EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 10.12.2021 SWD(2021) 415 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



EVALUATION

of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport {SWD(2021) 416 final}



Table of Contents 1.Introduction 1.1.Overall context of passenger rights 1.2.Purpose and scope of the evaluation 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Specific context of passenger rights in bus and coach transport 2.2.Description of the intervention and its objectives 2.3.Baseline and points of comparison 3.Implementation / state of play 3.1.Description of the current situation 3.2.Member States implementation and monitoring 3.3.Member States’ exemptions 3.4.Major recent developments 4.Methodology 4.1.Short description of methodology 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1.Effectiveness 5.2.Efficiency

5.3.Relevance 5.4.Coherence 5.5.EU added value 6.Conclusions 6.1.Effectiveness 6.2.Efficiency 6.3.Relevance 6.4.Coherence 6.5.EU added value Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Synopsis report of stakeholder Consultation Annex 3: Methods and analytical models Annex 4: Review of the intervention logic Annex 5: Costs – benefits identified in the evaluation (Overview) Annex 6: Tables and Figures



Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution CPC Consumer Protection Cooperation EC European Commission ECC European Consumer Centre EEA European Economic Area EU European Union EU27 The 27 Member States of the EU after 31 January 2020, excluding the United Kingdom EU+4 The EU27 plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom FTE Full Time Equivalent (employees) NEB National Enforcement Body ODR Online Dispute Resolution PRM Persons with disabilities or reduced mobility PSO Public Service Obligation PSC Public Service Contract SCM Standard Cost Model SMS Short Message Service TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union







1.Introduction 1.1.Overall context of passenger rights Collective transport services are vital to stimulate economic growth, to enable social and territorial cohesion and to preserve the environment in the EU, and their quality affects directly their attractiveness and the satisfaction of passengers. Traditionally passenger rights were mandated through the terms and conditions of the contract between passengers and carriers. This approach proved insufficient as very often it turned out to be costly, cumbersome and frustrating for passengers to defend their rights vis-à-vis carriers. It is the reason why the objective to introduce passenger protection rules in all modes of transport was set by the Commission twenty years ago. Today the EU framework for passenger rights provides a minimum level of protection for citizens using collective transport services (either air, rail, waterborne or bus and coach transport). They promote quality and protect passengers during all phases of the journey (before, during and after the service). The framework consists of five Regulations covering air, rail, bus and coach, as well as waterborne passenger rights. These Regulations were designed to minimise travel disruptions, improve information available to passengers, and ensure an immediate and proportionate assistance when required, including for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility (PRM). The EU passenger rights Regulations were mainly adopted between 2004 and 2011 and are the following: –Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, keeping in mind that denied boarding and carrier’s liability in the event of accident in aviation were already addressed in the 1990s. This Regulation was complemented by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 concerning the rights of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air; –Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 concerning rail passengers’ rights and obligations, which will be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 2021/782 as of 7 June 2023; –Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway; and –Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport, whose ex-post evaluation is presented in this report. After the adoption of passenger rights Regulations for all four transport modes, the Commission published in 2011 "European vision for passengers: Communication on passenger rights in all transport modes" where the three key principles for passenger rights were identified: the non-discrimination of passengers; the availability of accurate, timely and accessible information to all passengers; and an immediate and proportionate assistance when required, underpinned by the so-called ten core passenger rights (see Table A6.10 in Annex 6). The framework also intended to contribute to a level playing field for transport operators within and across modes, through creating a European standard for passenger protection. As a result, EU passenger rights apply to a growing market of around 450 million citizens performing several billions of journeys every year for private or business purpose. In this context, the passenger protection has become a cornerstone of EU transport policy, building on international conventions and the general consumer protection framework of the Union. In its recent Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the Commission observed that “EU passenger rights should be better implemented, clearer for both carriers and passengers, offer adequate assistance, reimbursement, possibly compensation when disruptions arise, and appropriate penalties if the rules are not properly applied” and expressed its intention to take actions to achieve this aim. In line with the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the level of protection introduced by Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 on bus and coach passenger rights (hereafter “the Regulation”) ten years ago is now evaluated in the context of the simplification and consolidation of the EU framework on passenger rights. This exercise is also in line with the recommendations presented by the European Court of Auditors in their special report on passenger rights in November 2018. 1.2.Purpose and scope of the evaluation The purpose of this ex-post evaluation is to assess whether the Regulation has delivered the intended rights to passengers in bus and coach transport, in accordance with the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines. The evaluation, initiated in 2019, comes nearly eight years after the adoption of the Regulation, and six years after it actually started to apply (1 March 2013), and also considering that, from 1 March 2021, the exemptions regime provided for by the Regulation has come to an end (see Section 3.3 below). This evaluation, building inter alia on the evaluation support study (hereafter “the support study”) carried out by an external contractor, and the 2016 Commission’s report on the application of the Regulation assesses the actual performance of the Regulation in terms of its:

–Effectiveness: analysing the progress made towards achieving the objectives of the intervention, looking for evidence of why, whether or how these changes are linked to the EU intervention; –Efficiency: looking closely at both the costs and benefits of the EU intervention as they accrue to different stakeholders, identifying what factors are driving these costs/benefits and how these factors relate to the EU intervention; –Relevance: looking at the objectives of the EU intervention being evaluated and see how well they (still) match the (current) needs and problems; –Coherence: looking at how well the intervention works: i) internally and ii) with other EU interventions and international obligations; and –EU added value: considering arguments about the value resulting from EU interventions that is additional to the value that would have resulted from interventions initiated at regional or national levels by both public authorities and the private sector. The geographic scope of the evaluation covers all 27 EU Member States, as well as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (collectively referred to as “EU+4”). It is now appropriate to subject the Regulation to a full evaluation to determine whether it has reached its intended purposes and whether it continues to be justified in terms of the five criteria listed above. The evaluation of this Regulation has been carried out in parallel with the evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 on waterborne passenger rights and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 concerning the rights of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Specific context of passenger rights in bus and coach transport Bus and coach transport is an important mode of transport, traditionally for short journeys and between points in rural areas that are not served by rail and more recently also for long-distance journeys. In total around 2.7 billion passenger journeys are performed by bus and coach on a yearly basis in the EU. Bus and coach transport is also usually one of the cheapest forms of collective transport. Bus and coach users often tend to be ‘vulnerable’ passengers, in terms of income or age (i.e. students or elderly people) often travelling from/to isolated areas where buses and coaches represent the only available mode of public transport. Bus and coach transport services are indeed able to pick up and alight passengers virtually anywhere, with minimal arrangement of fixed infrastructures, and in this lies its main feature as flexible transport mode. There have been a number of changes in the EU bus and coach market with potential implications for passengers’ needs in the last decade. Liberalisation of domestic markets in large Member States led to a significant increase in passenger traffic, both domestically and internationally. Liberalisation was followed by a relatively rapid consolidation of carriers and a significant increase in the number of routes offered. The bus and coach market consists of ‘carriers’ offering transport services to the general public and ‘performing carriers’, usually small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), who actually perform the carriage wholly or partially. The range of services operated are defined as ‘regular services’, meaning services provided at specified intervals along specified routes with predetermined stopping points for non-specified categories of passengers, and ‘occasional services’, where the groups of passengers are constituted on the initiative of the customer or the carrier himself. While occasional services can be provided on a commercial basis only, regular services can additionally be provided under the framework of a Public Service Obligation (PSO), according to which transport operators are compensated or given exclusive rights by public authorities to provide public transport services which are in the general interest but would otherwise not be commercially viable. The latter is typically the case of urban, suburban and regional regular services. The Regulation introduced a specific, enforceable framework of rights for passengers when travelling by bus and coach in the European Union, which is applicable also in the EEA and Switzerland. 2.2.Description of the intervention and its objectives The situation before the adoption of the Regulation was complex and determined by the minimum of: ·Rights required under national law, if any; ·For Public Service Obligations (PSO) services only, rights specified by competent authorities; ·For PSO services only, rights over and above the PSO requirement offered voluntarily by carriers as part of their proposal to win the PSO contract;

