EN    EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 4.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2950 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
concerning the rights of passengers when tr avelling by sea and inland waterway and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on c ooperation between national authorities 
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws 
 
Impact Assessment  
concerning the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway  
{COM(2008) 816 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2951} 
 
 
ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY  
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 5 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 1.2. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 5 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 9 2.1. The importance of the maritime sector for EU passengers.......................................... 9 2.2. Some features of the maritime passenger market ........................................................ 9 2.3. The specific problems for PRMs passengers ............................................................. 16 2.4. The problems of the protection of the righ ts of passengers when travelling by ship. 17 
2.5. The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 18 2.6. Who is affected and how?.......................................................................................... 20 2.7. How will the problem evolve? ................................................................................... 21 2.8. Does the EU have the right to act?............................................................................. 22 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 26 
3.1. General objective ....................................................................................................... 26  
3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 29  
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 3 1 
4.1. “Business as usual” (Option 1) .................................................................................. 33 4.2. Community legislative action to improve the rights for persons when travelling by 
boat (Option 2) ........................................................................................................... 33 
4.3. EU coordination and exchange of best prac tices to be developed to enhance national 
legislations (Option 3)................................................................................................ 38 
4.4. Voluntary agreements (Option 4)............................................................................... 38 5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 39 5.1. Option 1: Business as usual........................................................................................ 39 5.2. Option 2: Community legislative action .................................................................... 40 5.3. Option 3: EU coordination and exchange of best practices to enhance national 
legislations.................................................................................................................. 5 5 
5.4. Option 4: Voluntary agreements ................................................................................ 56 5.5. Administrative costs................................................................................................... 58 5.6. Small and medium-sized enterprises.......................................................................... 59 
 
EN 3   EN 5.7. Assumptions on PSOs routes ..................................................................................... 61 
6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 63 6.1. Rights of Persons with Reduced Mobility ................................................................. 63 6.2. Quality of service and assistance in case of cancellation and delays......................... 67 
6.3. Information provided to passengers  before and during their trip............................... 68 
6.4. Enforcement, monitoring and complaint management .............................................. 69 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 70 7.1. Core monitoring indicators ........................................................................................ 70 7.2. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 71 
 
Annex 1 Summary of the public consulta tion launched in 2006 on PRM issues .................... 72 
Annex 2 Figures and tables ..................................................................................................... . 75 
Annex 3 Public service obligations and contracts in Members States..................................... 92 
Annex 4 Handling the missing da ta in critical events............................................................ 101 
Annex 5 Reasonable accessibility and Reasonable accommodation ..................................... 103 
Annex 6 Passenger rights in all modes of transp ort – correlation tabl e (main provisions).... 104 
Annex 7 Overview of the national legal fr amework for the maritime passenger transport 
sector ........................................................................................................................ 1 08 
Annex 8 Policy option 2 : list of measures to  be taken for accessibility in ports .................. 112 
Annex 9 Minimum information Requirements ...................................................................... 113 Annex 10 IMO STCW95 Code.............................................................................................. 115 Annex 11 Calculation of the administrative co st for the Member States' authorities............ 117 
Annexe 12 Monitoring and evaluating system process.......................................................... 118 Annexe 13 The influence of PRM measures  on ticket fares: the UK experience.................. 119 
Annex 14 Bibliography and documen tation used for this IA................................................. 121 
 
EN 4   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Impact assessment concerning the rights of  passengers travelling by sea and inland 
waterway 
Lead DG : TREN 
Other involved services : DG EMPL, ENTR, MARKT, SANCO, SJ, SEC GEN. 
Agenda planning or WP reference : 2006/TREN/017 // 2007/TREN/050 
In its White Paper “European transport pol icy for 2010: time to decide” the European 
Commission envisaged the establishment of passenge rs’ rights in all modes of transport. The 
need for action in this resp ect was further highlighted in  the Communication of 2005 on 
strengthening passenger rights within th e European Union in which the Commission 
presented a policy approach on how to extend pa ssenger protection measur es to all modes of 
transport. Passengers need a common set of principl es that apply to all m odes of transport, so 
that they can be more easily aware of thei r rights if something goes wrong with their trip, 
regardless of the mode of transport. 
Since then, two Regulations on aviation have entered into force, a Regulation on rail 
transport has been adopted, and th ere is one draft proposal on international bus and coach 
transport covering all principl es in passengers' rights. 
The maritime transport sector needs to increase its competitiveness; passengers travelling by 
ship require less fuel and caus e less damage to the environment than when travelling by road 
or air. The maritime sector could raise its  quality standards and offe r better protection of 
passenger rights, in line with the priority that the Amsterdam Treaty gave to the protection of 
consumers. 
This impact assessment has been conducted with  a view to examining the situation with 
regard to the protection of passenger rights in  the maritime sector and the necessity for 
establishing a legislation that  grants passengers general rights. It focuses on the main areas 
of concern highlighted by the Commission in its policy documents : the rights of persons with 
reduced mobility (hereinafter referred as to PRMs); the quality of service ; the assistance to 
passengers when travel is interrupted in  the event of delay or cancellation ; the right to  
information ; and non discrimination  issues.  
In order to tackle these issues, four options ha ve been envisaged: in the first option, no action 
is undertaken at EU level, and the current situ ation is perpetuated. The second option relies 
on Community legislative intervention to establis h improved rights of persons, including those 
with reduced mobility, when travelling by boat . The third option sets up an EU coordination 
and exchange of best practices to enhance national legislation under the same principles. In the fourth option, agreements would be adopted by ship op erators to improve passenger 
rights, on a voluntary basis.  
The conclusions of the impact assessment study are that, of the four options assessed, EU 
legislative action is the option that can achi eve all the objectives in favour of persons 
travelling by ship in terms of accessibility in ports, assistan ce in ports and on ships of PRMs; 
 
EN 5   EN quality service; assistance when travel is interrupted; non discrimination; information 
obligations; and enforcement, at an affordable co st to the industry and to the Member States. 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing  
The reference of this proposal in Age nda Planning is 2006/TREN/017 // 2007/TREN/050 
This impact assessment examines the situation with regard to the pr otection of the passenger 
rights in the maritime sector. It focuses on: 
– Rights of PRMs 
– Quality of service 
– Assistance to passengers when travel is  interrupted by a delay or a cancellation 
– Right to information and non discrimination issues 
There is already a Commission proposal for a Re gulation on liability of carriers of passengers 
by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents  (conciliation procedure scheduled for 
December 2008). 
In assessing the impacts, consid eration has been given to the list of possi ble kinds of impact 
identified in the Impact Assessment Guidel ines. However, as also recommended in the 
Guidelines, the impact assessment has taken into account the principle of proportionate 
analysis and has focused on the most significant fo rms of impact and their distributive effects. 
Whenever possible, quantified es timates have been provided. 
For the issues concerning PRMs DG TREN officially constituted a Steering Group on 20 
February 2007 by contacting the DGs that expressed interest in the “Preparatory study in view 
of an impact assessment study on a Commission proposal on the rights of passengers with 
reduced mobility when travelling by sea and inland waterway”. The DGs in question were EMPL, ENTR, MARKT, SANCO, SJ and SEC GEN. 
1.2. Consultation and expertise  
1.2.1.  The general study 
In 2005-2006, DG TREN commissioned an independent study on the “ Analysis and 
assessment of the level of protection of passeng er rights in the EU maritime transport sector ”
 
1. This study examined the current level of pr otection of passengers ri ghts confronted with 
disruptions. It also covered the protection of  the rights of persons with reduced mobility. 
The overall conclusions of the general study are that protecti on of passengers is not fully 
satisfactory due to, among others, the lack of uniformity in terms of the extent and depth of 
protection of the rights of pa ssengers; absence of a framewor k providing for immediate and 
                                                 
1 TiS.pt. Analysis and assessment of the level of protection of passenger rights in the EU maritime 
transport sector. Lisbon, October 2006. 
 
EN 6   EN predefined solutions in the cases of cancellati ons and delays; and lack of information to 
passengers regarding their rights in  case of a critical event.  
Moreover, regarding PRMs, it was concluded that the protection of PRM rights differs 
significantly between Member States and that there is room for im proving the situation; 
particular improvements can be made with rega rd to accessibility in ports and ships, non-
discrimination and provision of assistance.  
1.2.2.  The public consultation 
A public consultation was launch ed in 2006 by the European Co mmission. The aims of this 
consultation were twofold: first,  the protection of the rights of passengers, in particular in the 
event of interruption, delay or cancellation of  a journey by sea; second, the protection of 
rights of PRMs during a journey by sea. 
The results of this consultation were pub lished on DG TREN’s website on 6 December 2006, 
and were supplemented by the conclusions of the meeting on 18 January 2007 between stakeholders and DG TREN.  
There was virtual unanimity of all respondent s concerning the need for a common minimum 
level of protection for passengers' rights througho ut the EU, irrespective of the transport mode 
or whether a journey takes place wholly within a single Member state or crosses an internal or 
external frontier. It was emphasised that maritime passengers are often among the most 
vulnerable members of society, who are not accustomed or do not have the means to lodge a 
complaint or to sta nd up for their rights. 
Unlike in the air transport sector, where companie s keep a record of all events encountered by 
passengers, very few data are available on denied boarding
2, long delays, or refusal to sell 
tickets to PRMs in maritime transport. However, perceptions among the different contributors to the consultation as to the di mension of the problem vary si gnificantly, and this is mainly 
due to the lack of agreed comm on definitions of the previously  mentioned "critical events". 
A more detailed summary can be found in Annex 1.  
1.2.3.  PricewaterhouseCooper’s preparatory study 
A preparatory study prior to this impact assessment was also commissioned from 
PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory s.r.l (PwC).  PwC was requested to assess the economic, 
social and environmental impacts of four policy options determined by DG TREN: no action, 
EU legislative action, national legislation and sect or-specific voluntary agreements. The 
conclusions of the preparatory study for the im pact assessment have been taken into account 
in the following sections, which set out the key stage of the impact assessment analysis. 
                                                
 
2 Even though the very few data available, denied boarding for overbooking does not seem to be 
significant in the context of passeng er transport by boat; th erefore it would not be considered as part of 
the issues analysed in this IA. 
 
EN 7   EN 1.2.4.  Assessment of Contract Conditions  and Preferential Tariff Schemes 
The Commission contracted the consultancy, Steer  Davies Gleave, to undertake a review of 
preferential tariff schemes, air carrier Conditions of Carriage, and maritime operator Conditions of Carriage.  
With regards to the maritime sector, this study review the Conditions of  Carriage of maritime 
operators serving EU ports to ev aluate what rights are provided to passengers in the event of 
delays and cancellations, what liability provisi ons were made, and what provisions are made 
for passengers with reduced mobility. It also id entifies where maritime operator Conditions of 
Carriage contained terms which appeared likely to infringe the principles set out in the Unfair 
Contract Terms Dir ective (93/13/EEC). 
1.2.5.  Impact Assessment Board opinion 
The draft Impact Assessment report was su bmitted to the Impact Assessment Board 
(hereinafter IAB) on 15 September 2008. The IAB held a hearing on the subject on 8 October 
2008 which was followed by the submission of its detailed opinion on 13 October 2008.  
In drafting this final report, the recommendations  in the written opinion of the IAB were taken 
into account. In particular, the IAB asked fo r a clearer justification on: the scope of the 
initiative regarding the sector s covered by public service obligation; the extent to which 
passengers are already covered at national level by the rights which this initiative proposes to 
grant. The Board also recomme nded including a more developed analysis of alternative sub-
options and providing more inform ation on the likely overall costs of the initiative with a 
more accurate assessment of the impact on SM Es. The IAB also recommended including 
some further explanations of  why Member States' action alone would be insufficient to 
achieve the objectives for dome stic routes and cruises, and why companies do not have 
sufficient incentives to improve  the situation of passengers. 
The author DG followed these recommendations by substantially redrafting the relevant 
chapters on the problem definition, policy options and analysis of impacts. 
Some features of the maritime market have been introduced in order to have a clear overview 
of the sector and to better understand its complexity. The problem of compilation and 
handling of the missing data has also been addr essed. An overview of the routes covered by 
public service obligations has b een introduced as well as some  clarification on the baseline 
about the scope regarding these routes. The issue of whether or  not to exclude  PSOs has been 
analysed in a new sub-section of section 5 
An analysis of different sub-option for a co mpensation scheme, as the Board suggested, has 
been included. A more detailed overview of the different ex isting legislation in Member 
States and of the situation of passenger rights in all modes of  transport has been introduced. 
As required by the IAB, the author DG has co ntacted, , DG ENTR regarding the impacts on 
SMEs and DG EMPL on the links with the pr oposed Council Directive on implementing the 
principle of equal treatment. Subsequently, th is IA was revised to  include not only the 
comments in the final opinion of the IA Boar d but also comments from the IA quality 
checklist. 
 
EN 8   EN Following the submission of a revised version on 17 October, which took the request from the 
IAB fully into account, the IAB issued fu rther opinion on 24 October 2008. This opinion 
welcomed the improvements that had been made , but requested some further adjustments.  
First, the description of the baseline still needed  to be improved in order to clarify the extent 
to which passengers are already covered at national level by the rights which this initiative proposes to grant. Secondly, additional sub-op tions were requested, in particular to 
distinguish between different modes of transpor t. Thirdly, the proportionality of EU actions 
needed to be better described.  
Subsequently, the Impact Assessment Report was ag ain substantially revised in order to take 
account of the IAB's comments and suggestions.  
A description of the maritime market segments ha s been introduced in order to present a clear 
picture of how the maritime sector is organise d (see new Box 2). Rather than looking at a 
mixed classification consisting of cruise, inla nd waterway and cross border, the maritime 
sector can be better analysed fr om three different perspectives: a geographical segmentation  
of the maritime transport of passengers differentiates between maritime and inland waterways; a second kind of distinction based on the characteristics of the boats can be 
made between ferry (including ro -ro and high speed ships) and cruises; a third segmentation 
can be drawn based on the nature of the route s, between domestic traffic and cross border 
routes (including both intra community and intern ational routes). However, it must be noted 
that the statistics on the sector do not necessari ly reflect these three types of segmentation. 
Box 2 provides indicative estimates for each segment. Moreover, Table 19 in annex 2 has been amended to clarify the potential number of PRMs that will use a (cruise) ship for trips of 
four nights or more for tourism purposes. 
As to regards accessibility, it has been made clear that the list of measures analysed has been 
drawn up in order to estimate poten tial costs. This list is illu strative in nature, since the 
proposed initiative will not contain any de tailed measures to be implemented.  
In section 2.8, which concerns th e EU right to act, the reasoni ng behind EU actions has been 
described while taking into account the proportiona lity of those actions . It includes a sub-
option assessing the advantages/disadvantages of a "cross-border only"  legislative option.  
Finally, some clarification of the general ex isting regulatory framewor k has been introduced 
and the overall costs of the measures to th e passengers have been set out in detail. 
Following the submission of a revised version on 4 November, fully ta king into account the 
request of the IAB, the IA B issued yet another opinion on 10 November 2008. While 
welcoming the substantial improvements that ha d been made, some minor further adjustments 
were requested, such as the introduction of sub-options for the accessibility in ports, 
assistance provided by PRMs and for information needs and a caveat in the table presenting 
the scenarios on the possi ble range of the number of passenge rs benefiting from the proposal. 
Therefore, the Impact Assessment Report was finally  revised to take into account of the last 
IAB's comments and suggestions.  
 
