sake of clarity, the present wording ‘passengers for commercial purposes’ should be retained. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.4.

New point (zd) — The proposed definition of ‘pleasure yacht/craft’ reads ‘a vessel carrying no cargo and not more than 12 passengers not engaged in trade regardless of the means of propulsion’. The EESC believes that, for the sake of clarity, the present wording ‘passengers for commercial purposes’ should be retained.

for commercial purposes’

5.2.   
  Article 3 — Scope

Article 3 — Scope

| 5.2.1. | Paragraph 1, point (a) — [This Directive applies to] ‘new and existing passenger ships of 24 meters in length and above’. The proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC thus excludes all small ships, while the present regulation only excludes existing ships, not ‘new’ ships below 24 meters in length. See 5.1.1 above for the definition of ‘new ship’. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.1.

Paragraph 1, point (a) — [This Directive applies to] ‘new and existing passenger ships of 24 meters in length and above’. The proposal for amending Directive 2009/45/EC thus excludes all small ships, while the present regulation only excludes existing ships, not ‘new’ ships below 24 meters in length. See 5.1.1 above for the definition of ‘new ship’.

| 5.2.2. | The rationale given for the exclusion is that Directive 2009/45/EC currently applies only to 70 out of 1 950 small ships. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.2.

The rationale given for the exclusion is that Directive 2009/45/EC currently applies only to 70 out of 1 950 small ships.

| 5.2.3. | Another rationale given for the proposed exclusion is the principle of subsidiarity on the grounds that, as these ships are constructed for a wide range of services and establishing common set of rules will be extremely challenging, Member States would therefore be in a better position to regulate. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.3.

Another rationale given for the proposed exclusion is the principle of subsidiarity on the grounds that, as these ships are constructed for a wide range of services and establishing common set of rules will be extremely challenging, Member States would therefore be in a better position to regulate.

| 5.2.4. | The EESC struggles to understand these arguments. If 96 % of the fleet of smaller ships are not covered by the directive as they are built from materials other than steel or equivalents or are ships operating exclusively in port areas etc., then exempting vessels below 24 meters is of no benefit to these ships. However, what about the other 4 %? |
| --- | --- |

5.2.4.

The EESC struggles to understand these arguments. If 96 % of the fleet of smaller ships are not covered by the directive as they are built from materials other than steel or equivalents or are ships operating exclusively in port areas etc., then exempting vessels below 24 meters is of no benefit to these ships. However, what about the other 4 %?

| 5.2.5. | If harmonised rules are not suitable for certain ships below 24 meters, then Member States are already free to allow exemptions under Article 9 of the directive. However, if the proposal for amending the directive on this point is accepted, there will be some ships measuring up to 24 meters in length that will no longer be covered by the directive. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.5.

If harmonised rules are not suitable for certain ships below 24 meters, then Member States are already free to allow exemptions under Article 9 of the directive. However, if the proposal for amending the directive on this point is accepted, there will be some ships measuring up to 24 meters in length that will no longer be covered by the directive.

| 5.2.6. | A 24 meter passenger ship is not necessarily an insignificant vessel as it could accommodate up to 250 passengers on board. It could be argued that passengers should have the same right to safety regardless of whether their ship measures 23,9 meters or 24,1 meters in length. For these reasons, the EESC believes that the application to new ships below 24 meters in length should be retained and that Member States can continue to allow exemptions if they see fit. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.6.

A 24 meter passenger ship is not necessarily an insignificant vessel as it could accommodate up to 250 passengers on board. It could be argued that passengers should have the same right to safety regardless of whether their ship measures 23,9 meters or 24,1 meters in length. For these reasons, the EESC believes that the application to new ships below 24 meters in length should be retained and that Member States can continue to allow exemptions if they see fit.

5.3.   
  Article 5

Article 5

As regards the amendment to Article 5, paragraph 3 on inspection, the EESC is of the opinion that reference should also be made to ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft on domestic voyage on a regular service as defined under the scope of the new proposed Directive (COM(2016)371 final) repealing Directive 1999/35/EC (see Article 1). With the aim of further rationalising the inspection effort of national administrations, maximising the time in which the ship can be commercially exploited and eliminating potential overlaps between the specific inspections under the proposed new directive (COM(2016)371 final) repealing Directive 1999/35/EC and the surveys required under Article 12, it is suggested to:

| — | replace term ‘survey’ by ‘inspection’ under Article 5, and |
| --- | --- |

—

replace term ‘survey’ by ‘inspection’ under Article 5, and

| — | make a clear reference under Article 5 to the inspection requirements under the proposed new Directive (COM(2016)371 final) repealing Directive 1999/35/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

make a clear reference under Article 5 to the inspection requirements under the proposed new Directive (COM(2016)371 final) repealing Directive 1999/35/EC.

Brussels, 19 October 2016.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 22.7.1996, p. 21.

1

---