·For all services, rights granted voluntarily by a carrier to preserve its reputation in the market, whether formally included in its conditions of carriage or not. Certain bus and coach passenger rights existed at EU level already before the adoption of the Regulation: 1.Passengers are since 27 October 2009 eligible for some protection in the event of an accident. Directive 2009/103/EC specifies minimum cover of EUR 5 million per claim whatever the number of victims (or EUR 1 million per victim), whilst the Regulation provides, in Article 7(2), that any maximum limit for the amount of compensation provided by national law shall not be less than EUR 220 000 per passenger and EUR 1 200 per item of luggage. Under the Directive of 2009, there was a potential issue that compensation might be exhausted after 22 passengers, if everyone on the bus was awarded the maximum compensation for death or injury. In case of death, Regulations (EC) No 864/2007 and (EC) No 593/2008 were also applicable prior to the introduction of the Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services also specifies in the case of cabotage that carriers are subject to laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force in the host Member State. 2.As far as information is concerned, Regulation (EC) No 684/92 previously required operators to provide passengers with their conditions of carriage when travelling by bus and coach. However, it covered international journeys only, while domestic itineraries were excluded. 3.With regard to the rights of PRM, prior to the introduction of the Regulation, legislation was already in force at national level in nine Member States at the time (e.g. Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom) and could be interpreted as protecting them when travelling long distance by bus. No legislation protecting the rights of PRM was available in other Member States. 4.In the event of cancellation or delay, passengers were required to rely on legislation at the Member State level, where available, or on carrier’s terms and conditions. For services provided under PSO, competent authorities may have chosen to request passenger rights in a number of areas. The Commission’s impact assessment (IA) accompanying the 2008 legislative proposal identified three main areas in which rights needed to be strengthened, namely: (1) the rights of persons with disabilities and reduced mobility, (2) liability issues related to insurance systems in the event of death or injury, and (3) compensation and assistance in the event of delay or cancellation. The specific objectives of the intervention included: –asserting the principle of non-discrimination and assistance to persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility; –asserting the principle of liability of operators in the event of death or injury of passengers; –ensuring a level of quality standards of services, defining information obligations and asserting the principle of assistance in the event of cancellations, delays, etc.; –setting up a procedure for handling complaints; and –ensuring appropriate enforcement. The IA highlighted a number of main problems within the bus and coach sector affecting both passengers and operators: ·Unequal footing with other modes of transport. Passengers in other modes of transport, particularly air, already enjoyed rights established at EU level providing for adequate passenger rights protection since 2004. For bus and coach, an international convention had been ratified by only two Member States, Germany and Latvia. There was no EU legislation establishing passenger rights; ·Fragmentation of legislation. Protection of bus and coach passengers varied from one Member State to another. Passengers had to rely on national liability schemes, fair trading legislation and voluntary customer care commitments by operators. Operators in some countries had developed extensive voluntary agreements, including appropriate complaint handling and dispute resolution mechanisms, but this was not the case for the majority of Member States, preventing fair competition between operators from different Member States and with other modes of transport. ·An "atomized" market. Many enterprises provided bus and coach services and offered different levels of passenger care and service quality, while passenger care varied between operators and depended largely on national legislation and the voluntary agreements referred to above. This, coupled with a lack of information, often prevented passengers from making informed choices as to the level of service they were likely to receive. As a result, the existing legislative framework created real problems for international and domestic passengers. National legislation varied, creating different levels of passenger protection, and bus and coach transport was on an unequal footing with air and rail, where passengers already benefitted or were to benefit from a high and uniform level of protection. ·Persons with disabilities and ageing population. Passengers using bus and coach transport tended to be ‘vulnerable’ (low income or geographically isolated), with limited availability of bus and coach services, potentially hampering their integration into society. PRM include persons with disabilities, and regarding reduced mobility, the elderly and those with temporary disabilities. These did not get appropriate assistance when travelling or appropriate access to transport services. ·Insufficiency of the current legislative framework. At the time of the proposal, legislation at national level differed from one Member State to another, creating different levels of protection for passengers. In particular, the national legislative framework was considered insufficient in relation to four areas: effective protection of passengers in the event of death or injury, limited liability in case of loss or damage of luggage or mobility equipment, accessible coach travel for PRM passengers, the elderly, with a temporary disability, and other vulnerable groups, and consistent complaint handling.

The final text of the Regulation was adopted on 16 February 2011. The balanced approach found takes into account the rights of passengers, as well as the need to ensure the economic viability of the operators of the bus and coach industry, which consists largely of small and medium-sized undertakings. This is why, in terms of scope, urban, sub-urban and regional transport were deemed to fall within the framework of subsidiarity, and the possibility to exempt the application of the Regulation from these was further discussed and eventually made more concrete with the compromise found on the 250km threshold as explained below. Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 on bus and coach passenger rights, like other passenger rights Regulations, was meant to contribute to reducing the negative impact of travel disruption on users of collective transport modes and to improving service quality for passengers. The Regulation was also intended to contribute to the creation of a level playing field for bus and coach operators in the EU and a European standard of passenger protection. It established new protections for passengers when travelling by bus or coach and created obligations for carriers, terminal managing bodies, travel agents, tour operators and Member States. These rights provide for non-discriminatory transport conditions especially for PRM, information to passengers (including PRM), compensation and assistance in the event of accidents, compensation, re-routing and reimbursement in case of cancellation or long delay, assistance in case of cancelled or delayed departures and submission of complaints to NEBs. The Regulation started to apply on 1 March 2013. Exemptions from the scope of the Regulation were still used by several Member States until the end of February 2021 in relation to two types of services (domestic regular services where the distance is equal or above 250 km and regular services of which a significant part of the service is operated outside the EU (see Section 3.3). The Regulation applies to passengers travelling with regular services where the boarding or alighting point of the passengers is situated in the territory of a Member State and where the scheduled distance of the service is 250 km or more, as stated under Article 2(1). In addition, a set of ‘basic’ rights applies to intra-EU regular services although the scheduled distance of the service is below 250 km, as defined under Article 2(2) of the Regulation. The protection of these ‘basic’ rights as provided for by the Regulation, which is not subject to the scope restriction of the 250 km referred to above, relate to: ·Article 4(2) on non-discriminatory transport conditions including tariffs; ·Articles 9 and 10(1) on access to transport for people with disabilities or reduced mobility at no extra cost; ·Article 16(1)(b) on disability-related training for drivers (possible exemptions were set out in Article 16(2) but are no longer possible); ·Article 17(1) and (2) on compensation in respect of wheelchairs and other mobility equipment; ·Articles 24 and 25 on minimum rules on travel information provided to all passengers before and during their journey including information on their rights; ·Articles 26 and 27 on a compliant handling mechanism that carriers must make available to all passengers; and ·Article 28 on independent national enforcement bodies (NEBs) in each Member State, for the enforcement of the Regulation as regards regular services and to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation. In practice, under Article 2(5), the application of the entire Regulation may be exempted for up to eight years in relation to services of which a significant part including at least one scheduled stop is operated outside the Union. Under Article 18, all or some of the provisions of Chapter III related to the rights of persons with disabilities and reduced mobility (PRMs) may be exempted, provided that the level of protection of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility under national rules is at least the same as under the Regulation. The remaining ‘extended’ rights, which may also be subject to some exemptions by Member States, include compensation and assistance in the event on an accident, additional rights to assistance for passengers with PRM requirements, and passenger rights in the event of cancellation or delay. The Regulation was designed to provide an increased level of protection for passengers when travelling by bus or coach, in terms of improvements brought to passenger rights, including PRM’s rights, and new obligations introduced for carriers, terminal managing bodies, travel agents, tour operators and Member States. It requires NEBs to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation. These measures include imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties on operators in case of infringements. Other measures to ensure compliance with the Regulation could for example also include the promotion of passenger rights, the inspection of operators and monitoring of their websites, as well as regular contact with the industry and passenger (incl. PRM) organisations. The Regulation addresses these issues as described in more detail in Table 1. It summarises the structure of the Regulation, the subject of its articles, the types of service to which it applies and the possibility of exemptions. Core passenger rights are marked in bold. See further explanations in Sections 3.1 and 3.3. Chapter Subject of articles Applicability Possibility of exemptions I General provisions 1 Subject matter 2 Scope 3 Definitions 4(1) Carriers shall issue a ticket to the passenger. A ticket may be issued in electronic format. –Services 250 km or more –Occasional services –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 4(2) Contracts and tariffs may not discriminate based on the nationality or place of establishment of the carrier/ticket vendor. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Occasional services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 5 The carrier/travel agent/tour operator is liable for the acts and omissions of the performing party (other carrier, ticket vendor etc.) –Services 250 km or more –Occasional services –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 6 Obligations to passengers shall not be limited or waived. –Services 250 km or more –Occasional services –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU II Compensation and assistance 7 Compensation for death, personal injury, loss of or damage to luggage due to accidents. –Services 250 km or more –Occasional services –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 8 In case of an accident, the carrier shall provide proportionate assistance related to passengers’ immediate practical needs. –Services 250 km or more –Occasional services –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU III Rights of persons with disability and Persons with reduced mobility or disability (PRMs) 9 Right to transport: A reservation, provision of a ticket or taking on board may not be refused or subject to additional cost. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 10(1) Right to transport may be refused if necessary to meet safety requirements or the design of the vehicle or the infrastructure makes it physically impossible. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 10(2) In case of refusal, carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall inform the person concerned about any acceptable alternative services operated by the carrier. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 10(3) In case of refusal, the person concerned shall be offered the choice between reimbursement, continuation of the journey or re-routing. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 10(4) In case of refusal, the person concerned may request to be accompanied by another person, who shall be transported free of charge. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 10(5) In case of refusal, the person concerned shall immediately be informed of its reasons and, upon request, in writing within 5 working days. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 11 Non-discriminatory access conditions for transport shall be established, made available and physically distributed at the request of the passenger. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 12 Member States shall designate bus and coach terminals where assistance for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility shall be provided. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 13 Carriers and terminal managing bodies shall provide assistance free of charge at designated terminals, as well as carriers shall provide it on board buses and coaches. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 14 Carriers and terminal managing bodies shall cooperate to provide assistance, if the request is notified in advance and the person presents herself on time. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 15 If travel agents or tour operators receive a notification, the information shall be transferred to the carrier or terminal managing body as soon as possible. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 16(1)a Carriers or terminal managing bodies shall establish disability-related training procedures, including instructions, for their personnel other than drivers. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 16(1)b Carriers or managing bodies shall establish disability-related training procedures, including instructions, for drivers. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU –Exemption from training for a maximum period of 5 years 16(2) Exemption from the application of Article 16(1)b. 17(1) and (2) Compensation for loss of or damage to mobility equipment equal to the cost of its replacement or repair. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Occasional services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 17(3) Every effort shall be undertaken to rapidly provide temporary replacement equipment or devices, with similar technical and functional features. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services if the level of protection in national law is at least as high –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 18 Exemptions from Chapter III IV Passenger rights in the event of cancellation or delay 19 Where a service is expected to be cancelled or delayed for more than 120 minutes or in the case of overbooking, the passenger shall immediately be offered the choice between reimbursement, continuation or re-routing. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 20 In the event of cancellation or delay in departure of a regular service, passengers shall be informed of the situation as soon as possible and in any event no later than 30 minutes. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 21 In case of cancellation or delay, the carrier shall offer the passenger free of charge snacks, meals or refreshments and accommodation. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 22 Passengers may seek damages before national courts as to the loss resulting from cancellation or delay. –Services 250 km or more –Domestic regular services –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 23 Exemptions for open tickets and cancellations and delays caused by weather or natural disasters. V General rules on information and complaints 24 Passengers shall be provided with adequate information throughout the travel. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 25 Passengers shall be provided with information regarding their rights at the latest on departure. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 26 Carriers shall set up or have in place a complaint handling mechanism. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 27 A passenger shall submit a complaint within 3 months, and receive the reply within 3 months. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU VI Enforcement and national enforcement bodies (NEBs) 28 Provisions on national enforcement bodies. A passenger may submit a complaint to the NEB or other appropriate designated body. –Services 250 km or more –Services below 250 km –Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU 29 Report on enforcement 30 Cooperation between NEBs 31 Penalties VII Final provisions 32 Report 33 Amend Regulation 2006/2004 34 Entry into force Source: Regulation (EU) No 181/2011, analysis based on Support study, Table 1.6.