EN 9   EN 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. The importance of the maritime sector for EU passengers 
Twenty two of the 27 Member States of the European Union are co astal countries. Four 
Member States are islands (U nited Kingdom, Ireland, Malta a nd Cyprus) and eight others 
(Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) ha ve archipelagos or 
large islands with big populations. The sea borders  between some Member States are in close 
proximity to each other, making it easy to use mari time transport. In the archipelagos and the 
outlying and outermost regions of the Europe an Union, where intensive maritime passenger 
traffic is essential for their integration in th e social and economic fabric of the European 
Union, there is often no alternativ e to maritime transport, at least at a similar price, for 
passengers wanting to travel within the EU. For these passengers, any journey by coach or 
train or with their own car often means having to cross the sea first, even  for journeys of less 
than 100 km. 
Over the last thirty years, there has been a boom in mobility in Eu rope. For millions of 
citizens, travel has become a reality, indeed a right. In 1970, each EU citizen travelled 17 
kilometres every day; this figure is now 34 k ilometres and is still growing. This phenomenon 
is due to a number of factors, but above all to  economic growth, the completion of the internal 
market, lower travel costs and progress toward s a “European area without internal frontiers”3. 
As a direct result of this boom and its maritime dimension, 398 million people  passed 
through ports of the European Union in 20064, which means around 199 million maritime 
passengers a year. There are, roughly speaking, 288 operators on the European ferry and 
RoRo  (Roll-on, Roll off) markets5, and there are approximately 800 passenger  ports  in 
Europe. The importance of maritime passenger tr ansport is evenly spread throughout Europe, 
with a similar number of major routes6 in each of the three coastal zones of the European 
Union (Baltic Sea, North S ea and Mediterranean Sea).  
2.2. Some features of the maritime passenger market 
Preliminary remarks: the data issue Some remarks, valid for the entire report, have to be made on key figur es and data concerning 
maritime sector. 
The sector is not used to release any kind bus iness-related information such as number of 
employees, revenue or profit. This feature was confirmed during the public consultation 
carried out by the Commission, and it is corrobor ated by private specialised publications as 
well
7. As a matter of fact, figures are lacking concerning simple data such as the number of 
                                                 
3 Article 2 of the European Union Treaty.  
4 Source: Eurostat, Statistics in focus "Maritime transport of goods and passengers 1997-2006". This 
figure incorporates the traditional double counting at  ports and represents a 2,8% increase compare to 
2005. 
5 Source: DG TREN analysis of ShipPax data and data from the European Community Shipowners 
Association (ECSA). The exact number of ship operators working in Europe is not officially available. 
6 Routes with more than 1 000 000 passengers per year.  
7 See Shippax : "The Yearbook for passenger and ro-ro shipping: Statistics and Outlook '06 " , page 15 
and the statistics. This conclusion is also illustrated for the striking lack of data regarding most of the 
 
EN 10   EN passengers/year (hereinafter pax/ year) for many routes, or even the exact number of routes 
served by a company. The same lack of data also  affects ports. Leaving as ide the largest ports, 
for many ports it is not clea r how many companies use them and how many pax/year transit 
through them. Data are either not  available, or only partially available, or have not been 
updated since 1995. An explanation for this total l ack of data on passengers could be that the 
maritime sector, in spite of the large num ber of passengers (around 400 millions of 
passengers) carried annually by boat in the EU, ha s always identified itself more closely with 
freight transport than with passenger tran sport, since the economic importance of the 
passenger transport for the large majority of maritime carriers is much smaller than the 
revenues they earn from the freight. The lack of interest shown by Member States over the 
years into the specific situation of maritime passengers has contri buted to the current lack of 
data.  
In this context, lists and figures in this IA have to be treated w ith caution, since they originate 
from the different statistical so urces that are available. Some of them have been produced by 
Commission services in order to be compared and measured for the purpose of this report. 
Nevertheless, these figures are sound enough to  provide some analysis and conclusions. 
Moreover when it comes to passenger protection, th ere is a total lack of  factual information, 
since neither companies nor port authorities have ever compiled statistics or figures on delays, 
cancellations, refusal of carriage, overbooking and number of passengers affected by those 
events. 
Passengers 
Figures on the number of maritime pax/year in Europe oscillate between 364 millions 
(according to the Institute of Shipping Analysis, hereinafter SAI), 398 millions (Eurostat), 
and 511 millions (ShipPax information, hereinafter ShipPax ). ShipPax and SAI figures are 
likely to include data from non-EU European count ries and their data differ significantly. It 
seems therefore wiser to stick to the Eurostat figure. It must be taken into account that all 
these figures reflect passenger movements a nd therefore a double-coun ting is a possibility 
(roughly speaking, the figures have to be divided by 2 to get the actual number of passengers). 
Eurostat does not break down figures by coastal zones. However, the percentages of traffic 
broken down by zones coming from the other two s ources are very similar, and provide some 
useful indicative information on the distribution of passengers by zones. It can be assumed that 40% of maritime passengers travel in the Baltic Sea; 25% in the North Sea and 35% in the Mediterranean Sea
8. 
Data since 1997 show a gl obal decline in the number  of passengers. This drop in passengers is 
noticeable in almost half of the 20 biggest po rts and on some of the more important routes.  
Ports 
There are about 800 passenger ports in the Europ ean Union. Those ports and the routes which 
link them are usually divided in three coastal zones:  
                                                                                                                                                         
routes included in the report of SAI "the institute of Shipping Analysis" on European Ro-ro and Ferry 
lines published in 2006, see for instance pages 15 to 21. 
8 See Table 1 Annex 2 for distribution of passengers by zones 
 
EN 11   EN • Baltic Sea,  which covers nine countries, namely Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Sweden, Finland; and partially Germa ny, Denmark and Norway (east coast); 
• North Sea  which covers 11 countries, namely  United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, 
Belgium, Icelandic, partially Germany, Denm ark, Norway (west coast), partially France, 
Spain, Portugal (north and west coast, plus Azores)9 
• Mediterranean Sea  which covers 10 countries namely  Cyprus, Malta, Greece, Croatia, 
Slovenia, Italy, and partially Fr ance, Spain (including the Cana ry Islands), and the routes 
in the Black Sea for Bulgaria and Romania 
No comprehensive list of passenger ports in Europe has ever been compiled, and no attempt 
has been made to compile at least partial list s of ports organised by number of pax, number of 
routes or number of companies. Ideally, four categories of ports could be established, taking 
into account the number of pax/year:  
(1) Ports with less than 100.000 pax/year 
(2) Ports with 100.000 to 500.000 pax/year 
(3) Ports with 500.000 to 1.000.000 pax/year 
(4) Ports with more than 1.000.000. pax/year 
Tables 2 and 3 in annex 2, show a list of passenger ports in Eu rope by their major type of 
traffic by zones, and the EU's t op 40 passenger ports, respectively.  
Routes  
There are no public or private statistics or data  on the number of mari time domestic routes 
versus intra-community or international routes  or how the total numbe r of passengers is 
spread between domestic/cross border passengers. It should also be no ted that the routes 
covered by cruise ships have never been comp iled by the sector or by any public source.  
For the purpose of this impact assessment, DG TREN carried out an internal search of data, 
which shows that broadly speaking, around 60% of the routes seem to be domestic. The same 
internal survey shows that - br oadly speaking and for the purpose of this impact assessment-, 
a similar percentage of the domestic routes ar e subject to a Public Service Contract that 
imposes, inter alia, social tariffs, freque ncies or the number of places offered.  
In spite of the completion of the internal market, one feature of maritime passenger transport 
is the lack of competition among maritime lines  on the overwhelming majority of routes. 
Roughly speaking, around 182 routes can be counted in the Baltic Sea  for all kinds of 
passenger traffic (domestic, intra-community  and extra-community), including Norway. 
Competition is found on only 11 of these 182 routes  (6%). As for the number of passengers, 
only 16 routes represent more than 1.000.000 pa x/year (8.8%), if we exclude Norway 
domestic routes. If we include them, approxi mately 23 routes are transporting more than 
1.000.000 pax/year (12.6%). 
                                                 
9 There some studies that split this area into two: 1) Nordic and 2) Atlantic. For the sake of clarity and 
compiling data, where mentioned "Atlantic" must be understood part of the one so called Nord Sea. 
 
EN 12   EN For the roughly 200 routes which sail the North Sea , and for all types of traffic taken 
together, competition is found on eight routes  (4%). As for the number of passengers, 
approximately 19 routes count mo re than 1.000.000 pax/year (9.5%).  
In the Mediterranean Sea, on a total of approximately 390 routes10, around 70 are covered 
by two or more companies (18%). As for the nu mber of passengers, only 17 routes carry more 
than 1.000.000 pax/year (4.3%).  
A break down of routes by number of passengers , including the number of  routes subject to 
competition, is attempted in Annex 2, table 4.  
Routes could be broken down into short dist ance crossings, which takes less than 6 hours; 
medium distance crossings, which takes betwee n 6 and 12 hours; long  distance crossings, 
which are typically more than 12 hours and fr equently used for night time crossings. 
However, no attempt seems to have been made to  classify maritime routes in terms of their 
duration. Since the duration of most routes is not mentioned, such a classification is not dealt 
with this report.  
It is also worth mentioni ng that, under Regulation 3577/199211, Member States have imposed 
public service obligations  (PSOs) on certain maritime r outes. Regulation 3577/1992 sets strict 
limits on what Member States can impose on a PSO. Under Article  4.2 of the Regulation, "In 
imposing public service obligations, Member States shall be limited to requirements concerning ports to be served , regularity, continuity, freque ncy, capacity to provide the 
service, rates to be charged and manning of the vessel". In other terms, Only Public Service 
Contracts (PSCs), under Artic le 2.3 of the Regulation may impose on operators certain 
standards of quality, which coul d include, in some cases, cert ain obligations regarding the 
accessibility for PRM. At this stage, it is very  difficult to quantify the number of routes 
subject to PSC because some of them may have expired, some others are about to expire and 
still others may have had exte nded expiry dates; but whatever  the case, the maximum duration 
for a PSC is six years.  
It is worth calling to mind that the market  segment covered by PSOs and PSC is only 
domestic in nature. Despite the lack of data  and the expiry date of the PSO, it can be 
estimated that in 2005 approximately 321 domestic routes
12 are subject to PSOs. This would 
amount to more or less 36% of the total ma rket (both the maritime and inland waterway 
segments), out of around 60% of all domestic ma ritime passenger transport routes in the EU). 
They would include most of the smallest rout es where the profit margins of the companies 
involved may be quite small. However, thos e routes do not account for 60% of overall 
domestic passenger movements, because usually they are minor routes with small passenger 
numbers. Since it is only the PSC, and not the PSO, that can set quality standards, the 
percentage of routes with might have some pa ssenger rights within thes e quality standards is 
                                                 
10 Including Croatian domestic routes: 37 (Croatian international routes are all with Italy and Slovenia, so 
they are counted as international routes from EU members); Bulgarian international traffic: 2 routes; 
Rumania international traffic: 1 route. 
11 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 Decem ber 1992 applying the principle of freedom to 
provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage). OJ L 364, 
12.12.1992, pp. 7–10. 
12 See Annex 3 for a detail overview of PSO routes. Source: “Etude en vue de la réalisation du cinquième 
rapport de la Commission sur la mise en œuvr e du règlement 3577/92 (cabotage Maritime)” 
TREN/CC/01-2005/S07.62844. 
 
EN 13   EN lower, between 26% to 30% of the total market . For the purpose of this impact assessment, 
we have selected an intermediate figure of 28%. 
Given the lack of evidence on the implementation of PSOs in Member States, Section 5 will 
analyse a range of assumptions regarding PSOs routes. 
Box 1 Services of General Interest 
Services of general interest s hould be organised and regulated as closely as possible to the 
citizens and the principle of subsidiarity must  be strictly respected. The Commission respects 
the essential role of the Members States and of  regional and local authorities in the area of 
services of general interest. This role is reflected in the Community's policies on services of 
general interest, which are based on various degrees of action and th e use of a range of 
instruments in line with the principle of subsidiarity. 
However, the provision and organi sation of these services is subject to the rules of the EC 
Treaty on the internal market and competition, si nce their activities are economic in nature. In 
the case of large network industries having a clear European-wide dimension, such as 
telecommunications, electricity, gas, transport a nd postal services, the se rvices are regulated 
by a specific EU legislative framework. 
The maritime sector is an example of how a full liberalisation process can be compatible with 
the maintenance of PSOs. Member States have the right to impose a PSO when they consider 
that a route is vital for the economic devel opment of a region or an island. The standards 
imposed under the public service obligation may concern prices, the number of places offered, 
frequencies, etc., where a similar level of serv ice would not be provided if maritime transport 
operators were solely considering their commercial interest. 
In the field of maritime cabotage, PSOs may be  imposed or public service contracts (PSCs) 
may be concluded for the services listed in Article 4 of Regulation 3577/92. For those 
services, PSOs and PSCs as well as their compensation must fulfil the conditions of that 
provision and conform to the Treaty rules and pr ocedures governing State aid, as interpreted 
by the Court of Justice. 
The Commission accepts that if a transport service is necessary  to meet imperative public 
transport needs, PSOs may be imposed or PSCs may be concluded, on th e condition that any 
compensation is subject to the above-mentioned Treaty rules and procedures. The duration of 
public service contracts should be  limited to a reasonable and not excessively period-normally 
in the order of six years- since contracts fo r significantly longer periods could entail the 
danger of creating a (private) monopoly. 
Operators 
No source is able to determine exactly how ma ny operators work in Europe. A general figure 
of 31813 companies is liable to double-count operato rs that cover both domestic routes (94 
operators) and international r outes (224 operators); a comp rehensive list of Community 
operators does not appear to have been compiled yet.  
                                                 
13 Source: SAI (the Institute of Shipping Analysis) 
 
EN 14   EN Ferry operators.  Ferries are used commercially to cross waters on a regular liner service with 
passengers, and the feature that di stinguishes them from other vess els is their ability to carry 
cars and commercial vehicles. If a ship is only carrying freight  and no passengers or at least 
not more than 12 passengers, the ship is not regarded as a ferry. Taking this into account, 
there are about 240 ferry operators in total; most of them are international ferry operators that 
operate intra Community services14. 
As has already been mentioned, nearly 300 oper ators are working on the European Ferry and 
RoRo-markets. They own a total of more than  1,700 ships with a tota l capacity of 1.2 million 
passengers. They carried a tota l of 364 million passengers in 2005. 
Cruise operators.  The cruise industry15 is a part of the maritime sector that possesses specific 
features. Firstly, this sector c ould be considered to some exte nt as a luxury segment, where 
ships include a complete hotel infrastructure, th e product is an "all-inc lusive" vaca tion and the 
passengers tend to be in the middle age group (an average of 54,8 years old for UK 
passengers). Secondly, only thr ee EU countries are represen ted among the 12 top ranking 
cruise shipping companies in 2008 namely Germ any, Cyprus and the United Kingdom. These 
EU countries only own 32 of the 284 ships, and they are also the oldest ships (26 years on 
average) compared to the remainder of the 12 top ranking cruise shipping companies (17.8)16. 
In 2005 the cruise industry carri ed approximately 34 million passengers in intra-Community 
traffic. 
In contrast to the steady decrease in the number of passengers for the ferry and RoRo sector, 
the cruise industry has been experiencing a st eady increase over the last few years. The 
Mediterranean cruise market has forecast an  increase of 11.85% in passenger numbers in 
2008 compared to 2007. Dover's Crui se is expecting to increase th e number of passengers by 
up to 10% in 2008. 
Box 2 Overview of passenger maritime transport market segments 
Given the available statistics fo r the sector and taking into a ccount that this might go beyond 
other traditional classifications for other sect ors of the economy, the maritime market, might 
be divided into market segments in three ways: (1) the type of traffic: sea vs inland waterways 
and (2) the characteristics of the vessels: ferries vs cruises; and (3) the nature of the route: 
domestic vs cross border (which includes intra-Community and international routes) 
(1) Segmentation between Sea and Inland waterway:  
Sea Traffic:  passenger transport service by boat is main ly considered as sea traffic. Almost 
all of the traffic (ferries and cruises) falls into this category. 
Sea traffic covers +/-99% of the total of  the passenger transport market by boat. 
                                                 
14 See Annex 2 Table 5 for maritime ferry operators by main type of activity and main area of operation. 
15 For the sake of clarity when referring to a cruise in  this report, it stands for a ship regularly used for 
cruising activities exceeding one day (overnight), not in ordinary passenger tran sport between port A 
and port B, but with passengers normally returning to  the port of embarkation. ShipPax Statistics and 
Outlook 2006, page 48 
16 Shipping Statistics and market review. Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics. Volume 52, n 8, 
2008, page 12. 
 
