EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 4.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2951 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
concerning the rights of passengers when tr avelling by sea and inland waterway and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on c ooperation between national authorities 
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws 
 
Summary of the Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 816 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2950} 
 
EN 2   EN SUMMARY  
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
Organisation  
This impact assessment has been conducted with  a view to examining the situation with 
regard to the protection of pa ssenger rights in the maritime sector and the necessity to 
establish a legislation granting passengers general rights. It focuses on the main areas of 
concern highlighted by the Commission in its pol icy documents, namely: the rights of persons 
with reduced mobility (hereinafter referred as to PRMs); quality of service; assistance and compensation to passengers when a travel is interrupted in the event of delay or cancellation; the right to information; and non-discrimination issues. 
Consultation and expertise 
In 2005-2006, DG TREN commissioned an independent  study that examined the current level 
of protection of passengers rights in the EU maritime transport sector
 that were being affected 
by disruptions. The European Commission also  launched a public consultation in 2006. The 
conclusion for both of these actions was that there should be a co mmon minimum level of 
protection for passengers' right s throughout the EU, i rrespective of the transport mode or 
whether a journey takes place wholly within a single Member State or crosses an internal or 
external border. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
The problems for PRMs as passengers 
A large majority (79%) of the citizens living in the European Union consider that being 
disabled is a disadvantage. There is a clear co nsensus across all Member States (91%) that 
more should be done, and more money needs to  be spent, on improving accessibility. In 
transport services, the rights of  PRMs cannot be limited to accessibility of means of transport, 
as they also include non-discrimination, s eamless assistance throughout their journey and 
information. 
The problems of the maritime sector for EU passengers 
Effective protection of the rights of the passenge rs when travelling by sea or inland waterway 
affects the entire maritime sector: i.e. national traffic, intra Community traffic, international traffic and cruise ship traffic. 
The opening up of the market has not had the an ticipated effect of ra ising the quality of 
standards and services, including better passenger rights and us er-friendly means of settling 
disputes. Passengers, who have to cope with different procedures and deadlines, depending on 
the company, need to be able to avail themselv es of common procedures  in order to express 
their dissatisfaction, where nece ssary. The lack of common pr ocedures isolates passengers 
and prevents them from expressing their dissatisfaction when they need to do so. 
 
EN 3   EN The underlying drivers of the problem  
– There is a lack of uniformity regarding the ex tent and depth of passe nger rights protection.  
– There is no common framework regarding immedi ate and predefined solutions in the cases 
of cancellation and delay.  
– Passengers in general and PRMs passengers in particular are not informed in case of a 
critical event. 
– Potential discrimination against PRMs exists as  well as lack of dedicated facilities in 
maritime transport.  
Who is affected and how? 
The number of passengers using maritime transport is increasing due to the opening up of 
maritime transport markets, which has led to a wide r range of tourist destinations on offer, at 
ever lower prices. In 2006, the annual total nu mber of maritime passengers for the countries 
considered was estimated at 199 million, of whic h nearly 60% in national traffic, 35% in 
intra-Community traffic and the remainder being split between internatio nal and cruise travel. 
The total number of PRMs in EU-27 was around 136.2 million persons in 20051.  
Does the EU have the right to act? 
Passenger protection, and in pa rticular the protection of th e most vulnerable groups of 
passengers, is part of the inte rnal market and the common tran sport policies of  the European 
Union. The single market is deemed to be established when consumers and companies can enjoy the maximum benefits. As the common mark et in maritime transport has been achieved, 
the protection of maritime passe ngers’ rights within this Eur opean common market must be 
put in place accordingly. This European dime nsion has already been acknowledged and acted 
upon at Community level by the European legislator  in both the air trans port and rail transport 
sectors
2. Moreover, a proposal for a Regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by bus 
and coach is currently in inter-service consultation. 
Passengers and industry need a common set of pr inciples governing liability across all modes 
of transport: liability in case of accidents; information and quality protection of disabled people and persons with reduced mobility; assistance an d reimbursement in the event of delay 
and cancellation. 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
The general objectives of establishing the ri ghts of passengers are underpinned by the general 
objectives of the EU in terms of a high leve l of customer protect ion, better social and 
economic cohesion, social inclusion of different social groups and ensuring the movement of 
persons within the European Union.  
                                                 
1 PwC analysis of data from Eurostat and One-Stop -Shop for Accessible Tourism in Europe (OSSATE): 
“Accessibility Market and Stakeholder Analysis”.  
2 Regulations (EC) No 261/2004, OJ L46, and (EC) No 1107/2006, OJ L204, regarding air transport; 
regarding rail transport, see Regulation 1371/2007. 
 