2.3.Baseline and points of comparison The purpose of the analysis of the evaluation baseline was to model and analyse the impact of policy changes brought by the Regulation. As such, it captures how bus and coach passenger rights and the industry would have evolved, had the Regulation not been adopted. The analysis aims at capturing the change that the intervention of the Regulation has brought over time, by comparing the actual recorded performance against a potential scenario that would have happened without policy intervention. As explained in the support study, in order to evaluate the situation before and after the introduction of the Regulation, data was collected for the 2010-2018 period. Where data extending before 2010 was readily available from the same sources, it was also collated. Data for 2019 had not been published by all sources, thus 2018 was selected as the final year in the baseline to ensure that all Member States are represented equally. This is also a very relevant year as the first period for exemptions expired in 2017. This assessment only focuses on the impact of the Regulation from when it started to apply until the start of the support study (February 2020). The reference year is 2013 for the Regulation, as it started to apply then. To show “from 2013 until today what the situation would have been, had the Regulation or any other EU-level legislation not been implemented”, the following elements were considered: (1)the situation regarding passenger rights in 2013 in the EU+4, i.e. the 27 Member States, as well as Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and the UK, for passengers within the scope of the Regulation; (2)the assumption that the legal framework in each Member State would have remained intact if the Regulation had not been in place; and (3)the application of consumer law in each Member State. The situation before the introduction of the Regulation was analysed. Only a small number of Member States had some kind of bus and coach passenger and PRM rights legislation before the introduction of the Regulation and, among other assumptions, it was assumed that the resulting level of passenger rights in each Member State would have been constant in the no policy intervention scenario, i.e. the framework in each Member State would have remained intact if the Regulation had not been in place. Section 5.5 on EU added value provides further insights on whether the needs that drove the intervention would remain without the current EU framework (see Table 5). The situation across both scenarios –with and without policy intervention- between 2011 and 2018 was then evaluated. More information on the methodology is provided in Chapter 4. 3.Implementation / state of play 3.1.Description of the current situation As introduced above, the Regulation is expected to have led to an increased level of protection for passengers when travelling by bus or coach. However, as shown in Chapter 5, there remain obstacles to ensuring an equivalent level of protection while the criterion of the length of services (250 km or more or below 250km), which is explained in Section 2.2, has considerably restricted the implementation of extended rights to a small group of bus and coach passengers. In bus and coach transport, passenger rights are protected by different pieces of legislation, including: ·Passenger rights legislation, including Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the right of passengers when travelling by bus and coach (see above); ·Other rights stemming from transport related regulations, including Regulation (EC) No 661/2009, which sets out technical requirements for buses with a capacity exceeding 22 passengers in addition to the driver, while establishing that these vehicles shall be accessible for PRM, including wheelchair users; ·Consumer rights in the broader perspective, distinguishing between instruments regulating substantive rights, including in particular Directive 2015/2032/EU (the “Package Travel Directive”) applicable where carriage of passengers by bus/coach is combined with other travel services, and enforcement mechanisms, set out in Regulation (EU) No 2017/2394 on Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) which has applied since January 2020, repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on enforcement of consumer protection laws. In addition, bus and coach passenger rights legislation interfaces with horizontal consumer protection rules or schemes such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bodies, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) bodies and European Consumer Centres (ECCs). In 2016, pursuant to Article 32 of the Regulation, the Commission reported to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation and effects of the Regulation. In this report, the Commission did not identify evidence supporting any amendment of the Regulation’s provisions. The report identified some issues and put forward a list of non-legislative initiatives to improve the application and enforcement of the Regulation. In this context, the Commission decided to take the following measures: (1) actions to raise awareness of passengers’ rights and operators’ obligations, (2) actions to improve enforcement through regular contacts with NEBs and monitoring of their activities, and (3) actions to ensure the uniform application of the Regulation, including by providing non-binding guidance and clarifications during the annual EU-level meetings with NEBs and stakeholders, and through written correspondence. Regarding the awareness of passengers’ rights, the Commission started carrying out information campaigns aimed at raising awareness among citizens in 2009. The first campaign (2010-2012) was organised for air and rail passenger rights, while a second one launched in 2013 concerned all modes. Online communication campaigns (online advertising) have proven the most cost-effective means during the last years (campaigns in 2016-2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021), which was reflected in a steep increase of visits of the relevant Your Europe passenger rights webpages.