EN 15   EN Inland Waterway:  Inland waterways are mainly used for cargo services. They can be 
considered, on very rare occasions, as passeng er transport services. The passenger services 
included are usually either urban services (e.g. Venice, other lake services, boats linking the 
two shores of the Douro in Li sbon) under a public service cont ract; or cruise services (e.g. 
cruises on the Rhine and the Danube). It consti tutes a minor market segment, which accounts 
for +/- 1% of the total passe nger transport market by boat. 
(2) Segmentation between ferries (only transp ort, including ferry, ro-ro and high speed 
ships), and cruise (combined transport and tourism, on cruise ships):  
Ferry : covers all kind of routes. The market shar e of ferries is +/- 92% of total passenger 
transport market by boat. 
Cruise . The cruise objective is twofold: to deli ver a transport service and leisure related 
activities at the same time. For cruise pass engers both the voyage itself and the ship's 
amenities are part of the package. Some ships fu lfill the standards of 5-star hotels, with sun 
decks, dining rooms, lounges, fitness faci lities, swimming pools, casinos and other 
entertainment facilities. Cruise ships normally operate on routes th at return passengers to their 
originating port. 
The market share of cruise is +/- 8% of total market for passenger transport by boat. 
(3) Segmentation between domestic routes  and cross border routes (including intra-
Community and international routes): 
Domestic routes : Domestic routes tend to be smaller in terms of passenge r numbers than the 
intra-Community and the international routes. Broadly speaking and within the parameters of 
this exercise, the number of domestic routes amounts to around 60% of the total number of 
routes. 
Intra-Community routes : these tend to be commercial ro utes which are ranked among the 
most important in terms of number of passengers , size of ports and size of operators. Intra-
Community routes are thought c over around 30% of the total.  
International routes  between Member States and thei r international neighbours (i.e. the 
Maghreb countries, Russia, Turkey, Croatia, Albani a, etc.). By far the majority of the cruise 
segment is cross border, since cruises tend to cover - in at least one segment of their trip - an 
intra-community or an international port. Inte rnational routes make up between 5% and 10% 
of the market. However, their percentage of th e market is likely to increase in the coming 
years, taking into account the boom in the cruise sector, where the growth rate, based on a 
conservative estimate, is likel y to be around 10% per year.  
Main conclusions from the analysis of impacts 
By far the majority of the maritime market  covers transport by sea (first segment) and 
is served by ferries (the mean s of transport) and it covers a majority (60%) of domestic 
routes. Inland waterways account for a very  minor part of the market. The cruise 
segment of the market overlaps with tourism.  Therefore, the impact analysis will also 
look at the impact on the tourism sectors (see section 5.2).  
 
EN 16   EN 2.3. The specific problems for PRMs passengers 
A large majority of the citizens of the European  Union (79%) believe that  being disabled is a 
disadvantage in their country. In  line with such a broadly sh ared public perception and the 
support for the plight of the di sabled, who often encounter di scrimination, there is a clear 
consensus in all the Member States (91%) th at more should be done, and more money should 
be spent, on improving accessibility17. In transport services, the ri ghts of disabled persons and 
persons with reduced mobility cannot be limited to the accessibility of means of transport, as 
they also encompass non-discrimination, seam less assistance, and provision of information.18 
The issue of discrimination against PRMs in maritime transport has been brought to the 
attention of the Commission by a number of persons with reduced mobility and consumer 
associations, who consider, along with Member  States and national authorities, that the 
assistance given by shipping companies and ports to PRMs, including access to ports and ships, is partly or wholly insufficient. 
The current level of protection for PRMs is not  easy to assess due to the limited information 
available on the subject but th e following topics are identified as key elements for improving 
PRMs rights protection: accessibi lity of ports, assistance pr ovided, and suitability of 
information. 
2.3.1.  The current level of accessibility in ports 
Port authorities and terminal operators we re requested by the Commission to provide 
information about accessi bility in their ports
19. The results provide i ndications as to which 
solutions should be adopted and which areas s hould be improved in order to facilitate full 
access for PRMs in ports. 
Wheelchair users can access terminals, berths an d terminal buildings from the port entrance 
and berths from terminals at about 80% of th e ports and terminals surveyed. Aids to help 
visually impaired people to acces s berths and vessels, i.e. tact ile paving surfaces, are provided 
by 20% of the ports and terminals surveyed. Low-level counters, which help PRMs when they 
need information from desks, are fairly uncom mon: 10 terminals out of the 49 provide these 
facilities. Port operators were asked to provide information on the availability of aids for hearing-impaired persons: one terminal out of the 49 offers this particular facility. Finally, 
only 35 of the terminals provide  accessible toilets, and many terminals offer more than one 
toilet (see figure 2 in annex 2).  
In conclusion, even if persons with reduced mobility have acce ss to the ports surveyed, most 
ports do not offer the specif ic solutions they need. 
                                                
 
17 Eurobarometer survey: Discrimination in the EU, January 2007, Question 6. 
18 COM/2005/0604 final */ - "Situation of disabled people in the enlarged European Union: the European 
Action Plan 2006-2007, p. 3. 
19 49 completed questionnaires were returned by 31 po rts. The sample can be considered representative, 
since responses were collected from ports of all si zes and from all geographical areas. The ports that 
submitted a response handle a total of about 39 million passengers. 
 
EN 17   EN 2.3.2.  The current level and quality of  assistance provided to PRMs 
Assistance to PRMs appears to be very well covered in the UK, France and Ireland, as is 
physical accessibility for persons with reduced mobility (see Table 11 in Annex 2). However, 
assistance to PRMs throughout th e entire trip is provided by only a few UK-based operators. 
2.3.3.  The current suitability of info rmation for the needs of PRMs 
Information specifically for PR Ms is uncommon in Europe (onl y 1 operator out of the 43 
interviewed - see table 9 in Annex 2). A clear exception is the UK and possibly also Ireland, 
where there is extensive and systematic provi sion of information for PRMs. Information is 
provided by maritime transport operators in Br aille in a few cases in Ireland, the Nordic 
countries and the UK (2 operators). 
2.4. The problems of the protection of the rights of passengers when travelling by 
ship 
2.4.1.  Quality of service and travel interruptions: delays and cancellations 
The problem of the effective prot ection of the rights of passengers  in the event of interruption, 
delay or cancellation involving j ourneys by sea or inland waterway  concerns the various types 
of maritime transport, namely: national traffic –including inland waterways traffic-, intra-Community traffic, international tr affic and cruise ship traffic. 
When a journey is suddenly interrupted for seve ral hours or when a trip is suddenly cancelled, 
for whatever reasons, passengers find themselv es in a stressful, unexpected and difficult 
situation. Often far from home, and usually confin ed within the limits of a port or a ship, they 
do not have the means, immediately and on the s pot, to lessen the inconveniences caused by a 
situation for which they are not responsible and over which they have no influence.  
Maritime passengers are often cap tive passengers, who depend on their trip by ship to access 
other means of transport. This is clearly the case for, among others, populations living in 
small and medium-sized islands  all around Europe, with no air ports and no fixed links with 
the continent. Maritime transport, as with bus and coach transport, tends to be a mode of 
transport chosen by those in society with lower incomes, for instance, persons or families who 
cannot afford travelling by plane and renting a car at their arri val point. They are then bound 
to take a ship, whatever the conditions the ca rrier may impose on them . Those citizens on 
lower incomes are usually not accustomed or do not have the means to lodge a complaint or to stand up for their rights
20.  
It must be noted that, despite the opening up of the internal market, European maritime 
passenger transport sector is currently not a sector where ther e is strong internal competition. 
Even when inaccuracies and gaps in the availa ble data are taken into account, no competition 
is found in around 80% of the ro utes in the Baltic Sea and No rth Sea/Channel/Atlantic Ocean, 
and competition is present in no more than a quarter of the routes in the Mediterranean Sea21. 
Experience shows that simply relying on the mark et to produce solutions may not work in all 
circumstances, and this appears evident in this field, where there is little incentive for companies to improve their standards, at least on those many routes with no competition and 
                                                
 
20 See Figure 1 in Annex 2 for percentage of complaints registered. 
21 Analysis of data from different databases as ShipPax statistics and outlook (2006) and Eurostat.  
 
EN 18   EN where the majority of their passengers do not have the physical or th e economical means to 
travel by any other mode of transport.  
Unlike the case of air transport, denied boa rding does not appear to be a problem for 
passengers in maritime transport. In air transport, "denied boarding" is defined as a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, al though they have presented themselves for boarding, except 
where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boa rding, such as reason s of health, safety 
or security, or inadequate travel documentation
22. Denied boarding in air transport occurs 
frequently because tickets are systematically booked in advance. The marginal cost of one 
empty seat on a particular flight is high, and air lines therefore have an interest in practising 
overbooking – which in a number of cases leads to denied boarding. 
In maritime transport, transport of passengers is  often combined with cars, buses or freight 
(ro-ro ferries), which limits the cost of a lost  passenger, and cancels out the incentive to 
overbook and therefore denied boarding. For sm aller passenger boats, tic kets are purchased 
just before boarding, on a "first come firs t serve" basis, which makes denied boarding 
impossible.  
2.4.2.  Information to passengers 
Companies have chosen the conten ts of the information they provi de, just as they have chosen 
the solutions offered to their passengers when their travel is suddenly interrupted, based on 
their goodwill and their customer policy23. In most cases where information is provided, it is 
on an ad hoc basis, at the individual request of passengers, and on the spot. As a result, when 
a critical event occurs, passengers  feel confused in the absen ce of standardised information, 
they do not know what they can expect from  the company, and they may even be unaware 
that the company has offered alternative so lutions to other passe ngers in the same 
circumstances24.  
2.4.3.  Enforcement and Redress  
On the large majority of maritime routes where no competition at all has been developed, it is 
clear that the opening up of the market has not raised quality standards and services as had 
been expected, including better enforcement of passenger rights and us er-friendly means of 
settling disputes and means of redress to be used by all companies. The lack of common 
procedures isolates the passenge r, who has to cope with diffe rent procedures and deadlines, 
depending on the company, when he needs to express his dissatisfaction. 
2.5. The underlying drivers of the problem 
Lack of uniformity regarding the extent and depth of passenger rights protection.  Every 
country has some regulations regarding passe nger rights, and some countries even have 
special provisions for PRMs passengers. But there are important differences between them, 
                                                 
22 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 
establishing common rules on compensation and as sistance to passengers in the event of denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – article 2. 
23 See Table 8 in Annex 2, on Information provided to passengers in general; and Table 9 on information 
provided to PRMs in particular. 
24 See Table 6 in Annex 2, on Information provided to passengers in case of critical events. 
 
EN 19   EN not only concerning the level of de tail and issues covered, but also  the kind of law applicable 
and the authorities in charge of producing, enforcing, m onitoring and revising regulations. 
Lack of a common framework regarding immedi ate and predefined solutions in cases of 
cancellation and delays.  For passengers in general, ther e is currently no international or 
Community legislation that determines automatic and immediate solutions when a travel by ship is interrupted by a critical event. At nati onal level, in the absenc e of specific regulation, 
these issues are dealt with by the general legislation on cons umer protection. Apart from the 
Athens Convention of 1974 relating to the Ca rriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 
and the Protocol of 2002 to the Convention, a nd the Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 
1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours
25, little has been done in the past 
to protect the rights of passengers travelling by ship. Ship passenger carriers have never 
tackled the issue of standard ising passenger rights or quality  standards among themselves 
through their European and in ternational organisations. 
As a result, there are currently no common ru les or common practices on how to inform, 
assist, re-route or, in certain specific cases, possibly compensate ship passengers when they 
find themselves stranded due to a critical even t. Some companies have decided to develop a 
policy on these issues to offer their passengers some rights when a critical event occurs, but 
the companies that have developed a policy on t hose issues have done so in very different 
ways and manners.  
In addition, there is a de facto  problem: namely, a lack data; it is difficult to retrieve data on 
aspects such as the number of  critical events registered26. There may be two main reasons for 
this: a lack of harmonised con cepts and terminologies  (e.g. companies have different ways of 
defining delays); and no requir ement to control and monitor. Despite this incompleteness of 
the data, a methodology has been devised to produce sound and accurate estimates of the 
parameters of interest, Annex 3 explains in detail how this missing data have been handled. 
Lack of information to passengers in general and to PRM passengers in particular, regarding 
their rights in case of a critical event.  Diversity amongst countries is even greater when it 
comes to the amount and quality of informati on provided to passengers about their rights in 
such cases. The situations with regard to av ailability of informa tion differ widely, ranging 
from none at all to detailed information in Br aille. Even ports and operators in the same 
country seem to act independently and to be guided by motives other than legislation .  
Potential discrimination against PRMs . this phenomenon arises from the fact that, in maritime 
transport, market forces alone do not enable th eir actual needs of PRMs to be met. From the 
shipping companies’ point of view , such a market failure is part  of a vicious circle in which, 
the actual demand for travel from PRMs is not considered large enough to drive the necessary 
adaptations in ports or aboard ships. The resu lting lack of dedicated facilities in maritime 
transport discourages persons with reduced mo bility from making rese rvations on boats and 
thus confirms the argument of the shipping co mpanies — and also th e vicious circle of 
exclusion of PRMs from maritime transport. 
                                                 
25 JO L 158 of 23 June 1990 
26 See footnote 23 
 
EN 20   EN In this context, partial regul atory action has been taken at  EU level: Directive 2003/2427, 
Article 6b, concerning safety requirements on passe nger ships, is of great importance in terms 
of securing access to maritime transport for PRMs, and follows the rules defined by the International Maritime Organi sation (IMO, 1996). However, it only deals with accessibility 
aboard new ships performing domestic trips, and does not cover accessibility in ports, assistance, information and non-discrimination.  
Meanwhile, a number of Member States have demonstrated a real commitment on this matter 
and have adopted legislation to develop sets of rights for PRMs when travelling by sea
28. 
These rules are mainly administered by a public  authority and, to a certain extent, cover 
access by PRMs to maritime transport. It is unclear, however, whether and to what degree these regulations in practice give persons with reduced mobility the right to demand access to maritime transport and assistance where necessar y. In any event, such regulations vary in 
scope and content, resulting in widely disparat e rules applying to inte rnational routes, which 
is particularly problematic for PRMs when travel ling cross-border by sea. Such a disparity in 
the rules also represents a potential difficulty for maritime carriers operating cross-border. 
To sum up, the current lack of a common set of principles on the protec tion of the rights of 
passengers travelling by ship in the European Union confuses and isolates passengers, who 
are never sure - from one company to another; fr om one country to another; and even from the 
departure port to the arrival port if they connect two different c ountries - of their rights in each 
situation, or to whom they can refer in the event of problems. Mark et opening should go hand 
in hand with increased well-being for consumers. It is in the interest of both companies and 
citizens that this situation is redressed. 
2.6. Who is affected and how? 
The number of passengers using maritime tran sport is increasing (up 2.5% from 2005 to 
2006), due to the opening up of maritime transpor t markets which has led to a wider range of 
tourist destinations on offer, at ever lowe r prices. The annual total number of maritime 
passengers for the countries considered was es timated in 2006 at 199 m illion, of which close 
to 60% in national traffic and 35%  in intra-Community traffic. The remaining traffic is split 
between international and cruise travels. 
The total number of PRMs was around 136.2 million persons in the EU-27 in 2005
29.Of these 
136.2 million, it has been estimated that 70% have the actual economic and physical ability to 
travel (95.3 million). Around 200 million passenge rs out of the total EU population (500 
                                                 
27 Directive 2003/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003 amending 
Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships — OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, pp. 18–21. 
28 I.e. Greece; Ireland; the UK; Malta; The Netherland s. There are anti-discri mination laws in some 
countries such as Sweden, the UK , Ireland and the Netherlands. 
29 Eurostat provides an estimation of disabled people. People affected by some form of disability are 
estimated at around 10% of total population (49 million people in 2007). However, this notion is 
restricted as PRM may concern other types of disab ilities. For this reason, PwC has analysed data from 
Eurostat and One-Stop-Shop for Accessible Tourism in Europe (O SSATE): “Accessibility Market and 
Stakeholder Analysis” (20 October 2005). According to the OSSATE report, the PRM population in the 
EU-25 in 2003 was 27.7% of the total population. This includes the total disabled population and the elderly population. Temporarily impaired people wh o require higher levels of accessibility for a short 
period of time (such as people with a broken leg) ar e not included in this statistical account. Therefore, 
the actual demand for accessibility in  Europe is probably higher.  
 