EN 4   EN 4. OPTIONS  
"Business as usual" (Option 1)  
No action whatsoever is being undertaken at EU level, and the existing situation, with its 
divergent national and international laws, is  being perpetuated. 
Community legislative action to improve the rights for persons when  travelling by boat 
(Option 2) 
Another option that could be envisaged is regulator y action at EU level, as this is binding and 
immediately applicable. Such a Regulation w ould apply not only to international routes 
involving at least one EU port, but also to any domestic service within an individual Member 
State. Such an EU act would: 
• Establish rights regarding PRMs: accessibil ity in ports, assistan ce in ports and on 
board ships, and information requirements 
• Establish rights for passengers when trav el is interrupted in the event of 
cancellation or delays 
• Establish the standards for provision of information about maritime passenger 
rights to the general public and espe cially to travellers, including PRMs 
• Provide for complaint handling and the m onitoring and enforcement of the rights 
of passengers.  
EU coordination and exchange of best pr actices to enhance national legislation 
(Option 3) 
In this scenario, the EU regulation is confined  to promoting a common  "soft-law" framework 
for the Member States. This soft-law framewor k would be based on best  practices and would 
provide a benchmark for national laws to enfor ce the rights of passengers when travelling by 
sea and inland waterway. 
Voluntary agreements (Option 4) 
The efficiency of voluntary agr eements in passenger transport is  highly debatable: the strong 
views expressed by consumer organisations conf irm that the very few codes of conduct that 
have so far been developed have failed to deliver. Past experience in regulating the air 
transport sector seems to confirm the very li mited success of agreements of this type.  
5. ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT  
Option 1: Business as usual  
Operators, ports, administrations  and local authorities bear no additional costs under this 
policy option. However, they could ultimately lose out, as no additional traffic would come their way. Without measures in favour of pass engers travelling by boat, passenger numbers 
are not likely to increase.  
 
EN 5   EN A further impact on operators, ports, administ rations and local authorities in the EU and 
outside the EU is the cost due to discrepancies between national laws. 
Option 2: Community le gislative intervention 
(1) Cost of measures as regard PRMs 
An acceptable level of accessibility in ports can be achieved at minimal cost to operators 
whenever a terminal is subject to a ma jor refurbishment, or is newly built. 
As regards the cost of assistan ce in ports, the only costs that may need to be borne by ship 
operators will be for training courses. Carriers ar e already required to pr ovide training courses 
for their personnel on “assi stance on ships”. The es timated yearly cost for training front office 
employees is about €2.9m. Nevertheless, in the in terest of improving awareness, back office 
personnel might also be required to attend these training courses. In this specific case, the 
additional cost has been calculated at about €1m.  
Information obligations can be considered to be a minor cost, as this item can be added as part 
of other information already produced / disseminated by operators.  
(2) Cost of measures when travel is interr upted in the event of delay or cancellation 
The actions oriented towards defining co mpensation schemes and towards providing 
information to make passengers aware of their rights are unlikely to involve excessive costs, 
although this is hard to predict. Nevertheless, the effects on revenue and profits are likely to 
be insignificant; moreover the impact on the competitiveness of Community companies should be slight, as all operators invo lved in the sector would be covered. 
(3) Costs deriving from the oblig ations to provide information 
It does not appear that the oblig ation to provide information will give rise to any particular 
additional costs for the operators. 
(4) Cost of complaint hand ling service and monitoring 
The process of managing the settlement of dis putes is not expected to lead to any major 
additional economic burdens for the operators.  
(5) Impact on maritime passengers  The increased costs may lead either to a reduct ion in operating margins for ship operators or 
to an increase in passenger fares. Any impact on ticket fares would depend on the additional costs that ship operators would have to face.  
(6) Impact on the tourism industry  The measures proposed are likely to have a bene ficial impact on the competitive position of 
EU businesses.  
 