The Commission also regularly conducts Eurobarometer surveys on passenger rights. The results of the latest survey showed that nearly one third only (32% of respondents) of EU citizens are aware of the existence of EU passenger rights, while 39% of actual bus and coach passengers are aware of EU passenger rights, which is lower than in other modes (49% in air, 43% in rail and 45% in waterborne). The Commission holds regular meetings with the NEBs to exchange experiences and clarify the interpretation of the Regulation. The main points of discussion concerned: the state of play with the enforcement and legal interpretation of the Regulation, including on issues of the 250km threshold, the proof of PRM awareness training, and the definition of terminals. Other issues of attention included: addressing the low awareness of passengers about their rights, improving the processing of complaints through a new standard complaint form, having a common approach in dealing with pan-European carriers and supporting the NEB-NEB cooperation further. In 2019, the Commission published a second report to the European Parliament and the Council concluding that, since 2017, fewer Member States granted exemptions under the Regulation concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport, but those exemptions still deprived many passengers of the full enjoyment of their rights. In the context of COVID-19 , the Commission published Interpretative Guidelines on the passenger rights Regulations and a Recommendation on vouchers. It also updated the websites of Your Europe and added information on the Coronavirus Response website. In July 2020, the Commission launched infringement proceedings against two Member States for failure to comply with EU rules protecting passenger rights but only in one Member State bus and coach passenger rights were concerned. The procedure has been closed in October 2020 because the Member State concerned amended its law. In August 2020, the Commission started informal dialogues via EU Pilot with all Member States and the United Kingdom regarding the application of passenger rights in all modes of transport including bus and coach in the context of COVID-19 and the obligations of NEBs to report on their activities. These dialogues are still ongoing. 3.2.Member States implementation and monitoring The choice to intervene at EU level in this policy area through a Regulation had a direct impact on the extent of the implementation obligations for Member States. Member States are required, under Article 28(1) of the Regulation, to designate or establish one or more national enforcement bodies (NEBs). Pursuant to Article 31, Member States have to lay down rules on penalties that have to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, in view of addressing infringements of the provisions of the Regulation. Member States are required to inform the Commission of the body or bodies designated in line with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 and the most recent list was published based on this information by the Commission in November 2021, when it included the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. It could be highlighted in particular that: •In total 98 NEBs were notified to the Commission. •Most States have a single national NEB for all bus and coach services, while some have designated more than one NEB, at the national, regional and local level or dealing with international/domestic affairs: e.g. there are two or three responsible bodies in Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, but ten regional bodies in Czechia, sixteen in Poland and nineteen in Spain, combined with a national body. •Many NEBs are bodies performing NEB functions for bus and coach passengers exclusively; nevertheless, in 17 States, the NEB for the Regulation is also the NEB for one or several other modes of transport (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland). •Most NEBs for the Regulation are transport or road authorities, meaning that they would have the required expertise to make technical judgements on bus and coach passenger rights and to challenge technical justifications given by bus and coach operators. In seven Member States (Estonia, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Sweden), NEBs for the Regulation are a consumer protection authority. •Few NEBs for the Regulation also act as an ADR (Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia). The Regulation requires that passengers have the possibility to submit complaints to a NEB or to another body designated by a Member State, although Member States may require that the passenger must, as a first step, submit the complaint to the carrier. This means that the role of complaint handling may be performed by the carrier, a NEB, a dedicated complaint-handling body, a body providing alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or any other body. Complaint handling Passenger rights, including their application and enforcement, are specific to each mode of transport separately, meaning that when a passenger faces a disruption in one mode while travelling multimodal, they can only turn to the competent NEB for that mode, while the latter would not be in a position to deal with the possible consequences of this disruption onto subsequent legs in other modes. As shown in a recent study, when travelling in a multimodal context, passengers may not fully exercise their rights throughout their journey (in particular when changing modes). NEBs competent for bus and coach deal with varying numbers of complaints. In general, these numbers are very low. Figure 1 shows the average number of complaints reported by NEBs over the period 2015-2019. The average number of complaints related to the Regulation varied from almost 300 in Italy to none in Ireland, on a yearly basis.

Source: NEBs providing data for at least one year 2015 to 2019, Support study, Para. 3.29, Figure 3.2. Note: Logarithmic scale. The high numbers reported in Portugal, Cyprus and Slovenia include complaints related to passenger rights in all modes of transport, rather than only those specifically related to bus and coach. Source: Support study, Para. 3.33, Figure 3.4. The multi-layer character of enforcement, as well as arrangements as to whether or not the carrier must be contacted before the NEB is seized, may be confusing for some stakeholders and passengers in particular. However, the overall number of complaints appears to be growing, but is still rather low (in 2018, NEBs received 1.5 complaints per million of bus and coach journeys as explained in Section 5.2.1 (f) below), which might be due to an increase in the number of passengers travelling, more breaches of the Regulation, better awareness of the right to complain, or more willingness to do so. The exact reasons are impossible to identify due to limited data available, in particular as regards the motivation for a passenger decision to/not to complain. There has been no emergence of claim agencies to handle complaints from passengers against bus and coach companies on the basis of the Regulation, contrary to what has been observed for instance in air transport. Monitoring Article 28(1) of the Regulation sets a general obligation upon the NEBs to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation. The Regulation offers flexibility in the way the NEBs would take action and how they would perform their monitoring of the implementation of the rules by carriers and/or infrastructure managers in practice. In concrete terms, and in addition to the handling of complaints submitted by passengers, some NEBs are used to performing a wide range of monitoring activities such as in-depth audits, targeted inspections, either on the ground at terminals/stations or at the carriers’ headquarters. Some NEBs take a proactive approach to the protection of passenger rights and the monitoring of how the Regulation is applied, while others do little beyond complaints handling. This confirms the observations of the Commission made in the report of 2016. It is worth recalling that, in the context of the support study, the NEBs have provided information about their monitoring activities for the period 2013-2019, as summarised in Table A6.3 in Annex 6. Some NEBs perform monitoring activities such as checks of the carriers’ websites to verify that information to users comply with the rules and provide adequate and correct information on passenger rights and on complaints handling. Some also engage in regular or punctual dialogues with carriers (either oral or in writing) to verify whether and how passenger rights are implemented. Passengers’ and consumers’ stakeholders representatives are also consulted to complement data available and enlarge the limited sample of complaints they have directly received from passengers. A key issue is then whether NEBs have sufficient resources (human and financial) to perform the monitoring task adequately. Based on their monitoring activities, the NEBs are supposed to be able to identify carriers’ recurrent non-compliance with the applicable rules and to take the necessary measures ensuring compliance with the Regulation, as appropriate. Penalties Only a small proportion of NEBs have issued sanctions, also referred to as penalties, in the sense of Article 31, which have generally been infrequent and of low value. Court proceedings No significant volume of litigation before national courts based on the Regulation has been noted. Moreover, there have been no national courts or tribunals asking the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to give a preliminary ruling, asking to clarify any provisions of the Regulation. However, the CJEU delivered its judgment on 2 September 2021 in Case C-570/19 Irish Ferries, which is the first ever preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway. Despite the fact that it concerns travelling by sea and inland waterway and not bus and coach, it may as well have relevance for the interpretation of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011. For instance, the CJEU ruled that a situation of late delivery of a passenger transport vehicle which led to the cancellation does not fall within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ or that the rights of re-routing and compensation apply also in case a carrier cancels a passenger service giving several weeks’ notice prior to the originally scheduled departure due to late delivery of a transport vehicle. 3.3.Member States’ exemptions The Regulation provides for the possibility for Member States to use four types of exemptions from application of its provisions:

–Exemption from application of provisions related to the rights of PRM, provided that Member States ensure that the level of their protection under national rules is at least the same as under the Regulation. This exemption has no time-limit (Article 18(1)). –Exemption from application of provisions other than “basic” rights, on a transparent and non-discriminatory basis, to domestic regular services, which may be granted for 4 years, renewable once (Article 2(4)). –Exemption from application of the Regulation to particular regular services of which a significant part, including at least one scheduled stop, is operated outside the Union (Article 2(5)). The exemption may be granted for 4 years, renewable once. –Exemption from the application of the provision on disability-related training for driver, for a maximum period of 5 years (Article 16(2)). The only type of services on which passengers benefit from all “basic” and “extended” rights have been, since the Regulation came into force, all regular intra-EU cross border services and, since 1 March 2021, also all domestic services, of 250 kilometres or more. The Regulation provided for the option of exemptions for domestic regular services and particular regular services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU for a period of 4 years (until 28 February 2017), renewable once. In other words, as of 2018 until the end of February 2021, only 7.4% of passengers were in scope for the full benefits of the Regulation (including rights in the event of cancellation or delay, compensation and assistance in the event on an accident, and additional rights to assistance for PRM), while the remaining 92.6% only received limited protection encompassing simply non-discriminatory contract conditions, right to information and right to transport for PRM. Passengers on occasional services also face significant issues as they are in scope, but there are no provisions for the enforcement of their rights. The actual use of exemptions by national authorities is presented in Table 2. Table 2. The use of exemptions by countries. Article 18(1) – Provisions on PRM protection Article 2(4) - Domestic regular services Article 2(5) - Services of which a significant part is operated outside the EU Article 16(2) - Exemption from disability-related training for drivers Expired 2017 Expired 2021 Expired 2017 Expired 2021 Expired 2018 Not used by any country CZ, EL, FR, NL, RO EE, HR, LV, HU, PT, SI, SK, UK DE, FR, IT, NL, AT EE, EL, HR, LV, HU, SI, SK, FI, UK some MS made use of it Source: Commission analysis based on support study, Para. 3.47, Table 3.5. It should be noted that, even if exemptions were used by some countries, their time-limit expired at the latest in March 2021. Consequently, while the use of exemptions is useful for further analysis of the effectiveness of the Regulation, it shall be borne in mind that none of them are applicable anymore. There was one condition to the possibility of exemptions, namely, PRM rights, for which Member States had to ensure under their national rules at least the same level of protection. Figure 3 shows the impact of the exemptions adopted by Member States on the level of protection guaranteed to those passengers who experienced delays of more than 90 minutes on departure, taking into account the time-limit of 4 years, renewable once. As data illustrate, in 2013 about 50% of the affected passengers were eligible to receive assistance, while in 2018 the rate increased to 95%. This peak may reflect an extended coverage to more passengers resulting from the removal of the exemptions under Articles 2(4) and 2(5) registered in some Member States in 2018. Figure 3: Passengers protected from delays of more than one and a half hours – EU+4 Source: Support study, Para. 3.49, Figure 3.5. 3.4.Major recent developments As mentioned above, since the Regulation started to apply from 1 March 2013, there have been a number of changes to the EU bus and coach market with potential implications for passengers’ needs. In addition to the liberalisation of domestic markets in large Member States and a significant increase in passenger traffic, accompanied by a relatively rapid consolidation of carriers and emerging pan-European carriers, such as FlixBus and Blablacar, along with the increasing digitalisation in the sector, the carriers sell almost all tickets and provide almost all information online or via an app, rather than at terminals. FlixBus, for instance, was founded in Germany in 2011, supported by further liberalisation of passenger transport by bus and coach in the EU. It has since become - at least before the COVID-19 pandemic - the dominant operator across Europe. The business model adopted, i.e. the ‘platform’ carrier, has clear implications for passengers. Under this model, platform carriers act as the coach companies offering the service, while the service is in fact operated in cooperation with ‘bus partners’, which are subcontractors. These local bus operators employ the drivers, own the vehicles and operate the routes, whereas the ‘platform’ carriers sell the tickets and provide almost all information online, or via an app, rather than at terminals. The ‘platform carriers’ are able to provide a standardised range of services and information to customers at relatively low cost, reducing the demand for higher-cost channels such as ticket offices and information desks, telephone book, help and complaint lines, and information screens and announcements for real-time information. In addition, platform carriers such as FlixBus appear to accept the reponsibility in relation to passenger rights where services have been carried out by their bus partners. This trend towards increasing digitalisation and greater use of online and app-based services by consumers reflects global developments in information and communication technology affecting the EU economy as a whole. In many industries, including the bus and coach market, digitalisation has improved services for the majority of passengers but has resulted in the exclusion of a minority who have no access to new technologies or for which the digital information is not provided in an accessible format. This was confirmed by many stakeholders, including operators, NEBs and passenger groups. Furthermore, the unexpected outbreak of COVID-19 caused disruptions in traffic and made the health aspects of travel much more important for passengers. It also forced national authorities to take swift action with regard to the provision of information to passengers and ensuring effective reimbursements via the NEBs. 4.Methodology

4.1.Short description of methodology The evaluation of the Regulation started in 2019 with the publication of the roadmap on 11 July 2019 and was overseen by an Inter-service Steering Group (see details in Annex 1). It builds on the outcome of a public consultation conducted from 3 July 2020 to 23 October 2020 and, to a large extent, the support study carried out by an external contractor for the Commission between February 2020 and July 2021. The support study relied on a combination of sources and methods, including desk research and extensive stakeholder consultation. Its findings and their analysis cover the period from 1 March 2013 until February 2020. The results of this support study therefore do not specifically consider the impact of COVID-19. Nevertheless, where information has been collected and was assessed relevant on this topic, it has been included. The study findings are supplemented by additional information gathered by the Commission during its monitoring of the Regulation’s implementation across Member States, from the bi-annual reports received from the NEBs, from issues raised by NEBs at the Commission’s annual expert group meetings or at various meetings with stakeholders, in Brussels or during missions in Member States, as well as from individual complaints received from citizens. This evaluation is also based on the collection and detailed analysis of published pan-European data and information from stakeholders and other industry sources over a two-year period. The support study referred to above was based on the analysis of the results of the 16-week-long public consultation and the targeted stakeholders consultation. In total, 28 interviews (including 4 pilot interviews) were performed and 87 stakeholders replied to the survey (out of the 270 stakeholders who were contacted) and 29 selected stakeholders attended the participatory workshop. In addition, the support study relied on desktop research to identify and collect up-to-date information on experience of the legislation and three case studies (addressing the following topics: re-routing of bus and coach passengers facing disruption; provision of information to passengers in the event of disruption of bus and coach services; and the rights of passengers when the ticket was issued by a party other than that operating the service). In the context of the support study, country fiches were developed for all EU+4 countries within the scope of the support study. The evaluation included a baseline position representing the situation that would have been observed if the legislation had not been adopted, as a basis for quantifying the impact of the Regulation, along with a cost-benefit analysis. The stakeholder consultation targeted the following six stakeholder groups: passenger organisations and representatives of persons with disabilities, NEBs, bus and coach carriers and their associations, terminal management bodies and their associations, ADR bodies and ECCs, and other relevant industry associations (e.g. travel agents). An overview of the stakeholders’ engagement is presented by stakeholder group in Figure A2.1, in Annex 2. Relying on the defined baseline (see Section 2.3), a cost-benefit assessment was carried out to estimate the costs and benefits accrued as a result of the Regulation. The targeted questionnaires formed a good basis for the collection of information for this task, supplemented by estimations where necessary to fill the gaps. The methodology that was applied for this assessment is the Standard Cost Model (SCM), which allowed to address the costs of the Regulation for Member States (especially NEBs), industry stakeholders and passengers, including PRM. It allowed for the quantification of actual costs (i.e. financial or monetised time costs) resulting from the requirements of the Regulation.

The outcome of the cost-benefit analysis is further developed in Annex 5. The SCM was originally designed for the assessment of the administrative burdens of competent authorities, individuals and organisations. However, the following features were used to reinforce and complete the approach chosen: –Estimation of benefits derived in better quality of travel for bus and coach passengers; –Administrative burdens are estimated based on the assumption that legislation is 100% complied with, though, in practice, not all businesses comply (fully) with all of the legislation. While this assumption has been held for the great majority of information obligations, whenever there was certainty that a specific information requirement was not met, it was not considered. 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings Whilst a range of stakeholders (including consumer organisations, carriers, terminals and NEBs) recognised the importance of the rights for passengers when travelling by bus and coach, there is relatively little analysis of related issues in publicly available literature. In particular, there is little accurate and up-to-date information on the overall size of the market covered by the Regulation, the number and profile of passengers benefitting from it. There is also no systematic recording of the number and nature of complaints received by carriers, and data regarding enforcement actions and sanctions remains limited too. Consequently, it is difficult to quantify the benefits of the Regulation with any precision, although costs and benefits have been quantified where possible. This is an important limitation of the analysis. During the evaluation, input from a range of stakeholders was gathered, including from NEBs, in addition to the information collected from their biennial reports, major European carriers groups and bus and coach carriers, together with data from recognised industry sources. Access to these sources allowed to collate a balanced set of inputs on which to base the analysis and conclusions presented in the evaluation report. Appropriate assumptions, based on information provided during the stakeholder consultation and from various industry sources, were used to make up for a relatively low availability of data. When data directly related to the bus and coach industry were not sufficient to build these assumptions, e.g. as no consistent dataset containing all long-distance bus passengers in Europe was available, passenger data was sourced from national statistics in the first instance, with many publishing datasets stating the number of ‘long distance’ bus passengers travelling in and from each country; on PRM, more robust data from the support study to the ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 was incorporated. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions This chapter presents the findings as to whether the Regulation has delivered the expected benefits at a proportionate cost. The Regulation is evaluated against the five key criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. 5.1.Effectiveness Evaluation questions