EN 21   EN million) use transport by boat, which amounts to about 40% of the total EU population. For 
the purpose of this impact assessment, it has been assumed that the same percentage would 
allow us to calculate roughly th e number of PRMs passengers in th e EU. It means that at this 
stage, in a conservative scenario, 38.1 millions of PRMs passengers are affected by the lack of 
passenger rights. It is important to  notice that in the transport sect or all the statistics and data 
available are measured in terms of passe ngers, not persons. Therefore, 38.1 million of 
passengers does not mean 38.1 millions of th e PRM population, since the same person may 
make several trips a year. The same principle ap plies, logically, to the figures relating to non-
PRM passengers. Effective access to transport is  often necessary for active participation in 
economic and social life and its absence may se riously compromise th e integration of many 
citizens with reduced mobili ty (see COM/2005/0604 final). 
2.7. How will the problem evolve? 
As far as minimum protection of rights of pass enger travelling by ship is concerned, inaction 
on the part of the Commission a nd those involved, i.e. simply maintaining the current "status 
quo", is likely to make the present situati on worse. Maritime passenger companies now face 
competition not only from new market entrants, but also from low-cost airlines, and high-
speed railways (such as the Eurostar, which links  Paris and Brussels with London), as well as 
from infrastructure such as the Øresund bridge between Denmark and Sweden, which provides a fixed motorway link between the co asts of these two Member States. Those 
competitors in most cases also have an influence on many maritime routes, (e.g. Channel Tunnel and several maritime routes through th e Channel). Competition between maritime and 
other modes of transport has been very successf ul wherever it has been made possible, and 
has led to a decrease in the number of maritim e passengers to the benefit of other modes of 
transport on all routes concerne d. The only exception to this rule  is the cruise sector, where 
the number of passengers seems to have increased lasting recent years.  
As more and more routes are subject to compe tition with other modes of transport for which a 
minimum set of rights is already established and as the European po pulation ages and the 
number of passengers with reduced mobility in creases, more and more potential passengers 
may decide to forego trips by sh ip, reducing the number of actu al passengers and making the 
sector more and more fragile. To highlight  just some examples, between 1997 and 2004 
Dover and Calais lost around 30% of their pass enger (due to competition with the Channel 
Tunnel and low cost airline companies), a nd passenger volumes for France and the United 
Kingdom fell by 18% and 10% respectively be tween 1997 and 2004 . Helsingborg in Sweden 
and Helsingor in Denmark have lost around 11 % of their passengers (following the opening 
of the Oresund fixed link). Belgium's pa ssenger volume fell by 60% between 1997 and 
2004
30; passenger traffic has dropped 18% on all the routes between Greece and Italy since 
200131. Passengers' confidence in other modes of tr ansport, based on rights already approved 
at Community level, is likely to lead to mist rust of maritime transport if it refuses to give 
passengers this minimum of uniformity, clarit y and effectiveness c oncerning their rights. 
Wherever passengers are faced with a choice be tween modes of transport covering a similar 
route, they will continue to "v ote with their feet" by opting fo r the mode of transport which 
gives them better protection.  
                                                 
30 See footnote 4.  
31 Source: ShipPax Statistics and Outlook 2006, p.28. 
 
EN 22   EN Ferry companies cannot compete on speed with low- cost airlines, high-sp eed train services or 
new road transport opportunities provided by bri dges and fixed links. Maritime lines need to 
raise their quality standards if they are to remain competitive. Better protection of passenger 
rights when their trip is interrupted, better prov ision of information and a clearer, quicker and 
more efficient system of handling complaints will certainly help companies to boost their 
quality standards and to  remain competitive. 
Regarding PRMs , it should be noted that there is a strong correlation between disability and 
increasing age. In 2002, nearly  30% of people in the 55-64 age groups reported a long-
standing health problem or disability (s ee COM/2005/0604 final). The ageing of the 
population, a process that has been well documented32, will inevitably mean that the number 
of such persons will increase and thei r needs will become ever greater. 
The ageing of the European population has a direct influen ce on the number of disabled 
persons and people with reduced mobility. As a re sult of this process, accessibility issues will 
gradually assume greater importance in passenger s’ decision to choose a particular mode of 
transport. If nothing is done, those groups of  the population (i.e. potential passengers) will 
stop travelling by sea because of uncertainty about the companies' attitudes regarding their rights or the kind of assistance and information they may receive.  
Consequently, there would be a worsening of the negative effects linked to the loss of 
competitiveness of maritime passenger transport,  such as adverse environmental effects; 
negative social consequences (t ranslated into job losses on board  and ashore, and a lack of 
integration of the elderly and the disabled), not to mention unhealthy economic consequences 
for already sensitive coastal areas (the decl ine of certain ports and certain companies). 
2.8. Does the  EU have the right to act? 
EU consumer policy is at the hear t of the next phase of the inte rnal market, as set out in the 
Commission’s communication to the Spring European Council on the Single Market 
Review
33. The liberalisation of a mark et is complete only when  consumers, and not just 
companies, can enjoy the maximum benefits. As  the common market in maritime transport 
has been achieved, the protection of maritime passengers’ rights within this European common market must be put in place accordingly.  This European dimension has already been 
acknowledged and acted upon at Community level by the European legislator in both the air 
and rail modes of transport
34. Moreover, a proposal for a Regulation on the rights of 
passengers travelling by bus and coach is cu rrently in Inter-service Consultation.  
Box 3 Passenger rights in di fferent modes of transport 
Air Passenger Rights.  Air transport is the mode of transport that has the most developed 
protection of passenger rights at EU level. This  was the first sector in which the European 
Commission's passenger rights protection polic y, envisaged since its White Paper of 2001, 
was implemented. Air passenger rights legislat ion has also, paved the way for a single and 
coherent EU policy for the other modes of tran sport. From the first Regulation on air carrier 
                                                 
32 See EUR 25 OECD extrapolations in Figure 3 in Annex 2.  
33 European Commission, A Single Market for Citizens — interim report to the 2007 Spring European 
Council, Brussels. COM (2007) 60, 21.2.2007. 
34 Regulations (EC) No 261/2004, OJ L46, and (EC) No 1107/2006, OJ L204, regarding air transport; 
regarding rail transport, see Regulation 1371/2007. 
 
EN 23   EN liability in the event of accidents in 199735 until the most recent one, which covers PRMs 
rights when travelling by air in  2006 (in force since July 2008)36, all the issues identified by 
the Commission in its policy documents  have been covered. Regulation 261/200437 on rules 
on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of 
cancellation covers: quality of service, right  to passengers' information, automatic and 
immediate solutions when travel is interrupted  and introduction of comp laint procedures and 
enforcement bodies as mechanisms to  settle disputes out of court. 
Rail Passenger Rights. Regulation 1371/200738 (due to enter into force on December 2009) 
provides a set of rights for all railway user s throughout the European Union. These rights 
consist of rules on liability in case of accidents;  basic information and quality standards; the 
principles of non-discrimination and conditions fo r assistance to disabled persons or persons 
with reduced mobility; measures in the event of  delay (ad hoc assistance, re-routing or full 
reimbursement, compensation of a part the ticket  price paid) and effective enforcement. In 
addition to the exemptions that Member States may apply to their regi onal and urban services, 
this Regulation will eventually apply to al l rail services throughout the EU. Railway 
undertakings will be obliged to  participate in the creation of  a computer information and 
reservation system in order to allow better info rmation and sales facili ties throughout the EU 
railway network. The European Railways Agency ha s started work on this project, in order to 
have the system available in time for the entry into force of the Rail Passenger Rights 
Regulation. The Regulation's rules on assistance  for persons with reduced mobility are being 
supplemented by conditions for the accessibility of stations and trains. A Technical 
Specification for Interoperability (TSI) relating to persons with reduced mobility , recently 
adopted by the Commission (Commission Deci sion 2008/164/EC of 21 December 2007), sets 
out harmonised minimum levels of accessibility for rolling stock and infrastructure to be 
achieved during coming years. 
Bus and coach passenger rights. In accordance with the principles established by the 
Commission and following the example of legisla tion for the air and rail sector, the proposal 
for a Regulation on bus and coach passengers pr ovides a set of passenger rights for all users 
throughout the European Union. The aim of the pr oposal is to establish the rights of coach 
and bus passengers in order to improve the attr activeness of and confidence in coach and bus 
transport as well as to achieve a level playi ng field between carriers from different Member 
States and between other modes of transport. The proposal lays down pr ovisions on: liability 
in the event of death or injury of passengers  and loss of or damage to their luggage; non-
discrimination on grounds of nationality or pl ace of residence with regard to transport 
conditions offered to passengers by bus or coach undertakings; assistance for disabled persons 
and persons with reduced mobility; obligations of  bus and coach undertakings in the event of 
                                                 
35 Regulation(EC) No2027/97 of 9 Octo ber 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents OJ L 285, 
17.10.1997, p.1; as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of 13 May 2002, OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 
2. 
36 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 
concerning the rights of disabled persons and pers ons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, 
Text with EEA relevance. (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006 p.1) 
37 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 
establishing common rules on compensation and as sistance to passengers in the event of denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) – (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1–8) 
38 Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on 
rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14–41) 
 
EN 24   EN cancellation or delay of a journey; informa tion obligations; handling of complaints and; 
general rules on enforcement. Even though this proposal deals with bus  and coach services, 
the domestic urban, suburban and short distance regional bus services are normally covered 
by public service contracts which take into account  to a large extent the rights of passengers 
and quality of service. Thus, na tional legislation defines the ob ligations of bus operators and 
the corresponding rights of passeng ers. Member States may exclude these services from the 
scope of the Regulation provided that the level of passenger right s enshrined in such contracts 
is comparable to that laid down in the present Regulation. Ne vertheless, where bus and coach 
services are concerned, the nati onal laws of Member States offe r a range of different solutions 
for passengers and a variable level of protec tion in terms of liability of operators and 
assistance provided to disabled persons. 
For a full and detailed overview of EU legislat ion and of the level of  protection for passenger 
rights in the different modes of transport, refer to the correlation table of existing and 
proposed EU legislation on passengers' rights in the different modes of transport in Annex 4 . 
Discrepancies between Member States in the protection of maritime passengers' rights were 
highlighted in the contributions received in  the public consultati on conducted by DG TREN 
in 2006. These contributions clearl y show that the protection vari es from country to country 
depending on the level of rights established by national legisl ation, best practices and 
voluntary commitments by operators. Although the Commission did not receive contributions 
depicting the situation in ever y Member State, it was assu med that differing levels of 
protection of passengers' right s were the general rule. 
Maritime passengers are in a weak negotiating pos ition compared to carrie rs. They are subject 
to conditions of carriage and to business practices  determined by ship carriers, but have little 
alternative other than to accept th em, even if they are dissatis fied. Passengers depend heavily 
on the efficiency and goodwill of carriers when things go wrong, due to the difficulty of finding alternative carriers or the sheer impr acticality in most cases of reaching their 
destination using other forms of  transport as well as the gr eater economic interest of the 
carriers by ferry in the freight they transport. They do not know what they can expect from the 
company, and they may even be unaware that the company has offered some solutions to other passengers in the same circumstances.  
In addition passengers need a common set of prin ciples that is appli cable to all modes of 
transport, so that they can be aware of what to expect as a minimum, regardless of the mode 
of transport they are using, or whether a journey takes place w holly within a single Member 
State or whether it crosses an intra-EU or exte rnal frontier. It would be unacceptable for EU 
citizens to "fall through the gaps" between the different national le gislations, with their rights 
depending on the countries of origin and destina tion, just because they have chosen a travel 
by sea instead of by air or rail .  
There is surely no justifiabl e reason why a passenger embarki ng in a ship in Rome and 
disembarking in Corsica enjoys (or does not enj oy) different (or no) rights as opposed to a 
passenger who is travelling from Rome to Sardinia even if these journeys cover almost the 
same distance. Similarly, an Irish company wh ich operates the Cork-Dublin-Liverpool route 
would have to apply Irish rules on the Co rk-Dublin route and UK rules on the Dublin-
Liverpool route, which is -at best- costly and possibly not feasible when  it comes to different 
accessibility and assistance rules for PRMs. 
 
EN 25   EN It could be presumed that due to the specific fe atures of the cruise se ctor, passengers would be 
less affected by a disruption in te rms of delays that might aris e before, during and after their 
travel. However, a cruise package includes all scheduled ports of scale. Cruise passengers are interested in experiencing the destination to th e fullest and want to actively explore the places 
at which they reasonably expect to stop. Criti cal events, especially cancellations may occur 
when the organiser, for instance, fails to cover one of the legs of a scheduled route and do not 
stop at one or more of the sche duled ports of scale, or when a long delay is made up by an 
intolerable reduction of the amount of time on la nd during scales. Even if  the general quality 
standards of service could be higher, the right s of cruise passengers when subject to this 
specific kind of critical events are not current ly included in the quality standards of cruise 
operators. Passengers might find themselves c onfronted with different situations and 
legislations depending on the country in whic h the port of disembarkation is situated.  
Secondly, regarding the non-discriminatory cont ract conditions, Community action aims to 
prevent discriminatory practices, including on the basis of nationality or  residence. There is 
nothing in the specific features of the cruise segment that can justify an exclusion from the 
scope of the Regulation. 
In the specific case of PRM, it the cruise line may possible decides during the trip to change 
one of the legs of the trip and replace it by a stop in another port that is not accessible to 
PRM. Besides, the aim of Commu nity action is to prevent refu sal of carriage on the grounds 
of reduced mobility. The Commission is aware that cruises currently tend to justify refusal of 
carriage to PRM for unspecified safety reasons . The aim of the Community Regulation is to 
ensure that PRM are accepted onbo ard on a non-discriminatory basi s. There is nothing in the 
specific features of the cruise segment to justify an exclusion from the scope of the Regulation. 
The ferries and ports on the Dover-Calais route ar e well equipped with re spect to accessibility 
for PRMs; this is historically driven by UK law wh ich is also applied 'de facto' in the port of 
Calais. The situation would become really di fficult for these companie s involved if France 
adopted different standards with wh ich they would have to comply. 
Passenger carriers and port managers have neve r developed any harmonised best practices 
concerning the rights of passengers travel ling by ship. The Commission announced its 
intention as long ago as 2001 to improve mariti me passengers' rights in the European Union, 
and it reiterated this intention in 2005. Ho wever, none of those announcements have 
encouraged either national governments or the industry to try to improve their standards of 
protection by themselves. 
Nevertheless, while the protec tion of passengers’ rights should be harmonised as far as 
possible across all modes of public transport,  the obligations on carriers should not be 
disproportionate to the nature and features of the journe y, whatever the mode or modes 
transport. 
Taking the above into account, Ar ticles 71(1) and 80(2)  of the EC Treaty give the European 
Community the legal basis to act on this matter. 
 
EN 26   EN 3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General objective 
The general objectives of establishing the righ ts of passengers are underpinned by the general 
objectives of the EU in terms of ensuring th e movement of persons within the European 
Union, a high level of customer protection, bett er social and economic  cohesion, and social 
inclusion of different social groups. 
3.1.1.  Single market 
In the context of the Lisbon Stra tegy, it is desirabl e to boost the competitiveness of passenger 
transport by ship, which requires less fuel a nd causes less damage to the environment than 
travel by road or air. Encouraging the relevant  sectors to raise their quality standards and to 
offer better protection of passengers' rights will increase the competitiveness of companies involved in passenger transport by ship and of the sector as a whole.  
The proposal would allow passengers  to enjoy improved protection so  as to benefit fully from 
the Single Market. Within the Internal Market , passengers should not only benefit from the 
wide range of services, but also enjoy adequate protection of their economic interests as users. 
This proposal ensures that citizens, including those with reduced mobility, can make full use 
of the benefits of the single market and have the confidence to use them. In this respect, the 
establishment of maritime passengers' rights will complement the progress achieved in the transport sector within the framew ork of the European Single Market. 
3.1.2.  Common Transport Policy 
Article 3(1) (f) of the EC Treaty stipulates th at the Community should strive to achieve its 
objectives by means of a common policy in the sphere of trans port. The rights of passengers 
in other modes of transport, incl uding air and rail, have become an  integral part of this policy. 
3.1.3.  Cohesion 
Under the terms of Article 3 (1) (k), of the Treaty, the Community has a duty to strengthen 
economic and social cohesion within the EU. Ship  transport, like bus and coach transport, 
tends to be a mode of transport chosen by t hose in society on lower incomes, persons or 
families who cannot afford, for instance, travelli ng by plane and renting a car at their point of 
arrival. Maritime passengers in ge neral belong to social groups th at are vulnerable  in terms of 
income and age, but also because  of disability or reduced mob ility. Reinforced protection may 
therefore help to improve social cohesion.  
3.1.4.  Consumer protection  
Effective consumer rights are essential to en suring that the liberalisation of the market 
successfully delivers real choices, confidence and maximum benefits to the consumers. The 
EC Treaty provides in Article 3(1) (t) that  the Community should contribute to the 
strengthening of consumer protection. In this respect, the establishmen t of passenger rights in 
maritime transport meets this objective. Establis hment and further strengthening of the rights 
of passengers is in line with the high priority  given by the Amsterdam Treaty to the protection 
of consumers. In its Communication "EU C onsumer Policy strategy 2007-2013: empowering 
 
EN 27   EN consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectiv ely protecting their identified objectives and 
priorities"39 the Commission states that one  of the priorities is to put  consumers at the heart of 
other EU policies. The Communica tion notes that progre ss has been made in the integration 
of consumer interests, inter alia, in air transpor t. The aim for the future  is to build on these 
achievements in order to make integration of c onsumer interests more systematic. Therefore, 
the Commission is extending the pa ssenger rights developed in th e air sector to other modes 
of transport, in particular in relation to passengers with reduced mobility.  
3.1.5.  Social inclusion 
With regard to combating social exclusion, the Lisbon European Council agreed on the need 
to define policies for combating social excl usion based on an open method of coordination 
(OMC), combining common objectives, national action plans and a programme presented by the Commission to encourage co-o peration in this field. In March 2006, the European Council 
adopted a new framework for the social protectio n and social inclusion process. The proposal 
regarding the rights of passengers in maritime services is consistent with the objectives of the OMC, as it establishes the principle of non- discrimination and assistance in respect of 
disabled persons.  
The inclusion of people with disabilities build s on the citizen’s concept of disability as 
reflected in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
40 and on the values inherent in the UN 
Convention on the protection and promotion of  the rights and dignity of persons with 
disabilities. 
Furthermore, it remains in conformity with Article 13 of the EC Treaty which enables the 
Community to combat discrimination in  areas of Community competence.  
Box 4 PRMs and their conformity with Art 13 EC Treaty 
This proposal, which aims to improve the rights  of persons with reduced mobility and persons 
with disabilities in the maritime sector, and their inclusion in so ciety, builds on the concept of 
disability as reflected in the EU Charter of Fundamental Ri ghts and on the valu es inherent in 
the UN Convention on the Rights of  Persons with Disabilities. 
Furthermore, the proposal is in conformity with Article 13 of the EC Treaty which enables the 
Community to combat discrimination in areas of Community competence, and with a recent 
proposal for a Directive under Art 13 TEC (COM  (2008) 426 final) w hose objective is to 
implement the principle of equal treatment be tween persons irrespective of religion, belief, 
disability, age or sexual orientation. This c onformity can be assessed on the basis of the 
legality and the cont ent of the measures. 
From a legal point of view, Article 4 §3 of the draft direct ive provides that it  shall be without 
prejudice to the provisions of Community law or  national rules covering the accessibility of 
particular goods or services, which means th at other Community texts on the same subject 
take precedence. This applies in particular  to Regulation 1107/2006 for accessibility in air 
                                                 
39 COM(2007)99 final 
40 Article 26: “The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from 
measures designed to ensure their independence, soci al and occupational integration and participation in 
the life of the community”. 
 