EN 6   EN Option 3: EU coordination and exchange of be st practices to enhan ce national legislation 
The anticipated benefits and costs deriving fr om the proposed measures will depend on the 
extent to which EU Member States commit to adopting national rules, and to enforcing them. 
A positive impact on the tourism industry is expected where national measures apply. 
However, potential additional revenues from tourism would be lower than under option 2, since services would be fully accessible only in Member States that fully adhere to the EU 
recommendations.  
Option 4: Voluntary agreements 
The types of costs are the same as for previous  options. However, the total costs are expected 
to be lower than for the other options, since onl y a limited number of operators are likely to 
bear any additional costs on a voluntary basis. 
6. A
NALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT  
Option 1: Business as usual 
Passengers' confidence in other modes of tran sport, based on rights already approved at 
Community level, would turn into mistrust if maritime transport refuses to provide passengers 
with this minimum level of uniformity, clarity  and effectiveness as regards their rights. 
Negative social consequences could eventually l ead to job losses and a l ack of integration of 
the elderly and the disabled.  
Option 2: Community legislative action 
Passengers travelling by sea a nd inland waterways will benef it as a result of an improved 
quality of service. They will also have the benefit of assistance if they experience inconvenience during the journey.  
As regards additional employment in ports, an increasing number of passengers travelling by 
ship may necessitate extra staff in ports and passenger terminals. The potential number of 
additional employees to be hired in ports would be approximately 176 400 in the most 
conservative case. Additional employment in the tourism sector could vary from nearly 12 
000 to over 24 000 FTEs. 
Option 3: EU coordination and exchange of be st practices to enhan ce national legislation 
Under this option, the likely benefits and costs will depend on the level of commitment on the 
part of the EU Member States in adopting and enforcing the new rules. 
Option 4: Voluntary agreements 
The likely benefits and costs will depend on the level of commi tment by operators in adopting 
passenger rights, accepting them if they are adopt ed collectively, and in any event respecting 
them in practice. 
 
EN 7   EN 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  
Option 1: Business as usual 
If maritime transport fails to meet passenger e xpectations passengers are likely to express 
their dissatisfaction by opting for an alternative mode of trans port where one is available. 
Freight transport by ship is eight times less po lluting than transport by air, which can be 
considered to be the only alternative transpor t solution. The environmental cost of the "no 
action" option is therefore considerable.  
Option 2: Community le gislative intervention 
A significantly better quality of services fo r passengers would increase the demand for 
maritime transport. If the number of passengers were to increase, the main effects would be to increase average load factors and to allow bette r management of the existing European fleet. 
However, if the number of maritime transport se rvices was to increase, this would have a 
marginal positive impact on the environment, as most new passengers would be coming over from other (more polluting) modes of transport.  
Option 3: EU coordination and exchange of be st practices to enhan ce national legislation 
In countries that have not adopted the meas ures proposed by the EU, the service is not 
expected to improve. Passengers are likely to  express their dissatisfaction by opting for 
alternative modes of transport that are more polluting than maritime transport. 
Option 4: Voluntary agreements 
Maritime services are not expected to improve . The outcome would be similar to Option 3 
above. 
8. A
DMINISTRATIVE COST  
The entity responsible for enforcement and m onitoring of the proposed rules and for dealing 
with complaints would be very similar in terms of the scope of its activ ity, tasks and structure 
to the one designated by each Member State to enforce the “Regulation on International Rail 
Passengers’ Rights and Obligations”3 or the “Regulation on Air Passengers’ Rights”.4 The 
experience already gained in air transport is th erefore very valuable in this case. The total 
predictable cost would be some €568 000 for the EU.  
                                                 
3 COM(2004) 143.  
4 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 11 February 
2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of 
denied boarding and of cancellation or long dela y of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) 
No 295/91.  
 
EN 8   EN 9. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
The conclusions of the impact assessment study are that, of the four  options assessed, EU 
legislative action is the option that  can achieve all the objectives.  
Judging by the example of other transport modes, it is apparent that a real improvement in 
passenger protection can only be ac hieved at EU level. While the benefit for passengers is 
evident, harmonising basic rights also confer s a considerable advantage on the transport 
industry operating in a single market. Piecem eal national rules ensh rined in disconnected 
pieces of legislation and contracts tend to generate adaptation costs and restrict the 
geographical flexibility of operators to ma ke use of staff and means of transport.