5.1.1. What progress has been made towards the general objective of ensuring an equivalent level of protection to passengers travelling by bus and coach transport throughout Member States? Many stakeholders welcomed the existence of a consistent framework of rights across the EU. However, progress towards achievement of its objectives was slowed down because, until the end of February 2021, Member States could exempt a considerable part of the services from most of the rules of the Regulation, as outlined above. The number of Member States using exemptions has decreased over the years. Since 1 March 2021 the Regulation applies also to domestic services of 250 km and more. Passengers have now an equivalent level of protection to passengers travelling by bus and coach transport throughout Member States for domestic intra-EU services of 250 km and more. On the other hand, some of the core passenger rights have not been included in the Regulation. Passengers, in particular, have no right to compensation in case of delay in arrival. The Regulation defines a “delay” by reference to the time of departure, leaving aside delay en-route and on arrival. This has to do with the fact that drivers should not be incentivised to drive too fast, for obvious safety reasons. Other issues include the fact that some rights are not clearly defined (e.g. re-routing to other routes on competitor’s services, right to information in the absence of an obligation to pass on contact details, etc.), or very limited (e.g. luggage liability). 5.1.2. What progress has been made towards the specific objectives of ensuring that: a.passengers receive tickets and non-discriminatory contract conditions? The right to non-discrimination related to contract conditions (Article 4) has benefited from the massive development of the use of online and app-based sales in the last decade. Such a kind of overt discrimination has become rare, but there are, however, some recent issues raised on different tariffs for citizens and for non-residents on local and bus services. Several stakeholders pointed out that discrimination was impossible if passengers booked on the website or via an app, because the process was wholly electronic and there was no basis on which to discriminate. A Spanish operator acknowledged that fares could vary by sales channel, but pointed out that multiple languages on many operator websites were a clear sign of intent not to discriminate and reduced the barriers to accessing services in other languages. In addition, both carriers and terminal managing bodies, supported by associations representing PRMs, are required to establish, or have in place, non-discriminatory access conditions for the transport of PRMs (Article 11, see also paragraph c below). b. passengers are protected in the event of an accident? Accidents leading to injury or death remain extremely rare in the sector. Based on the limited evidence available, it is not possible to conclude on the effectiveness of the Regulation on the appropriate protection of passengers in the event of an accident. Stakeholders pointed out that, while Directive 2009/103/EC specified minimum levels of insurance cover, the Regulation specified minimum levels of compensation. Several NEBs noted their responsibility to ensure that cover was in place. No cases of death or injury were mentioned, but a number of NEBs commented on baggage: in Austria, for instance, national law provides for a broad liability of the carrier for luggage, but only if the passenger has been issued a luggage receipt. Several stakeholders referred to the issue of passengers taking the wrong bags but did not explain how they were returned to their owner or what compensation, if any, was paid. c. PRM have opportunities for bus and coach travel comparable to those of all other passengers? Certain elements prevent the Regulation from reaching a high level of protection of PRM passengers, while their number has increased through the years (see Figure A6.1 in Annex 6), in particular from providing them with comparable travel opportunities. The requirement to provide assistance to PRM passengers is limited only to terminals explicitly designated under Article 12. At the same time, while there may be over one million bus stops as a whole in the EU+4, only 250 terminals are currently designated. In addition, their geographical distribution is not optimal, many Member States (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands) designating only a single terminal. The practical consequence is that protection provided for by the Regulation applies in a limited number of terminals, where facilities for PRMs do not always meet the standards, raising concerns for stakeholders. This situation has had a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Regulation as the level of accessibility and assistance provided to PRMs varies significantly depending on the facilities they use. It is very often impossible to make a journey on which assistance would be available at both ends. It nevertheless appears that the Regulation relies on an unrealistic assumption that a network of designated terminals exists, offering facilities to support passengers seeking to exercise their rights. In reality, however, only a minority of them are appropriately equipped or have terminal managing bodies. For instance, many terminals, or even designated terminals, may not have any of the features that supposedly define them, such as a check-in counter or ticket office, except typically a waiting room. In addition, terminals with limited opening hours, or limited levels of staffing, do not provide a guarantee that all services will be available at least from before the first service each day until after the last one. This fact differentiates them from airport terminals, which provide better accessibility guarantees. The right to information for PRM passengers also seems not be fully effective, as information concerning accessibility or possibility to be accompanied by an assistant or a guide dog is often difficult to find during the online booking. Another related issue is that of audio information at stops and on board buses that are not accessible for deaf or hard of hearing passengers (which need tactile surfaces) as well as PRM who do not speak the local language. On the carriers’ side, the disability-related training procedures are inconsistent across Europe, as to when the training is delivered and how often it shall be renewed, as to its content as well as who has the supervisory role. At times, it forms part of the training required by Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers. The topic of trainings on disability was raised in the discussions with the NEBs. Further guidance was requested from the Commission but due to COVID-19, the topic has not yet been followed up but it is envisaged in the near future.

Finally, although cases of denied boarding are less prevalent in bus and coach transport than in other modes, the reason for that appears to be that PRM realise that only a minority of vehicles and stations are accessible. They, therefore, decide to cancel the travel once they receive information on inaccessibility, or do not plan a bus travel at all. This shows how the issue of inaccessibility can prevent PRM from even considering coach travel, even if they enjoy the right to travel according to the Regulation. d. inconvenience to passengers due to cancellation or significant delay is reduced? Passengers have rights to information and assistance in case of delays and cancellations under certain conditions. These rights reduce the inconveniences. The lack of reliable systems and procedures for data collection and monitoring, as well as the small number of complaints that reach the NEBs, make it difficult to estimate the scale of inconveniences caused by cancellations, the number and duration of delays, as well as the scale and type of re-routing. This lack of data prevents passengers also from selecting a transport service based on information on expected reliability. Despite these general shortcomings in terms of available data, it has been reported on that most carriers do not re-route passengers using other carriers or carriers of other transport modes. This can lead to an increased inconvenience for the passenger. This issue may stem from the fact that bus and coach networks are typically denser than rail and air networks and many points accessible by bus and coach cannot be reached by other modes. Often, only one carrier is able to offer a service with the same itinerary, resulting in obstacles for bus and coach carriers to re-route passengers on services provided by competitors. Besides, the bus and coach industry does not have systems by which bookings, passenger identification, destinations and other information could be stored in a common data format and transferred between carriers. Moreover, as departure time approaches, air and rail services can become fully booked and fares for the remaining seats can rise to many times the fare originally paid for the coach journey. Finally, it is often easier for large coach operators to provide a replacement coach, enabling all passengers to continue on a replacement service, than to attempt to re-route them individually to their destinations. e. passengers are informed of their rights and are able to exercise them by complaint procedures set up by carriers (all regular services)? The text of the Regulation is generally available on the internet via operators’ and NEBs’ websites as well as on the dedicated website of Your Europe. In addition, passengers can access information related to cancellations, delays, re-routing, complaint handling and reimbursement more easily thanks to increasing reliance by operators on information technology which leads to a more effective contact with passengers in case of disruption. On the other hand, passengers are often unaware of their rights to complain and of the applicable process, as evidenced by the Special Eurobarometer Survey No 485 on passenger rights. Carriers’ websites are not always clear on how complaints should be lodged: some offer only a general “contact” point, whereas in other countries, there is a consistent national system by which complaint forms must be made available on each vehicle. Also the information available on carriers’ and NEBs’ websites is not always comprehensive, accessible or well-presented, which actually prevents passengers from getting clear explanations on their rights. As a consequence, in some countries, passengers complain to the wrong NEB, or to a general consumer complaints body. Some operators, such as the pan-European carriers referred to in Section 3.4 above, act as ticket vendors or travel agents selling travel services provided by other carriers. This can possibly cause confusion to passengers to understand with which party they are contracting and whom to complain to in case of an issue. f. Member States and national enforcement bodies take the measures necessary to ensure the enforcement of the Regulation (all regular services)? The Regulation relies heavily on NEBs fulfilling their roles effectively, as enforcement is delegated to Member States. At the same time, the Regulation allows flexibility to the Member States to design the enforcement mechanism in the national legislation. As a result, the legal powers and practical capabilities of NEBs towards the enforcement of the Regulation as well as their approach to monitoring implementation and enforcement (which implies, inter alia, imposing penalties) vary significantly from one Member State to another, as mentioned above under Chapter 3. While most NEBs deal with individual complaints, most of those who provided information on the nature of their decisions said they were non-binding. The support study indicates that not all NEBs seem to proactively monitor the implementation and application of bus and coach passenger rights. A number of issues have been observed in that regard, including the difficulty to ascertain the precise number of bodies fulfilling (part of) the tasks of a NEB across Europe, be it at the national, regional and local level, while their official number is 98. Member States have taken different approaches to meeting the relevant requirements enshrined in the Regulation, ranging from establishing a single national multimodal NEB to designating up to 16 in Czechia, 17 in Poland or 20 NEBs in Spain, with responsibilities divided by location, type of journey and/or type of complaint. Also, other bodies, such as those responsible for consumer protection or alternative dispute resolution (ADR), may also have, on a regular basis or in specific cases, competence in the area of enforcement of passenger rights. Stakeholders indicated that the public list of NEBs would not record all the bodies dealing with bus and coach passenger rights, suggesting that additional bodies may have at least some enforcement role. Presumably, stakeholders refer to these other bodies dealing also with passenger rights without being appointed as a NEB, for example consumer protection authorities. There is an overall upward trend in the number of complaints, which was multiplied by 4 between 2015 and 2019. The volume of complaints remains, however, extremely low (less than 1,000 in 2019 at EU+4 level). On the basis of the analysis of the complaints data from 12 NEBs compared to the total bus and coach traffic for scheduled and occasional services regardless of distance, it was estimated that in 2018, NEBs received 1.5 complaints per million bus and coach journeys. These findings do not allow for a complete picture of compliance with the Regulation. It is difficult to determine whether the low level of complaints to NEBs, as mentioned above, represents “the tip of the iceberg” or the actual level of concern among passengers about the service they receive. The following reasons contribute to the fact that bus and coach passengers submit very few complaints, indicating that the extent of the issues is not necessarily reflected by the volume of complaints: ·Many passengers are still unaware of their rights; ·Bus and coach services are perceived as cheap transport services and therefore many passengers may not expect high quality service and they may not seek a redress when their rights are not respected; ·Bus and coach services within the scope of this Regulation are often not well equipped with consumer complaint services; ·NEBs in certain countries only deal with the systemic enforcement of the Regulation and do not handle the complaints of individual passengers;