EN 28   EN transport, to the provisions of Regulation 1371/2007 related to accessibi lity in railways, and 
to the provisions of a possible Community text related to accessibility in maritime transport. 
Regarding the content of the measures at stake,  Article 4(1) and (2) of the draft directive 
establishes the principle that in order to comp ly with the principle of equal treatment in 
relation to persons with disabi lities, effective and non discriminatory access must be provided, 
as long as such measures do not impose a di sproportionate burden, nor require fundamental 
alteration of the social protec tion, social advantages, health care, education, or goods and 
services in question or require the provision of alternatives thereto. In addition, in particular 
cases, reasonable accommodation should be  provided unless th is would impose a 
disproportionate burden. The obligation to pr ovide effective non-discriminatory access and 
reasonable accommodation applies to the entire material scope of the proposed Directive, 
including access to goods and services, wh ich includes transpor t. In assessing 
disproportionate burden, account shall be taken, in  particular, of the size and resources of the 
organisation, its nature, the es timated cost, the life cycle of  the goods and services, and the 
possible benefits of increased access for persons with disabilities. These issues are addressed 
in this impact assessment, which in its me thodology fully complies with the proportionality 
test of Article 4.  
Concerning the proportionality of  the burden to be imposed, not all carriers have the same 
capacity, and the measures proposed for accessibi lity should contain a set of principles 
without entering into the specific and detailed technicalities of their provision. The latter may 
vary depending on the capacity of the carrier, the related infrastructure and the manner in 
which these general obligations ar e to be provided in practice. 
The measures considered take into account th e issue of fundamental alteration, as they 
consider that the nature of  the transport service provid ed should not be changed to 
accommodate person with disabilities. To give a practical extreme example: if a carrier 
operates only small sailing boats, it would fund amentally alter the nature of the boat to 
transform it into a motor boat. Similarly, if phys ically there is no space available onboard to 
place a person in an electrical wheelchair, there is no need for the carrier to ch ange this boat 
for a bigger one. This latter example would rela te to the issue of "alternatives thereto". 
Therefore, binding obligations on carriers and the rights of persons with reduced mobility 
would have to be drafted in the proposed legislat ive measure in terms of principles but leaving 
enough flexibility in their implementation to  respect the proportionality principle. 
Moreover, the proposal for a directive to protect persons with disabilitie s (inter alia) in access 
to goods and services includes equal and eff ective access to transp ort for persons with 
disabilities but does not spell out  how this could be achieved, as that would be going beyond 
the possibilities offered by that legal basis. The maritime proposal  is therefore fully in line 
with the objectives and goals of draft direc tive as its aim is likewise to eliminate 
discrimination in accessing this type of transport,  but it will also provide legal certainty as to 
how this can be achieved by establishing a set of  uniform requirements across Member States. 
The concepts of reasonable accessibility an d reasonable accommodati on are developed in 
Annex 5 
 
EN 29   EN 3.2. Specific objectives 
In order to address the problems faced by pa ssengers, the Commissi on has already taken a 
number of policy initiatives. In  the White Paper “European tran sport policy for 2010: time to 
decide” the European Commi ssion envisaged the extension of the Community's passenger 
protection measures to other modes of trans port, including rail and maritime navigation.  
In the Commission's Communication "Strengthe ning passenger rights w ithin the European 
Union"41, the Commission presented a policy approach on how to  extend passenger protection 
measures to modes of transport other than ai r transport. The Commi ssion identified the rights 
that needed to be strengthened by the Community  action regardless of the means of transport 
used: a) rights of persons with reduced mob ility, b) automatic and immediate solutions when 
travel is interrupted, c) liability in the event of  death or injury of passengers, d) treatment of 
complaints and means of redress, and e) passenger information.  
Taking into account what has just been mentioned above and with regard to maritime 
transport, the specific object ives include in particular: 
• Asserting the principl e of non-discrimination and assi stance to disabled persons 
and persons with reduced mobility. 
• Asserting the principle of assistance in th e event of travel cancellations and delays 
• Ensuring a level of quality standards of services and defining information 
obligations  
• Setting up a procedure for handling co mplaints and ensu ring appropriate 
enforcement of applicable legislation. 
It has to be noted that asserti ng the principle of liab ility of operators in the event of death or 
injury of passengers is not to be dealt with in the context of this IA. Th is point is not included 
in the proposal , since it is linked with the Protocol to the Athens Convention42 and has been 
included in the Commission proposal for a Regula tion on the liability of carriers of passengers 
by sea and inland waterways in the even t of accidents (COM (2005) 592 final). 
These specific objectives must aim for full equa lity of opportunity as the overall objective of 
the European Union’s long-term strategy. The ach ievement of all these specific objectives 
will ensure better social inclusion and will encourage more passengers to use maritime 
transport. 
The experience of air transport shows that in allowing PRMs to travel, a number of criteria 
must be fulfilled by operators in charge  of ensuring accessibility, assistance, non-
discriminatory treatment and information. In pa rticular, in order to guarantee the comfort and 
dignity of PRM's, assistance must be seamle ss and therefore composed of a number of 
elements, from the beginning of the trip to th e end. It is not possible to consider them 
otherwise than as a "package" of operational objectives if the specific objective (seamless 
assistance in ports and aboard  ships) is to be achieved. 
                                                 
41 COM (2005) 46 final 
42 Athens Convention relation to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, and its 
Protocol of 2002. 
 
EN 30   EN Specific objectives for PRMs  Operational Objectives for PRMs 
Full accessibility in ports and ships 
   
(1) To allow full access to existing ports. 
Seamless assistance in ports  (1) To put in place arrangements at port s to enable PRMs to perform all 
necessary actions at each step  of the journey, namely: 
a) communicate their arrival at a port and their request for assistance, 
b) move from a entry point to the check-in counter, if any, 
c) check in and register baggage, if needed, 
d) proceed from the check -in counter (if any) to the ship, with completion 
of emigration, customs and security procedures, 
e) board the ship, with the provision of lifts, wheelchairs or other 
assistance, as appropriate, 
f) proceed from the ship d oor to their seats/area, 
g) store and retrieve baggage on the ship, h) proceed from their seats to the ship door, 
i) disembark from the ship, with th e provision of lifts, wheelchairs or 
other assistance, as appropriate, 
j) retrieve baggage (if needed), with completion of immigration and 
customs procedures, 
k) proceed from the baggage hall to a designated point of exit, l) go to the toilet facilities if necessary. 
(2) To ensure that, where a disabled person or person with reduced 
mobility is assisted by an accompanying person, this person is, on request, allowed to provide the necessary assistance at the port and with 
embarking and disembarking. 
(3) To ensure handling of all necessary mobility equipment, including equipment such as electric wheelchairs. 
(4) To ensure temporary replacement of damaged or lost mobility 
equipment, albeit not necessarily on a like-for-like basis. (5) To ensure ground handling of recognised assistance dogs, where 
relevant. 
Seamless assistance in ships (1) To ensure carriage of recognised assistance dogs in the ship, subject to 
national regulations. 
(2) In addition to medical equipment, to ensure transport of up to two 
pieces of mobility equipment per disabl ed person or person with reduced 
mobility, including electric wheelchairs. 
(3) To ensure that all reasonable ef forts are made to arrange seating to 
meet the needs of individuals with disability or reduced mobility on request and subject to safety requirements and availability. 
(4) To ensure assistance in getti ng to toilet facilities, if relevant. 
(5) To ensure that, where a disabled person or person with reduced mobility is assisted by an accomp anying person, the shipping company 
makes all reasonable efforts to give this person a seat next to the disabled 
person or person w ith reduced mobility. 
Non-discriminatory treatme nt (1) Disabled persons and PRMs should be accepted for carriage and not 
refused transport on the grounds of their disability or lack of mobility, 
except for reasons that are justified on the grounds of safety and are 
prescribed by law. (2) In the interests of social inclusion, disabled persons and PRMs should 
receive the assistance mentioned above without additional charge. 
(3) Assistance should be financed in such a way as to spread the burden 
equitably among all passengers using a port and to avoid disincentives to 
the carriage of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. 
Objectives for all passengers Operati onal objectives for all passengers 
Cancellation and delays 
 (1) Assistance: meals, refreshments, accommodation 
(2) Return service to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity 
(3) Continuation or re-routing to the final destination (under comparable 
transport conditions) (4) The obligation of maritime operators to pr ovide assistance 
 
EN 31   EN (5) possibility of establishing a compensation scheme 
Establishment of basic quality 
standards, monitoring and 
information  (1) Establishment of quality standards at the EU level 
(2) Monitoring of compliance with quality standards  
(3) Defining the set of information that should be available to passengers 
before and during the trip. (4) Improvement of access to inform ation on conditions of carriage and 
fares 
Effective enforcem ent, monitoring, 
and complaint management with out-of-court procedures (1) Compliance with the above rights should be supervised and enforced, 
and an appropriate body — or bodies — should be designated to carry out enforcement tasks. This supervision should not affect the rights of 
passengers to seek legal redress from courts under national law. 
(2) Passengers who consider that their rights have been infringed should 
be able to bring the matter to the operator concerned. If they cannot obtain 
satisfaction in this way, they should be free to make a complaint to the above-mentioned body or bodies. 
(3) Penalties applicable to infringements of these rights should be laid 
down and applied. The penalties, which could include ordering the payment of compensation to the person concerned, should be effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive. 
(4) Such enforcement should be undertaken at the most efficient and appropriate level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
Preliminary remark: the existing regulatory framework The existing legal framework governing the maritime transport sector is divided into the 
following categories: international conventio ns; European legislation (and subsequent 
implementation in national law); national legislation; and voluntary agreements
43. 
a) International Conventi ons and EU legislation 
In general terms, both the International and Euro pean legislation in place is mainly focused on 
safety issues.  
At international level, the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their 
luggage by sea, establishes a regime of liabi lity for damage suffered by passengers and their 
luggage carried on a seagoing ve ssel. The 2002 Protocol to the Athens Convention introduces 
compulsory insurance to cover passengers on ships, and raises the limits of liability. 
At European level44, Directive 2003/25 lays down uniform stability requirements for Ro-Ro 
passenger ships. Directive 2003/24 includes speci fic requirements for PRMs, in particular 
concerning access to the ship, signs, means to  communicate messages, alarms and additional 
requirements, designed to ensure mobility on board ship. 
The main reference to critical events appears in the package tour Directive45; however this 
does not allow a fully harmonised situation to be  achieved at EU level:  transposition by the 
Member States has led to differe nt solutions and, in practice,  unequal treatment of passengers 
involved in the same type of event depending on th e applicable national law.  It also has to be 
                                                 
43 For a detailed description of the legal framework governing the rights of passengers in maritime 
transport, see Annex II of TiS.pt, 2006. 
44 See Annex 2, Table 7 
45 Directive 90/314/EEC: Package travel, pack age holidays and package tours regulations. 
 
EN 32   EN noted that the above mentioned Di rective provides for specific m easures in the tourist sector 
and in the area of consumer protection. It does not aim, stricto sensu,  to protect passenger 
rights in the case of trav el disruption as EU legi slation already does for the air or rail sector. 
b) National Legislation In relation to national law, in the overwhelming majority of Member States the only law that 
could be applied to the transport sector is ge neral law or consumer law establishing minimum 
rights; whereas in some countries, there are so me regulations specifying the rights of maritime 
passenger users only in cases of critical even ts. Between these two types, there are the 
countries with a moderate level of protectio n: although there is no  specific regulation 
regarding passenger rights in th e case of critical ev ents, there are rules concerning maritime 
passenger transport which include the carrier’s liability in the event of passenger death or 
injury. 
In some countries, there are also specific re gulations concerning PRMs' rights in the transport 
sector and the maritime sector in particular
46. These rules are mainly administered by a public 
authority and, to a certain extent , cover access by PRMs to maritim e transport. It is uncertain 
to what degree these regulations give the PR Ms the right in practice to demand access to 
maritime transport and assistance if necessary. 
Annex 6  provides a detailed overview of the differe nt legislations in Member States and a 
framework to categorise the existing legal regi mes. The conclusion from this overview shows 
clearly that none of the 27 Member  States offers the passengers of  any of the segments of the 
market (see box 2) the kind of automatic immedi ate rights on the spot that are sought by the 
Community action addressed. 
As to critical events (delays and cancellations), the provisions of the national laws listed in 
Annex 6 fall outside the scope of the Commission's proposal (w hich deals with  assistance, 
rerouting, and fixed-amount compensation due wit hout any fault, but exon erated in the case of 
extraordinary circumstances) and refer to civil law:  
- in the event of delay and cancellation the pass enger has the right to demand termination of 
the contract, and the only compensation to be give n is the return of any fare the passenger has 
paid, this being the only right provided for the national law of most countries (e.g. Spain, UK, 
Poland and Greece). Alternatively, in other countr ies (e.g. Spain and Poland), in the event of 
interruption, passengers are entitled to terminat e the contract and to be reimbursed for that 
part of the ticket price corresponding to the pa rt of journey the carrier did not accomplished . 
In some countries the carrier is obliged to fi nish the journey and pa ssengers are only entitled 
to terminate the contract if he has not fulf illed his obligation within reasonable time (e.g. 
Nordic countries). These three types of re medies are classic civil law solutions under 
contractual liability and they are outside the scope of the Community action being evaluated 
here. 
- Even when passengers are entitled to some other form of compensation, the amount will 
equal the economic loss (if any) caused by the cr itical event. Generally, in this case the 
passenger's right to compensation depends on the ca rrier's or master's fault or neglect (e.g. 
Spain and Nordic countries). In cases of refused carriage or de nied boarding without 
                                                 
46 See footnote 27 
 
EN 33   EN reasonable ground to do so, the ca rrier is liable for the economi c loss suffered by passengers 
who are entitled to compensation if the carrier  has acted negligently (Nordic countries). 
Again, these solutions have nothing to do w ith assistance, rerouting, and fixed-amount 
compensation (the latter being due even if w ithout fault, but exoner ated in the case of 
extraordinary circumstances) but rather with damages, which involve civil law (tort or 
contract law). 
c) Voluntary agreements Almost all countries refer to voluntary agreements as a comm on practice: howev er, there are 
very few voluntary agreements in the maritime sect or. Out of a survey of operators, only three 
quality charters and five service guarantees ha ve been identified (See Section 5.4 for more 
details) 
The existence of dedicated national legislatio n concerning the rights of passengers in the 
maritime sector does not actually guarantee that specific rights are actually in place. This 
results from two main factors: on the one han d, such pieces of legi slation do not always 
provide detailed and precise guidance. On the other hand operators could take advantage of 
unclear definitions. For instance in the Nordic  countries, Portugal, Gr eece and Spain, national 
law provides that a passenger is entitled to financial compensation under certain conditions 
and has the right to cancel the contract in th e case of a delay, but the delay is either not 
quantified or has to be one or more days . In Greece and in Nordic countries, too, the 
passenger is entitled to cancel th e contract in the event of a “prolonged” or “considerable” 
delay, but no definition is given as to what  might be considered as a prolonged or 
considerable delay. 
4.1. “Business as usual” (Option 1
)  
No action whatsoever is taken at EU level and the current situation described above continues 
under the existing national and inte rnational legislations, with th e detrimental effects that can 
be seen on operators providing cross-border services or servi ces in several Member States. 
The level of passenger rights in the maritime se ctor across Europe is mixed (see Annex 6) 
notably because of the discrepanc ies between national legislations  when they exist and the use 
of PSO contracts for most of the regional ferry services. It is therefore difficult to assess the 
extent to which these rights are actually bei ng implemented and enfor ced (See Section 2.2). 
Any attempt to reflect these factors of uncertain ty in the baseline would have been speculative 
and would have seriously thre atened the quality of the re sults. For the same reason the 
baseline scenario has also assumed that PSOs are part of the market (this assumption will be discussed further in Section 5.7) 
4.2. Community legislative action to improve the rights for persons when travelling 
by boat (Option 2
) 
Regulatory action at EU level, that is dir ectly binding and immediately applicable, is 
envisaged. Such a Regulation w ould apply not only to internati onal routes involving at least 
one EU port, but also to any domestic service with in an individual Member State. This type of 
EU act would: 
• Establish rights regarding PRMs: accessibility in ports, assistance in ports and in 
ships and information requirements. 
 