·Many passengers consider that submitting a complaint to a NEB might not be beneficial to them as in most countries NEBs do not have the power to issue a binding decision in the event of a breach of the Regulation. When NEBs’ decisions are not binding on operators, passengers must seek another instrument to obtain redress, resulting in passenger rights not being effectively enforced; ·Compensation thresholds dealing with a percentage amounting to 50% of the ticket price have less incentive than in case of long delays or cancellation of a flight, where passengers may receive a financial compensation up to EUR 250, 400 or 600; ·Passengers may be confused by the existence of several NEBs and additional other bodies dealing with passenger rights in bus and coach transport. Monitoring activities of operators, terminals and other parts of the industry’s supply chain carried out by the NEBs , are therefore essential to ensure the enforcement of the Regulation. This may help improve the effectiveness in the implementation of the Regulation. In monitoring compliance, some NEBs are reactive and some proactive (for example, they carry out inspections in addition to conducting investigations based on the complaints they receive). However, whether the approaches taken, especially the approach based mainly or exclusively on responding to complaints, have been efficient and effective to ensure compliance and consistency in enforcement across Member States, carriers, routes and PSO and non-PSO services, cannot be assessed firmly, given the scarcity of data on this question as explained above when analysing the number of complaints. In addition, there is no requirement of enforcement in relation to occasional services, even though Member States may give NEBs or other bodies powers in that area. As regards enforcement measures, only a small proportion of NEBs have issued penalties, which were generally infrequent and small. Moreover, none of the penalties reported by NEBs exceeded EUR 4,000. These amounts depend on the circumstances of the case at hand. Data on how effectively these sanctions led to a change of behaviour by the operators are not available. The low amounts of penalties could raise doubts whether these penalties are proportionate and more importantly dissuasive, while providing a strong incentive to comply with the Regulation, especially when combined with no pro-active monitoring and a low level of awareness of passengers about their rights. Given the data available, no firm conclusion on effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of the sanctions can be drawn. In addition, the NEBs are obliged to publish bi-annual reports on their activities as of 1 June 2015. These reports are a valuable source for data. If not foreseen under national law, the NEBs cannot rely on reports of carriers, because these are not obliged to report annually on certain service quality standards as it is the case for rail passenger rights. The reports of the NEBs have to contain in particular a description of actions taken in order to implement this Regulation and statistics on complaints and sanctions applied (Article 29). Without sufficient monitoring activity and enforcement measures, backed up by effective penalties, there is a risk that the protection of bus and coach passenger rights is and will remain seriously limited. In order to assess the effectiveness of the enforcement of passenger rights by the NEBs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has to be considered that until the end of February 2021 in ten Member States the rules on refunds in case of cancellation have not been applicable for domestic services. As mentioned above, the Commission started in August 2020 informal dialogues via EU Pilot with all Member States regarding the application of passenger rights in all modes of transport including bus and coach in the context of COVID-19 and the obligations of NEBs to report on their activities. These dialogues are still ongoing. As Recital 27 of the Regulation underlines, the protection of the bus and coach passenger rights is complemented by wider public enforcement mechanisms established under the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation. So far, this Regulation has not been used yet for bus and coach passenger rights. Passengers may also seek individual redress by turning to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bodies or national courts. Turning to ADR bodies can be a comparatively efficient and effective way to seek redress for bus and coach passenger rights complaints. However, based on information provided by NEBs and ADR bodies themselves, not all Member States are equally equipped in that respect: a number of them do not have specific ADR bodies for the sector and direct the disputes to a generic ADR body. In addition, in some Member States where NEBs are entitled to adjudicate on passenger rights claims, the participation of carriers in the procedure is voluntary. Finally, certain ADRs lack transport sector specific expertise. The Commission has supported the launch of Travel-Net, an association of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) bodies for transport and travel disputes, to facilitate networking and exchanges between them. 5.1.3. Which factors have contributed to/hindered the achievement of the above objectives? The scope of the Regulation, which offers only limited protection to passengers on services below 250 km as well as on occasional services, deprives many passengers in Europe of a high level of protection. The specific protection established for PRM passengers is also not guaranteed in practice in most Member States due to the low number of designated terminals. Moreover, effective enforcement is needed to achieve the objectives set out in the Regulation. Different organisational structures, powers and procedures in NEBs and other enforcement bodies add to the lack of awareness of passengers about their rights. Consequently, a low number of complaints reported could be interpreted as evidence for a high level of compliance, but, combined with weak monitoring activities, low passengers’ awareness of their rights, it could also mean that there is a rather low level of compliance. Importantly, the current system does not effectively allow overseeing and measuring the quality of enforcement, due to the variety of levels at which rights are enforced combined with lack of comprehensive reporting from the carriers to the NEBs, as well as lack of reliable procedures for data collection and monitoring. 5.1.4. To what extent have the measures adopted in the Regulation ensured the same level of passenger rights protection across the EU? The Regulation anchored the varying levels of national protection of passenger rights in a minimum “floor” level. Before its adoption, that protection differed according to the consumer and transport law in each Member State. However, the practical effect is complex to identify and almost impossible to measure. Indeed, passenger rights vary depending on the length of the journey, whether domestic, international or extending outside the EU. In case of a service operated in accordance with a Public Service Obligation (PSO), the effective passenger rights may also depend on the conditions of carriage offered by the competent authority. The issues related to enforcement further prevent the Regulation from ensuring the same level of protection of passengers across the EU. In case of disruption, the effective level of protection is additionally affected by the extent to which information can be communicated to passengers in accessible languages or media. On board vehicles, and even at many terminals, the availability of information may be limited by the language skills of the driver, reduced staff, or the media by which information is provided. 5.1.5. Has the Regulation led to any positive or negative unexpected effects?