EN 34   EN • Establish rights for passengers when trav el is interrupted in the event of 
cancellation or delays (assistance and compensation) 
• Establish the standards for provision of information about maritime passenger 
rights to the general public and especi ally to travellers, including PRMs. 
• Provide for complaint handling and the m onitoring and enforcement of the rights 
of passengers.  
4.2.1.  Rights of persons with reduced mobility 
4.2.1.1.  Accessibility requirement in ports 
Such a regulatory act would have to impose a general acce ssibility principle for PRMs. 
However, it would not necessarily have to establ ish an exhaustive list of obligations in terms 
of the installations and equipment that ports sh ould provide in order to ensure accessibility47. 
Member States must ensure that appropriate  measures are taken where practicable and 
reasonable in economic terms. A non-exhaustive list of such measures can be found in Annex 
8. In this context, it should be mentioned that the measures listed in Annex 8 are illustrative , 
since the scenario contemplating Community legislation does not explicitly include any 
obligation for Member states to adapt their infra structure (either public or private) to become 
accessible for PRMs. The aim of the proposal is to allow PRMs to use transport by boat just 
like any other passengers. Even if in theory, Me mber States could ensu re this obligation of 
non-discrimination simply by means of more detailed assistance for PRMs, in practice 
Member states will prefer to adapt their infrastructure so as to allows PRM to embark and disembark with the assistance tailored to their needs. 
A sub-option could have been that of including accessibility obligatory measures in the 
Community option that is, to sepa rately analyse all or some of the measures of Annex 8 in the 
Community proposal in terms of costs. As it is not  feasible to decide wh ich of those measures 
are already in place in EU ports and for the sa ke of simplicity, this sub-option has not been 
further analysed.  
Therefore, only a general accessibility obligat ion imposed upon ports would still have an 
impact in terms of cost, which will be assessed in this report.  
In order to ensure that such measures are ac tually put into effect, the regulatory act could 
require the Member States to report to th e Commission on all the investment needed in 
infrastructures and facilities to guarant ee adequate accessibility in each national port. 
4.2.1.2.  Assistance requirements in ports  
The regulatory act would impose an obligation to provide assistance  in ports without 
additional charge, in order to allow PRMs to use the transport service for which they have a 
reservation, provided that they notify their need for such assistance to the entity concerned some time (e.g. at least 48 hours) before the tim e of departure of the service. If such a 
notification is not made in time, it is reasonabl e for the obligation to be  limited to making all 
reasonable efforts to provide the assistance needed.  
                                                
 
47 Basic rules for accessibility requirements in maritime transport can be taken ov er and adapted by the 
sector from DPTAC and IMO Guidelines. 
 
EN 35   EN The ship operator concerned w ill be responsible for making su re that the assistance is 
provided free of additional charge. The opera tor may provide such assistance itself or by 
contracting one or more other parties48 to provide the assistance. 
Moreover, the staff of all parties that may render services to passengers should receive 
specific disability awareness training in or der to be able to assist PRMs if needed. 
4.2.1.3.  Assistance requirements in ships 
The regulatory act would require ship operato rs to provide assistance to PRMs without 
additional charge on condition that these person s notify their special needs in advance. The 
assistance would cover both boarding and disembarking.  
Ship operators would also be responsible for providing specific disabi lity awareness training 
to their staff so that they are able to assist PRMs. 
For the cruise sector, the cost of assistance woul d be nil; cruises already have hotel facilities 
the cost of which is included in the price of the ticket 
4.2.2.  Assistance, re-routing and compensation, in case of cancellation and delays 
4.2.2.1.  Assistance and re-routing 
On this matter, the objective of the regulatory act is to lay down minimum rules on the 
following points if any event interrupts a journey: assistance and return service to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity. 
Although certain carriers are alr eady considering offering such so lutions on a voluntary basis, 
the regulatory act would make these solutions  available under the same conditions throughout 
the Community. A competent authority would be required to monitor and enforce those rights 
and obligations. 
As with air transport, maritime passengers s hould be guaranteed an adequate level of 
protection. Depending on the circumstances, assist ance will be required fo r any inconvenience 
caused to passengers due to the interruption, cancellation or  delay of their journey. 
It is also envisaged to provi de for return services and re -routing so that the companies 
concerned have an actual obligat ion to put an end to the predicament in which the passengers 
finds themselves, as a resu lt of their own action, inac tion or unforeseen external 
circumstances. 
4.2.2.2.  Compensation scheme 
Taking into account the measures  envisaged for other modes of  transport, the compensation 
scheme in the maritime sector would be based on three alternative scenarios arising from existing legislation: (1) the compensation sc heme under the air tran sport sector, (2) the 
scheme under the rail transport sector; and (3 ) the scheme of the bus and coach sector.  
                                                
 
48 Other parties could for instance include: the port authority, other ship operators, the passenger terminal 
operator, the tour operator  or specialised providers. 
 
EN 36   EN (1) Regulation 261/200449 establishes common rules on th e award of compensation to 
passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation of flights.  This Regulation, in 
force since February 2005, establishes a compen sation scheme in two cases: Firstly in the 
cases of denied boarding; and, secondly where flights ar e cancelled. The amount of 
compensation is based on two principles: the di stance in kilometres between the departure and 
arrival points; and secondly, whether the flight is within the Community or not50. 
The Air Regulation does not provide for any comp ensation in event of delay in such cases, 
but only assistance. 
(2) Regulation 1371/200751 on rail passengers' rights and obligations provides for a delay 
compensation scheme from the railway undertaki ng if the passenger is facing a delay between 
the places of departure and destination stated on the ticket for which the ticket has not been 
reimbursed. The minimum amount of compensati on envisaged for delays is based on the 
length of the delay and is a pe rcentage of the ticket price52. 
(3) As regards the coach and bus sector, a pro posal for legislation on passengers' rights has 
been already submitted. It includes a compensation scheme based on the duration of the trip and the length of the delay. The approach is less complex than the sectors where Community 
action has previously been taken. The amount of the compensation is based on a percentage of the ticket price
53. 
For the maritime sector, and taking into account  what has been descri bed above, the proposal 
will envisage a more realistic and less complex approach than the one established for air passengers. The experience of the air sector has shown that passengers ar e more interested in 
receiving assistance on the spot (meals, refr eshments, accommodation, etc.) and information 
(cause of the interrupt ion, expected waiting time, alternativ e routes, etc.) than in receiving 
financial compensation. Immediate and automatic  financial compensation is not a priority, 
given that, in the case of a specific prejudice, an air transport passenger will in any case have 
to initiate a procedure before  the national civil courts in order to obtain damages under the 
Montreal Convention. The existing legal framework in maritime transport is very similar to that of the air transport prior to the adop tion of Regulation 261/2004, and in any event the 
same approach will have to be taken under the Athens Conven tion in the case of a specific 
prejudice. 
                                                
 
49 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 
establishing common rules on compensation and as sistance to passengers in the event of denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1-7 
50 The different amounts of cancellation as stated in the Regulation are as follows: a) EUR 250 for all 
flights of 1500 kilometres or less; (b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 
kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; (c) EUR 600 for all flights not 
falling under (a) or (b).  
51 Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on 
rail passengers’ rights and obligations OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14–41   
52 The compensation amounts to a 25 % of the ticket price for a delay of 60 to 119 minutes; or to a 50 % 
of the ticket price for a delay of 120 minutes or more. 
53 Concerning compensation, Bus and coach proposal for a Regulation establishes that where the 
scheduled duration of a trip exceeds three hours, for delays at departure of more than two hours, the 
passengers concerned shall at least have the right "to compensation amounting to 50 % of the ticket 
price if a bus and/or coach undertaking fails to provide alternative services or information referred 
above"  
 
EN 37   EN When defining a compensation scheme, the maritime proposal envisaged will also have to 
take into account, the nature of the rail and bus and coach sector. The same principles used in 
these sectors will be used as a basis for th e compensation scheme in the maritime sector. 
Compensation under the maritime proposal would be granted in the case of a delay or 
cancellation between the places of departure an d destination of the tr ip. The amount of the 
compensation would be related to the duration of  the delay and based on a percentage of the 
ticket price.  
Denied boarding will not be subject to this compensation scheme, because, as it has already 
been mentioned elsewhere in this Impact As sessment, it is not a practice in maritime 
passenger transport. 
Finally, measures guaranteeing SMEs competit iveness and mitigating economic impacts on 
SMEs will be taken into account. 
4.2.3.  Information obligations for ports, sh ipping companies and travel agencies 
It is important that more extensive information is provided to the passengers; information 
provision should not be limited to  passenger rights in the case of a critical event but might 
include general information about  the trip and the provider.  
The objective should be to establish minimum rules on information for passengers before, 
during and after the journey. In addition when a critical event occu rs, the operator should 
notify the passengers -voluntarily an d as soon as possible -of the situation and the alternatives 
available to them. That information should be  provided in a clear a nd understandable manner 
to all passengers concerned. 
Special provisions are required for PRMs passenger s; general information about the assistance 
available to PRMs on a particular  route should be made known to the general public and to 
potential passengers, and should be ma de available in accessible formats. 
Accessible information is crucia l for passengers who are blind, partially sighte d, deaf, deaf-
blind or hard of hearing, or who have an intellectual or psychosocial disability. Where 
information is provided on tickets, it should  be available, upon request, in alternative 
accessible formats. 
All parties rendering pa ssenger services should provide the required information in a suitable 
format. Depending on the situation, this obligation could therefore apply to th e port authority, 
the shipping company or the passenger te rminal operator or the tour operator. 
Annex 9 outlines the minimum information requirements that may be used as a basis for 
information obligations. 
4.2.4.  Enforcement, monitoring, and complaint management 
The regulatory act would oblige each Member St ate to designate a body responsible for the 
enforcement and application of the new rules to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected. Member States should also set up a monitoring system to report on complaint 
management, detect bottlenecks, and indicate corrective actions and they should establish 
penalties that are effective, pr oportionate and dissuasive in the event of infringements of the 
new rules, to ensure that they are implemented. 
 
EN 38   EN Furthermore, the designated body should also investigate complaints from passengers and 
ensure that their rights are fully respected when infringements are found. Passengers should 
be granted the right to complain about possible infringements, wherever they occur, to the 
body in the Member State where they reside, with  the possibility of forwarding the complaint 
to the competent national body, if necessary.54 
4.3. EU coordination and exchange of best practices to be de veloped to enhance 
national legislation (Option 3 ) 
In this scenario, the EU regulator might conf ine itself to promoti ng a common "soft-law" 
framework among the Member States. This soft -law framework would be based upon best 
practices and would constitute a benchmark for the development of national legislation to enforce the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway. 
The EU’s objectives may be achieved by ensuring that Member States, consumers and ship 
operators are better informed. This type of policy instrument would include information and 
publicity campaigns, training, guidelines and disc losure requirements. This instrument has 
some important advantages. Not only it is co st-effective in many cases; it is also easily 
adaptable to changing situations in the different Member States. 
4.4. Voluntary agreements (Option 4
) 
Such voluntary agreements would be developed and adopted by ship operators to improve the 
situation of persons when travelling by sea and inland waterway, in line with the principle of 
the exchange of best practice. 
Under this option, it is consider ed that voluntary agr eements could be sufficient to achieve the 
objectives. This type of agreement would be concluded by the partie s concerned through an 
EU recommendation, while leaving to the EU ins titutions the possibility of intervening if the 
agreement should prove to be insufficient or inefficient. 
Self-regulation can cover a large number of practices, common rules, codes of conduct and 
voluntary agreements by which economic actors, social players, NGOs and organised groups 
undertake to voluntarily regulate and organise their activities . The ability to use self-
regulation depends to a large ex tent on the existence of rele vant bodies and processes to 
support self-regulation, includi ng the building of consensus among market players on the 
contents of such rules and the monitoring of their enforcement. Self-regulation may deliver 
greater speed, responsiveness and flexibility, as  it can be drawn up and amended more quickly 
than legislation. This may theref ore be preferable in markets that are changing rapidly. Self-
regulation needs to be an open and transparent process, as it  may provide an opportunity for 
collusion between competitors.  
In this scenario, the operators involved in the transport service -following consultation with 
representatives of stak eholders and the authorities conc erned- should develop a code of 
conduct (“Passenger Service Commitment”). This  code of conduct should contain non-legally 
binding commitments to deliver specific servi ces to passengers. Signatory operators would 
develop their own code of conduct, incorpor ating the agreed rules, defining care and 
assistance procedures, establis hing staff-training programme s and introducing charges to 
                                                 
54 See Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of 27.10. 2004 on cooperation between national authorities 
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws — OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, pp. 1–11. 
 
EN 39   EN implement the commitments. In this context, consumers may expect to be adequately 
informed by signatory operator s on all these issues when pla nning their travel arrangements. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
Preliminary remark The analysis of the main impacts for the measures envisaged has been conducted using a 
quantitative approach where data  were available and a qualit ative approach for measures 
whose impacts were small or where no data were  available. As has been highlighted in the 
Impact Assessment EC guidelines, even when  it is not possible to make a well-founded 
estimation of costs, the process of identif ying impacts should help in understanding and 
explaining the consequences of the various proposals. 
The costs envisaged for PRMs should be the most  relevant costs in economic terms for the 
parties involved; these have been ex haustively measured in the PwC study.  
5.1. Option 1: Business as usual  
5.1.1.  Economic impact  
The first economic impact of Option 1”business as usual”  on operators, ports, 
administrations, and local authorities inside and outside the EU, is that they bear no additional 
cost. This is not likely to change over time.  
The second impact on operators, ports, administra tions, and local authorit ies is an opportunity 
cost: because there will be no additional traffi c. Without measures in favour of passengers 
travelling by boat, their number  is not likely to increase. On  the contrary, the overall number 
of maritime passengers is actually likely to decrease. 
The third impact is the cost incurred due to  the discrepancies between Member State 
legislations. The magnitude of such  a cost is difficult to assess. 
5.1.2.  Social impact  
Passengers' confidence in other modes of tran sport, based on rights already approved at 
Community level, would turn into mistrust of maritime transport if it refuses to give 
passengers this minimum of uniformity, clarit y and effectiveness c oncerning their rights. 
PRMs will carry on not using this mode of transport, and the market failure to integrate disabled and elderly people will increase as the European population gets older. Negative consequences could end up in job losses on board and ashore, and in a lack of integration of 
the elderly and the disabled. 
5.1.3.  Environmental impact 
This dissatisfaction of passe ngers with this mode of tr ansport could also have an 
environmental impact, since maritime transport is  generally less polluting than other modes of 
transport in the EU. In international maritime tr ansport, the increase in the emission of toxic 
products over the past decade has been significant. 
 