On the operators side, entering a new national market in the absence of the Regulation required a careful study of all relevant domestic legislations, the requirements it would impose on them, and the means and costs of compliance. In some cases, this would require local adjustments to their business models and operating procedures, to ensure that they reflected local requirements. Uniformity brought by the Regulation in that regard may be assessed positively, although hampered by unequal enforcement at the national level. Nevertheless, compliance with the Regulation may be difficult for some SMEs, since some provisions require services that are difficult to provide by small operators, who have a limited number of coaches, drivers, head office staff and commercial agreements. Both new and existing operators have chosen to deliver many aspects of their business model through email, SMS, websites and apps. Those means not only have low operating costs but also allow operators to “push” general or tailored information direct to passengers in real time. 5.1.6. Did the Regulation lead to legal clarity? Does the Regulation leave gaps that might hamper its effectiveness? Several gaps which hampered the effectiveness of the Regulation have been identified: Distance threshold of 250 kilometres The most significant of the gaps can be identified with regard to the scope of the Regulation, which affects the level of protection granted to passengers: pursuant to Article 2(1) and 2(2), the Regulation in its entirety only applies to regular services if the scheduled distance of the service is 250 kilometres or more, and only limited rights apply to regular services with shorter distance and to occasional services. In practice, passengers other than those travelling on regular services where the scheduled distance of the service is at least 250 kilometres do not benefit for example from assistance in case of cancellation or delays of the service, and they cannot benefit from assistance granted for PRM passengers. Moreover, the application of the 250 km threshold was not clear for all stakeholders, as it refers to the “scheduled distance of the services”. Nevertheless, the European Parliament and the Council both understood it as follows: “The Regulation applies to all regular services for non-specified categories of passengers with a scheduled distance of more than 250 kilometres, which means that passengers only travelling a part of such a long-distance service are also covered”. The Commission clarified this issue also with the NEBs that in cases where the scheduled distance of a service is 250 km or more, the provisions of the entire Regulation should apply to all passengers, even if they travel with the service on a journey which is shorter than 250 km. However, as supported by a range of stakeholders participating in the consultation exercise, it has in many instances been misinterpreted in the sense that the passenger has to travel at least 250 km. This threshold can also lead to unfair results, as it differentiates between passengers travelling between the same points, those travelling on a service of 250 km or more enjoying the full range of rights and being treated equally, unlike those travelling on services of less than 250 km for whom only the “basic” rights apply. This double standard is independent of the length of their individual journey. For instance, if a passenger travels with a regular service scheduled only between the two terminus stations in Bratislava and Vienna, 64 kilometres away from each other, only the basic rights apply, while the full Regulation will apply if this journey between Bratislava and Vienna is part of a service where the two end stations are distant by at least 250km (e.g. line from Munich to Budapest). Liability for stolen luggage A number of stakeholders, notably passengers and consumers’ organisations, argued that further improvement is also required in relation to the provisions on operator’s liability in the case of damaged, lost or stolen luggage. In particular, the latter is not covered by the Regulation as compensation is only granted for lost or damaged luggage in the event of accidents pursuant to Article 7. Nevertheless, this does not represent the typical case for bus and coach passengers. What they may be most exposed to in that regard is having their baggage stolen at terminals or bus stops, as confirmed by many stakeholders participating in the consultation exercise. This consistitutes a significant gap in terms of passengers’ protection. Interpretative uncertainties Interpretative doubts, as expressed by many stakeholders participating in the consultation exercise, may also concern notions such as re-routing under “comparable conditions” and “at the earliest opportunity” as laid down under Article 19(1)(a) or the exact scope of information to be provided in case of disruption. This uncertainty is exacerbated by the absence of case-law by the CJEU. Case-law in the area of other modes of transport such as Case C-570/19 Irish Ferries concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway could provide guidance in interpretation of some concepts set out in Regulation (EU) No 181/2011, for instance the interpretation of the notion ‘extraordinary circumstances’ or the rights of re-routing and compensation in case a carrier cancels a passenger service giving several weeks’ notice. Submission of complaints Furthermore, Articles 27 and 28(3) related to submission of complaints contain no rules regarding the question as to who can be empowered to represent the passenger in this process, as it is a matter of national law. Cases mentioned by stakeholders are for example: the carer of a passenger with learning difficulties, or a non-passenger complaining about lack of information about a service on which a passenger (e.g. their relative) is travelling.Moreover, a passenger might wish to complain about a terminal managing body, which is currently not possible according to the Regulation. Enforcement of the provisions on occasional services Finally, there remain gaps in the Regulation in relation to the enforcement of the provisions on occasional services as Chapter V on complaint handling and Chapter VI on the enforcement of the Regulation do not apply to occasional services as stated under Article 2(3). 5.1.7. To what extent can the changes observed since the entry into force of the Regulation be attributed to its application? In the absence of the Regulation, passengers would have faced a patchwork of passenger rights varying between Member States and, within Member States, with local arrangements including the contracts and conditions of carriage of individual PSO contracts. Bus and coach carriers would probably not have strong incentives to implement rights for passengers and to address complaints. Therefore, the Regulation created a consistent and standardised framework of passenger rights, which it is doubtful would emerge spontaneously otherwise. However, data on complaints lodged with NEBs does not allow to establish whether the increase in the volume of complaints is driven by changes in travel within the scope of the Regulation, the number of the breaches of the Regulation, passengers’ awareness of the right to complain, or their willingness to do so. Similarly, there is little data on the number of services, or passenger journeys distinguishing regular and occasional services, PSO and non-PSO services, or services of 250 kilometres or more. Second, the precise number of services and passengers benefitting from each element of the Regulation is unclear, so that its impact is difficult to assess through a counterfactual scenario.

5.1.8. Are passengers easily granted the rights to which they are entitled? According to special Eurobarometer 485 survey, at EU level, 38% of bus and coach passengers who experienced a disruption received some form of ‘remedial action’. Across Member States, the proportions vary greatly, with 87% of passenger in Poland but only 3% in the United Kingdom answering that they received remedial action (see Figure A6.4 in the Annex 6). However, this data does not account for whether passengers were eligible for basic or extended rights nor for the type and duration of disruption experienced by passengers, the reason for which is not conclusive for the assessment of the effectiveness of the Regulation. Moreover, and according to the same survey, many passengers are still unaware of their rights: only 39% of bus and coach users are aware of the existence of EU passenger rights, which is the lowest rate among all transport modes. Based on these observations, it is probable that, in many instances, passengers would probably not understand that passenger rights vary between modes, Member States and routes of different lengths. Importantly, bus and coach passengers’ expectations of their rights seem to be based on what they know, or think they know, about other services or modes, rather than on an informed view that there is a consistent minimum level of protection specifically available for bus and coach travel. 5.2.Efficiency Evaluation questions 5.2.1. What were the actual negative impacts and costs the Regulation has given rise to and how high were they? Who did they fall upon? As far as passengers are concerned, the total net costs (difference between costs and benefits) associated with the Regulation was estimated to EUR 122 million over the 2013-18 period (in 2018 prices). These costs, referring to the time spent by passengers in making complaints and claims due to disruptions, takes into consideration the total number of complaints made in the scope of the Regulation, the 2 hours time taken to address each complaint on average and passenger’s value of time. In the absence of the Regulation, bus and coach carriers would probably not have had strong incentives to implement rights for passengers and address complaints as the additional costs imposed by the Regulation can be significant to carriers. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the majority of Member States had not been able to develop appropriate complaint handling and dispute resolution mechanisms before the adoption of the Regulation. On the other hand, while some costs under the Regulation may not be burdensome, and may be bundled together with other compliance tasks, such as quality and safety, enforcement costs – including those associated with complaints handling, may be substantial. This is the case when legal advice is necessary, although it remains unclear how often carriers need to do so as a result of the Regulation. In conclusion, it was estimated that costs for carriers amounted to EUR 571 million over the 2013-18 period (2018 prices, see Table A5.1, in Annex 5). Financial compensation does not represent a relevant cost here. As compensation is not a basic right, it applies to a very limited share of passengers; besides compensation is due only if the carrier fails to offer passengers the choice between rerouting and reimbursement; and as most bus or coach tickets cost EUR 100 or less, the net value of the compensation is negligible, given the time needed to submit the complaint. As regards the costs of providing compensation or assistance in the event of accidents, no evidence or comments have been provided by stakeholders. However a European-wide carrier explained how its traffic control department would operate in the event of an accident or emergency by calling ambulance and police, providing technical assistance or advice, as well as providing assistance with regard to the passengers’ immediate practical needs. As far as compensation and assistance are concerned, it did not identify any costs stemming from compliance. It should be noted that, on the one hand, passengers may be reluctant to complain unless they expect reimbursement or compensation, while, on the other, penalties applied to carriers and terminal managing bodies do not directly benefit the passenger who made the complaint. Passengers may also find that the Regulation added complexity to the process of lodging a complaint making it more difficult. For example: –For passengers it may be difficult to understand whether a complaint relates to the Regulation, or to national law, or is not valid. –Passengers may be confused over which body should be approached regarding the complaint. –Passengers may face a procedure of several steps until they can enforce their right: they may need both, to complain and to appeal, which may further need to be followed by action in courts. PRM may still encounter difficulties when travelling by bus and coach because they need to notify their travel in advance, they have different needs depending on their disability and, for PRM who are wheelchair users, different technologies of wheelchair may further restrict their possibilities to access a bus or a coach. The additional costs of the Regulation to date may be limited, as carriers may have granted some elements of the rights, whether legally required or not, by other means; and passengers might not demand all their rights, either because they are not fully aware of them or because they do not wish to demand them. Higher costs may stem from the fuller delivery of the rights and associated benefits, which may in turn also result in additional costs for passengers, as they still have to take action to obtain their rights, even if they are more aware of them. In terms of administrative costs for NEBs, they reported a relatively small number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) assigned to monitoring and enforcement tasks, including complaint handling. However, the existence of NEBs may have led to carriers dealing with more complaints themselves, increasing costs to carriers but resulting in less work and costs for both