EN 40   EN Moreover, the Thematic Strategy on air pollution  shows that emissions of SO2 and NOx from 
the maritime sector are likely to exceed tota l emissions from land-based sources by 202055. 
This finding must be qualified for the purpos e of the current assessment: these figures 
incorporate massive non-EU freight fleets whose flags impose very low environmental 
standards. Moreover, the environmental impact  broken down by transport mode in terms of 
average external costs per ton-km transported shows that freight tran sport by ship is eight 
times less polluting than transport by air, which is often the only alternative transport solution (see Table 12 in Annex 2). Unfortunately, the external costs of maritime passenger transport 
have not been estimated. However, it seems some what rash to transfer this ratio to passenger 
transport, since maritime freight maximises economies of scale, which is not the case for passenger ships, where size varies significantl y. A conservative ratio of 4:1 seems more 
appropriate. 
Since it is unlikely that new ships will be put in service, the environmental impact of this 
option is neutral.  
5.2. Option 2: Community legislative action 
This option is divided in two sub options: a) Community legislative ac tion covering only the 
intra-Community and international routes (" cross border only" optio n); and b) Community 
legislative action covering cross border and domestic routes. 
Under sub-option a) (cross border only) if no furt her specification is made, it is assumed that 
the ports and the operators which only serve dome stic traffic would simply be excluded from 
the costs analysed below.  
The different kind of costs listed below appl ies fully to option b) Community legislative 
action on cross border and domestic routes, since these costs will be the same for the ports and ship operators, regardless of the des tination of the passengers . It must be noted 
throughout this section 5.2 that ultimately the costs listed below will be spread across all 
passengers, either through an in crease in port tariffs, or an increase in the ticket price. 
5.2.1.  Economic impact  
Full implementation of the measures proposed in option 2 would have an impact on the 
companies operating in the European market for the transport of passengers by sea or inland 
waterway. The main market players like ly to be affected are the following: 
Port and terminal operators 
– port authorities 
– terminal operators 
– public bodies responsible for investment in 
port infrastructure Ship operators 
– ferry and fast ferry carriers 
– cruise companies 
– inland waterway passenger transport providers 
This economic impact must be assessed for each  point identified above in Chapter 4 "Policy 
options".  
                                                 
55 TERM 2007: indicators tracking transport and enviro nment in the EU - en EEA Report No 1/2008. 
 
EN 41   EN 5.2.1.1.  Cost of measures as regard PRMs 
As a preliminary remark, it shou ld be noted that the cost of  the measures relating to PRMs 
under the Regulation would ultimately be borne by passengers. The costs should be financed 
in such a way to spread the burden equitably among all passengers  by levying a charge that is 
added to the basic ticket price, to avoid disi ncentives to the carriage of the PRMs. Since 
similar measures already approved for the other modes of transport are financed in the same 
way, the added costs to the maritime/inland wate rways carriers will be neutral in terms of 
competition. 
Cost of accessibility requirements in ports 
It does not appear necessary to  draw up an exhaustive list of obligations in terms of specific 
installations and equipment th at ports should provide to en sure accessibility since the 
Commission proposal will not includ e any explicit obligation to ad apt infrastructures to make 
them accessible to PRMs. However, a general acc essibility obligation imposed on ports would 
still have an impact in terms of cost, which will be assessed in this report. 
The cost of adapting the passenger terminal infras tructure of EU ports to the needs of PRMs is 
very difficult to estimate in quantitative  terms, as it depends very much on local 
circumstances. However, a number of considerat ions are set out below in order to better 
understand all the aspects that ha ve to be considered in eval uating the costs of implementing 
accessibility in EU ports. They co ncern (1) the costs of typical accessibility facilities at 
terminals, (2) the cost for terminals that are to be built or undergo a major refurbishment and 
(3) the cost for terminals to be adapted. 
(1) What are the costs of t ypical accessibility facilities?  
The major costs to be considered relate to land  accessibility to the terminal, to berths and to 
ships.  
Fixed foot-passenger bridges can be costly, but so can flexible  gangways, although to a lesser 
extent. However, these kinds of facilities are needed only for embarkation and disembarkation 
on high ships such as cruise vessels.  
The provision of mobile ramps to board and di sembark from small vessels, such as ‘fast 
units’, is the responsibility of ship operato rs. This issue has already been addressed by 
Directive 2003/24/EC, and does not represent a cost to be examined for the purposes of this 
impact assessment. 
Over short distances, ramps, where practicab le, usually do not give s rise to excessive 
additional costs. Lifts, however, tend to be rather expensive, not only in the cost of purchase 
but also in maintenance. The co st of lift access between two fl oors could be in the order of 
€450 000 (DG TREN, 1999). 
Apart from these facilities, equipment to assist  hearing-impaired persons, such as induction 
loops, and provision for visua lly impaired persons, such as  tactile edges and markings, 
involve a relatively minor cost. Facilities to be provided and their co sts vary significantly, 
between €400 and €15000 per unit (see Table 13 in Annex 2). 
(2) What are the costs of terminals to be built or subject to a major refurbishment?  
 
EN 42   EN Whenever a terminal is subject to a major refurbishment, or is being built as new, an 
acceptable level of accessibility can be achieved at minimal cost. As mentioned in a recent 
POLIS report56, the provision of accessibility is not expe nsive if it is taken into consideration 
from the first stages of the design. In turn, it can be expensive to remove the barriers in 
existing buildings. According to existing calc ulations (Seeger, 2002), the costs of making a 
building accessible from the outset are less than 1% of the total construction cost. 
(3) What are the costs of terminals to be adapted?  
In most situations, terminals are already built an d are not planned to be subjected to a major 
refurbishment. However, two types of costs as sociated with adapting terminals have to be 
considered57: namely, initial costs and permanent costs. 
The initial costs  are encountered once duri ng the life of the passenger terminal building and 
infrastructures. Their costs always arise, rega rdless of whether it is an existing building or a 
new building that is being adapte d. Only the quantities will vary.  
Permanent costs  exist throughout the lifetime of the building or infrastructure, and are 
usually estimated as annual costs. The main permanent costs are opera ting costs and 
maintenance and replacement costs. 
Cost of assistance in ports and aboard ships 
The cost of assistance in ports . In most cases, training courses to enable carrier personnel to 
provide assistance in port to PRMs and sensor y/cognitive-impaired persons may be the only 
cost to be borne by the ship operators. Howeve r, it should be noted th at carriers are already 
required under “Assistance aboard  ships” to provide simila r training courses to their 
personnel. Therefore, this type of cost should be considered only once, under that heading. 
On the other hand, even if por t authorities and terminal opera tors are not responsible for 
assisting PRMs in ports, their person nel are likely to come into di rect contact with them. It is 
therefore reasonable to provide training courses for those employ ees to give them the skills 
they need in order to provide adequate and qua lified assistance to PRMs, if so requested. 
Unfortunately, no detailed data are available on th e distribution of personnel in ports and their 
duties. The proposed estimate relies on data gathered by means of a survey58. 
The estimate of the volume of personnel needing to attend training course s in order to provide 
proper assistance to PRMs is based on a select ion from a list of passenger ports (Eurostat 
data) ranked by passenger traffic59. This allows the number of personnel to be estimated for 
each category (see Table 15 in Annex 2). 
                                                 
56 POLIS: Deliverable D1.2 “Universal Building Design (UBD): Classifica tion and techno-economical 
approach” (January 2006). POLIS is a project funded by the Commission under the PRIORITY 8.1 
(Policy Oriented Research) programme. 
57 This section was taken primarily from POLIS: Deliverable D1.2. 
58 Cf. Annex I of PwC study. See Table 14 in Annex 2. 
59 Cf. Annex 2, “Market analysis” of PwC study. 
 
EN 43   EN Port operators were also asked to provide info rmation on staff training practices. For countries 
that provided data60 that an employee spends on courses an  average of four days per year and 
the average cost per employee fo r one day of training is €167. 
It has to be noted that traini ng for port personnel will differ from training for ship personnel: 
it is not necessary to provide training to deal  with the physical handling of PRMs when 
travelling at sea or on inland waterways. Training courses might aim not only to make 
personnel more aware of the specific needs of  PRMs, but also to improve communication and 
attitudinal skills in order to facilita te assistance as much as possible. 
Training courses should primar ily be aimed at personnel who have direct contact with 
passengers. The estimated cost of traini ng front-office employees is about €2.9m. 
Nevertheless, back-office personnel might also need to attend training courses to raise 
awareness. Here, additional cost s of about €1m are anticipated. Finally, it should be recalled 
that these costs relate only to the first year of the training requirement , as expenditure in the 
following years should be lower, being lim ited to newly employed personnel and refresher 
courses. Refresher courses would be less costly  than the initial courses, although these are 
likely to be needed every year.  
Therefore, based on the data and information a bove, the total training cost for the European 
Union as a whole can be estimated by multiply ing the number of employees (for each 
category) by the estimated average daily cost of training (€167). (See Table 16 in Annex 2). 
The cost of assistance aboard ships . In maritime transport, adequate assistance is needed for 
passengers with disabilities. The number of employ ees (and therefore costs) is not expected to 
increase, since in most cases the assistance can be provided by the existing personnel on ships 
when they are free of other duties. Therefore,  training courses may be  appropriate for onboard 
personnel to enable them to provide assistance  and cope with emergencies in the case of 
PRMs, although operator policies do not yet cover this issue. 
It is worth pointing out that properly trained pers onnel on board might help not only to make 
travel more comfortable for passengers, but also  to reduce the risk of accidents on board and 
prevent unease or situations that could represent a danger for passengers. 
According to the STCW95 Code (see Annex 10)61, training in providi ng assistance to PRMs 
should address deck personnel, such as masters,  officers or ratings a nd hotel personnel who 
may have direct contact with passengers. Unfo rtunately, no detailed data are available on the 
number of employees on ships in the EU. Ther efore, the number of persons employed in the 
deck and hotel areas of Italian ships has been used as a proxy to estimate the number of seafarers on board ships in the European Economic Area ( EEA) who should be trained to 
provide assistance to PRMs. The data were  obtained with the help of Confitarma
62. 
                                                 
60 Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ir eland, Italy, Lithuania,  Malta, UK, Netherlands. 
61 The STCW95 Code specifies standards for training fo r seafarers also with regard to the specific needs 
of PRMs. See Annex 9 for details.  
62 Confitarma is the Italian shipowners confederation. It  represents more than nine tenths of the Italian 
merchant fleet. 
 
EN 44   EN Data for the European Union as a whole have been estimated by applying the same criteria as 
those used in the Italian case63. It is assumed that the cost per employee for attending the 
assistance course would be approximately €150. 
The total cost of training pers onnel on board ships in the EEA is  about €8.4m (s ee table 17 in 
annex 2). These figures also include: countri es, like Italy, the UK and Ireland, that already 
impose a training policy for national employees in  order to guarantee adequate assistance to 
passengers with reduced mobility; and countries not belonging to the European Union, such 
as Norway and Iceland. 
AS a result, the total cost would probably be lower than that estimated in this report. 
Nevertheless, in a conservative approach, the above figure can be considered to be a fair 
estimate of the training cost at European level. Moreover, this full cost would be borne only in 
the first year, since training courses during th e following years would be confined to newly 
employed personnel and refresher courses. Refreshe r courses should be less costly than initial 
courses. 
Cost of information obligations 
Information obligations should cover the different st ages in the transport service. In particular, 
PRMs require information on: accessi bility to the port; accessibility  from the port to the ship 
(embarking); assistance on board; assistance duri ng disembarking; and po st-travel assistance, 
where needed. 
Not all the actors in the industry can be consider ed to bear equal respons ibility for the quality 
and accessibility of the informa tion provided to PRMs. However, a reasonable distribution of 
information responsibilities is given in the fo llowing chart. For the sake of clarity, carriers 
should also bear responsibility. 
Mapping of responsibilities for providing information 
Accessibility
from the port tothe shipAssistance on 
boardAssistance
duringdisembarkingAssistance
post travel(if needed)
Accessibility tothe portPort OperatorsTravel
AgencyAccessibility
from the port tothe shipAssistance on 
boardAssistance
duringdisembarkingAssistance
post travel(if needed)
Accessibility tothe portPort OperatorsTravel
Agency
 
Source: PwC 
Information should be made available not only be fore the journey, but al so during all stages 
of the trip. Information should be provided in advance about accessibility on board and in 
ports, and about assistance on depa rture or arrival. Moreover, cruise trip brochures should 
                                                 
63 Cf. Annex II, “Market Analysis” in the PwC report. 
 
EN 45   EN give details of the services offered to disabl ed persons in ports of call to allow them a 
minimum autonomy of movement64. 
Mapping of information by stage of trip 
Actors Information pre-
travel Information in 
ports/ships Information post-
travel 
Port Authorities and Terminal Operators  
Shipping Operators 
Travel Agencies Internet 
Brochures (special 
format) 
Advertising Tickets 
Mailing lists Brochures 
Assistance from 
personnel 
Tickets Internet 
Tickets 
Mailing lists 
Customer care 
Source: PwC 
The shipping operators should provide in the first instance general information about the 
shipping service, but in general this should be an obligation for everyone involved in the 
tourism sector, e.g. travel agenci es, tour operators and port au thorities. This information can 
be provided on the internet or by any other means normally used to promote the shipping 
service (e.g. brochures, tickets, etc.). It wi ll involve only minor costs since it can be 
incorporated within the other information material already provided by operators. This limited marginal cost (if any) might be borne by th e operators without any impact in terms of 
profitability or tariff increas es for passengers. However, pr oviding information in special 
formats, like Braille, seems to be more cos tly. According to TiS.pt (2006) the unit costs 
incurred by an operator for prep aring information brochures in  Braille lies at around € 2,246 
for an Index Basic Braille Embosser Prin ter and € 300 for a Braille Translator. 
More important could be the cost of guaranteei ng adequate information on ships and in ports 
and having adequate tools for properly info rming passengers during travelling or waiting 
times in ports. This matter is regulated for shipping operators by Dir ective 2003/24. The costs 
of facilities to be provided at  terminal buildings to improve information accessibility vary 
between 150 and 400€ per item (see Table 13 in Annex 2). 
Who should bear the cost of accessibili ty, assistance and information in ports? 
It is not easy to determine which actors should bear the investment cost s necessary to ensure 
accessibility for PRMs, since the European fram ework for port governance and management 
is very complex.  
As claimed by ESPO
65 and confirmed by the preparatory study conducted by PwC, terminals 
are not always physically linked and are mostly  operated by different parties, sometimes the 
port authority itself. However, the majority of European ports are operated by various separate 
private companies, terminal operators or shipping lines. 
In addition, on some routes ther e is no port and therefore no por t authority as su ch (e.g. small 
cruise services departing from beaches). It could therefore be envisaged that carriers should 
handle the organisation of assist ance and bear the cost, with the possibility of significant 
economies of scale given that the same carri er staff would be pr oviding assistance both 
aboard ships and in ports. 
                                                 
64 Commission Staff Working Paper “Strengthening the protection of the rights of passengers travelling by 
sea or inland waterway in the European Union” — summary of contributions. 
65 ESPO (European Sea Ports Organisation) response to the European Commission consultation. 
 
EN 46   EN Accordingly, the most obvious solution is to re quire the ship operators  concerned to ensure 
that assistance is provided to PRMs in ports66. The number of employees (and costs) is not 
expected to increase, since the assistance can be provided by the exis ting personnel on ships 
when the ship is moored in port. 
The financing of terminal-related infrastructure and superstructure67 in European seaports and 
charging for their use are highly sensitive issues, since port authorities and port operators regard them as means of enhancing compe titiveness. Due to the increasing competition 
between seaports to attract both vessel operato rs and port-related companies, the authorities 
run a very restrictiv e information policy
68.  
The approaches to the financi ng and maintenance of port supers tructure vary across Member 
States (see table 18 in annex 2). In most Member  States, a public entity or the port authority is 
responsible for infrastructure  investment and maintenance.  In some other countries, 
responsibility is shar ed by the public a nd private sectors. Finally, in  a few Member States, it is 
wholly in the private sector. 
Furthermore, in some ports infras tructure investment is initially financed by the port authority 
and paid back by the terminal operator through a lease fee. In  other cases, infrastructure 
investment is financed by the private termin al concessionaire and then refunded by the public 
authorities through a discount on concession fees. 
Such a complex architecture calls for a solution th at needs to be workable and transferable to 
all the scenarios described above . Any legislative proposal should leave as much flexibility as 
possible to the sector to meet the envisa ged objectives. Leaving the responsibility and 
therefore the cost to carriers, with the possi bility to subcontract, appears to be the most 
practical solution. 
As to the impact of the proposed measures, a general remark has to be made: the economic 
importance of the cargo will still be considerab le in comparison with the revenues expected 
from the transport of passengers. Where both passengers and cargo are transported on the 
same ship, carriers will still te nd to have more incentives to comply with their obligations 
regarding freight rather than passengers. The positive difference of the measures envisaged will be on the passenger side: when and if the carrier has decided for instance to incur a long delay at port, he will have to provide assist ance, and possibly rerouting and compensation to 
his passengers. This may not lead to possible cha nges in the incentives for certain carriers, but 
will make sure that the passenger does not bear the consequences of such an economic decision by the carrier. 
Finally for those routes subj ect to a PSO, the extra costs of the proposed measures for 
operators might be absorbed by Member St ates through compensation provided under the 
terms of the PSOs.  
                                                
 
66 The ship operator may provide such assistance itself. Alternatively, it may meet its responsibility by 
contracting one or more other parties to provide the assistance. 
67 Port superstructure comprises: roads and rail track s at the terminal; terminal  paving/surface finishing; 
port/office buildings; mobile equipment; warehouses; cranes. 
68 Study ordered by DGTREN on “Public Financing and Charging Practices of Seaports in the EU”. 
Prepared by the Institute of Shippi ng Economics and Logistics, 2006. 
 
EN 47   EN 5.2.1.2.  Cost of the contemplated measures when tr avel is interrupted (cancellation & delays) 
As already indicated at the beginning of this IA, there are few data available regarding the 
number of critical events69. Even the definition of this concept is not same for all operators. 
Despite this lack of data, a qualitative process was conducted to  produce reliable estimates of 
the parameters of interest in order to have a real picture of the situ ation and of how much 
these measures would cost70. 
Cost of the assistance and rerouting 
As to assistance, the cost will be nil in a number of cases; accommodation will be free for 
cruises, since cabins are already available on board. The cost of refreshment and meals will be nil for cruises and ro-ro ferries which have  such services aboard their ships.  
In other cases, the contemplated measures will  have an inbuilt proportionality principle i.e. 
assistance must be provided within the limits of what is possible under local circumstances. 
This is particularly crucial for smaller companies in smaller ports where sometimes no facilities are available. Assistan ce should be available in such cases, but s hould be limited to 
what is available. For instance, potable water is to  be considered as available in all cases, at a 
marginal cost almost zero. 
As to re-routing, the cost is difficult to a ssess since many different scenarios are covered. 
Therefore, the effects on revenue and profits are likely to be insignificant; equally, the impact 
on the competitiveness of Community companies s hould be slight, as all operators involved in 
the sector would be covered. 
The economic impact of the application of th e new measures should be small. Therefore, 
there should be no significant effect on employment, investme nt or the creation of new 
business. Nevertheless, operators can expect an increase in staff and training costs, along with 
a possible slight increase in  ticket price without any decrease in passenger demand. 
Some expenses are to be expect ed for all parties involved. Price could be affected in the long 
run, as operators will be forced to operate mo re carefully, increasing production costs and also 
to cover the risk of future penalties. 
Cost of the compensation scheme 
The issue of financial compensation when trav el is interrupted is  one which cannot be 
assessed in quantitative terms owing to one of  the main constraints encountered during the 
process of making this IA, and which has already been mentioned: namely, the lack of data in 
the maritime passenger sector. 
However, the cost of paying compensation to pa ssengers is unlikely to be excessive, although 
this is hard to predict. As has been explaine d earlier in the text, the phenomenon of denied 
                                                
 
69 TiS study 2006: Only 5 countries out of 17 provid ed data on critical events (France, UK, Ireland, 
Poland and Estonia) 
70 As highlighted in the EC guidelines, even when it is not possible to make a well-founded estimation of 
costs, the process of identifying impacts should help to understand and explain the consequences of the 
different proposals. 
 
EN 48   EN boarding for overbooking does not appear to be pa rticularly significan t in the context of 
passenger transport by ship.  
Moreover, considering that the average cost of a ticket in the maritime sector is much lower 
than in the air sector (where the total price of  measures has not given rise to an insuperable 
burden for the actors involved) and consider ing that the suggested compensation would 
amount to a maximum of the tota l price paid for the ticket, compensation would not have a 
significant economic impact. 
The situation may differ slightly when it come s to delays, as these appear to be a very 
significant issue in the maritime passenger sector. Nevertheless, assuming that the compensation would not exceed of 50% of the price paid for the ticket and considering the 
average cost of a ticket, the economic impact of the application of the ne w measures is likely 
to be quite limited. Finally, th e circumstances in which operato rs are excluded from liability 
in the case of delays (e.g. exemption for companies from providing compensation when 
extreme weather conditions and force majeure  makes it impossible to provide services 
contracted) and cancellati ons may effectively lessen the econ omic impact of this measure. 
Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any significant effect on empl oyment, investment or 
the creation of new business. 
Nevertheless, operators can expect an increase  in staff and training costs, along with a 
possible slight increase in ticket price without any d ecrease in passenger demand. 
5.2.1.3.  Cost of the obligation to provide information 
Some of the arguments are the same as those mentioned above in "Information obligations for 
ports, shipping companies and travel  agencies" in the PRMs section. 
It does not appear that the oblig ation to provide information will give rise to any particular 
additional costs for the operators. The oblig ation could be covered by short training 
programmes for counter staff whose skills need  to be upgraded, and by the operator making 
available an internal circular at its custom er contact points, and/ or posting up a document on 
the ship that explains the rights of passengers under the new rules. 
Therefore there might be a slight increase in th e costs of training and of  printing information, 
and some moderate administrative cost s related to information obligation. 
5.2.1.4.  Cost of complaint handli ng service and monitoring 
The process of managing the settlement of dis putes is not expected to result in any major 
additional economic burdens for the operators. The approach s hould provide for a review of 
internal procedures so as to guarantee that wr itten feedback is provide d quickly and efficiently 
to the traveller submitting the complaint.  
5.2.1.5.  Economic impact on passengers 
The adoption by the EU of all the measures proposed to enforce passenger rights would 
increase costs, leading either to a reduction in operating margins for ship  operators or to an 
increase in passenger fares. The impact on ticket fares, if any, would depend on the additional direct or indirect costs that ship  operators would have to face.  
 
EN 49   EN Direct costs would mainly be expenditure fo r personnel training (as regards PRMs) and the 
provision of information. However, the impact of these costs on ship operators’ margins is 
expected to be almost insignificant. 
Indirect costs might arise primarily from incr eases in port tariffs, which would depend on the 
additional costs to be borne for improving accessi bility in ports for PR Ms. However, it should 
be noted that there is not always a direct corr elation between investment  costs and changes in 
port tariffs. Depending on the country or even the specific port, the costs of investment can be 
the responsibility of e ither the public or the private sector . When a private body is responsible, 
the investment is often refunded via a discou nt on concession fees. Finally, it should be 
recalled that a number of EU por ts do not require major adaptations since they are already 
accessible or partially accessible to PRMs. 
Another aspect to be considered is that improved accessibility would have a positive impact 
on the number of persons travelling, i.e. both PRMs and other passengers that will benefit 
from an improved service, and hence have a positive impact on ship operator revenues. 
All these considerations mean that the precise positive or negative effect on ticket fares is 
difficult to quantify, but it seems clear that an y impact would be small including for the 
measures benefiting the PRMs. This is confirmed by the ex perience of the United Kingdom 
where significant action has already been taken in recent years to enforce PRM rights without 
causing any significant increase in  ticket fares (see annex 13). 
It would be speculative to try to  estimate the total cost of the proposal. It is worth noticing 
that, in any event, the aggregated costs will ul timately be borne not by the companies, but by 
the passenger (see point 5.2.1.1). However, such an estimate may be extrapolated from similar 
measures based on the same principles that have  been put in place in the air transport sector, 
where evaluations made by airports show that the total cost of meas ures (accessibility, 
assistance information) is around 60 cents per ticket in many airports. However, smaller 
airports have to manage with cheaper costs. While the cost of these measures at bigger EU 
airports may be between 1.3 EUR and 0.91 EUR pe r passenger, smaller airports are normally 
cheaper and costs can range from 0.30 to 0.50 EU R. The cheapest airport charge that it is 
known is 0.22 EUR per passenger. These figures mu st be used with great care. However, in 
air transport, similar measures based on the same principles apply to all airports and airlines 
regardless of their size. Therefore, there is no "a priori" reason why it should be different in 
the maritime sector.  
These figures must be used with great care, since the measures dealing with assistance for 
PRMs in the air transport have only ente red into application on 26 July 2008. The 
Commission only started receiving data on airport charges on irregular basis in September 
2008 onwards. These figures are in themselves a useful indication as a proxy, but have no 
statistical or scientific value,  and therefore cannot be used as  a basis to calculate a sound 
overall impact of the measures.  
5.2.1.6.  Economic impact on the tourism industry (mainly cruises) 
The maritime tourism sector mainly consists of cruises, a segment of the market that 
represents roughly 8% of tota l maritime passenger traffic. 
 
EN 50   EN The measures proposed are likely to involve co sts to ensure accessib ility and to provide 
assistance and information in ports and aboard ships for PRMs. However, such costs are unlikely to have a significant a nd lasting impact on ticket fares. 
On average, maritime travel represents 1.6% of  all trips of four nights or more made by 
European tourists
71. It could therefore be assumed that 1.6%  of all trips of four nights or more 
made for tourism purposes in the EU use cruises as  the means of transport. In this context, the 
potential  (not additional) demand for accessible t ourism by ship can t hus be assumed to 
amount to 0.6 million journeys per year (see tabl e 19 in annex 2). Furthermore, persons with 
disabilities usually travel accompanied. On average, 59% of European families have a member who is disabled and an average of 38 % of the European popul ation have a friend 
with a disability
72.  
If a multiplier effect  of 0.5 is assumed73, meaning that half of the population with accessibility 
requirements will have at least one person trave lling with them once a year, the total potential 
travel market is 0.9 million (see tables 19 a nd 20 in annex 2) . Given that the average 
expenditure per holiday in Europe in 2005 was €62074, the potential additional revenue 
amounts to €0.55m. 
Assuming that disabled people ta ke, on average, more than one holiday per year, travel with 
other family members or friends, and would trav el even more frequently if they could find 
more information and more accessible sites, a multiplier effect of around 2 can be posited75. 
In this case, the potential  travel market would increase by up to 1.8 million (see tables 19 and 
20 in annex 2). 
Depending on the multiplier used, the estimated potential additional t ourism revenues range 
between €0.55m and €1.1m (see table 21 in a nnex 2). Potentially, this represents a 
considerable market and will continue to grow due to the ageing of the population.  
The potential impact of the proposed measures on  employment may be divided into direct and 
induced effects. The first category includes impacts on both port a nd shipping employment, 
while the second includes impacts on employment in the tourism industry. 
The measures proposed are likely to have a be neficial impact on the competitive position of 
businesses, since they would he lp to harmonise the legislatio n on passengers' rights, applying 
equally to ship operators and port and terminal  operators from different  Member States. This 
aspect would facilitate the creation of a single EU market in which passengers in general and 
PRMs in particular would be guaranteed an eq ual level of protecti on, and operators would 
have to commit to the same leve l of service, without distinction as to th e country of origin. 
The outcome would be a positive economic e ffect on the competitiveness of terminal 
operators and shipping companies complying wi th the new requirements for passengers with 
reduced mobility. 
                                                 
71 Eurostat: “Statistics in focus — How Europeans go on holiday” (2006). 
72 Eurobarometer (2001), Attitudes of Europeans to Disability. 
73 This multiplier is consistent with the assumption made by Deloitte Touche “Tourism for All in Europe”. 
74 Eurostat: “Statistics in focus — Tourism in  the Enlarged Europ ean Union” (2005). 
75 This multiplier is consistent with the assump tion made by OSSATE: “Accessibility Market and 
Stakeholder Analysis” (20 October 2005). 
 
EN 51   EN The scenario under sub option a) ("cross border only" option) would not give domestic ship 
operators and domestic only port operators the benefit of increased competitiveness.  
It is a fact that more and more small "domestic  only" port operators in  Europe are trying to 
attract cruise operators to their ports as a wa y of increasing direct an d indirect revenues for 
the port and its economic zone of influence. The boom in the cruise sector justifies this expectation from small ports, which will be able to offer a more personalised service to new operators. However, if the bigger ports or th e small ones which happen to already cover at 
least a cross border route adapt their terminals to the new Community legislation, they will be in a much better position to attract the new cruise lines to the detriment of the domestic ports.  
5.2.1.7.  Impact among Member states 
Coastal countries (such as the UK) which ha ve adopted and actively implemented more 
advanced legislation for the pr otection of PRM rights would bear  the least costs, since they 
have already made the necessary investments. Th e provisions set out in this proposal establish 
general principles to be respected, not specifi c practical requirements on how ports should be 
modified, which kind of equipment should be  purchased and in which quantities etc. 
Therefore, the existing structures in these mo re advanced countries would not have to be 
modified, and it is not likely that a dditional investments would be needed. 
The costs will be higher for countries with little or no legislation currently in force, which to 
our knowledge means most of them. However, the flexibility given to co mpanies and ports to 
adapt to the new principles to be respected  will allow them to minimize their costs. 
The scenario under sub option a) ("cross borde r only" option) would mean that Member 
States apply two sets of measures, the Co mmunity measure for the ports and operators 
covering cross border lines and another (possibly none) fo r "domestic only" ones. The 
monitoring and enforcement of two different sets  of measures will become very complex for 
Member States in a dynamic scenario where por ts and maritime carriers evolve over time and 
can suddenly decide to launch a cross border service.  
5.2.2.  Social impacts  
Passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway s will benefit if the quality of service is 
improved. They will also have the benefit of assistance if they experience inconvenience 
during the journey. Moreover, PRMs will receive mo re assistance than is currently the case.  
In general terms, it can be recognised that there will be significant positive effects on 
customers, mainly as a result of better in formation on rights and procedures, but also 
beneficial effects on social cohesion, in particul ar through better attenti on being paid to PRMs 
travellers. The single market will certainly be advanced, even if absolute uniformity is not 
achieved.  
In addition, the feeling of social protection is also expected to be enhanced, along with the 
protection of consumer interests.  
The scenario under sub option a) ("cross border  only" option) would mean that domestic 
passengers are the only type of  passengers excluded from the minimum set of rights agreed 
for the other modes of transport and for cr oss border passengers travelling by boat. The 
feeling of a lack of social protection will be accentuated by the fact that these passengers will 
 
EN 52   EN become more and more aware, with the full appl ication of rights in othe r modes of transport, 
of the existence of a set of minimum standard s for all kind of passengers but them. This 
exclusion would not only affect passengers who are on the same boat but have embarked at 
different ports, but it would also affect domestic passengers embarking at ports with both 
domestic and cross border routes, since they wi ll be fully aware of th e rights granted to the 
cross-border passengers sitting ne xt to them at the port terminal  and of the fact that those 
rights that are denied to them.  
The vast majority of maritime carriers us ually combine cargo and passenger transport. 
Whenever this is the case, the economic importance of the cargo is huge in comparison with the revenues anticipated from the transport of passengers. Maritime carriers tend to give preference to solutions which allo w them to sail with  all the intended car go onboard, even if it 
means = waiting for more than 20 hours at the po rt, since the economic lo sses (loss of revenue 
plus the compensation to be paid for not having fulfilled their freight contract) if they decide to respect punctuality are enormous, whereas  currently maritime co mpanies face no extra 
costs for not honouring their contracts with passengers.  
Without a legal obligation on companies to o ffer passengers care and information, plus 
compensation in some cases to passengers, maritime companies will not have any incentive to change a behaviour which makes complete sens e from an economic point of view. From the 
average citizen's point of view, however, it is  impossible to understa nd why, under the remote 
subsidiarity principle, domestic passengers ar e left with no protection confronted with the 
economic choice made by the company, whereas  the cross border pa ssengers do receive 
protection. 
It must be remembered that maritime passengers are often "captive" passengers, who depend 
on their journey by ship to reach other means of transport. It must be borne in mind that a huge number of maritime passengers choose the maritime mode of transport because they 
need to travel with their car. Just imagine all th ose passengers with families that cannot afford 
the price of five train or bus tickets to the small airport from where the low cost company flies; plus the five plane tickets which, even if low cost, inevitably include a lot of extra taxes, which usually doubles the price of the ticket; pl us the five train tickets from the secondary 
airport where the low cost company lands to thei r final destination, and the cost of renting a 
car for the duration of their trip. For all these passengers, even when there is some competition between modes of transport (such as  on routes where maritime transport has to 
complete with the low cost airlines or a nearby train station) there is de facto  no competition 
between the low cost company and the boat. 
The same applies to cruise companies, whic h without a legal oblig ation to compensate 
passengers in the event that it does not cover one of the legs of the trip, will easily prime give precedence to the economic incentive to reduce th eir costs by not stopping in one port over 
the vaguer incentive of satisfying their clients. 
5.2.2.1.  Impact on accessibility for PRMs 
Under the proposed measures, PRMs would be ab le to enjoy the same opportunities as other 
passengers in maritime transport. Without such  opportunities, they would lose not only the 
direct benefits of travel but al so the indirect benefits of full inclusion in economic and social 
life: they would be unable to travel to work, visit family and friends and go on holiday like 
other citizens. 
 
EN 53   EN The proposed measures would ensure that the jo urney is accessible from  beginning to end and 
that disabled people are aware of this before departure. All groups of PRMs would benefit. 
The scenario under sub option a) (the "cross border only" option) woul d mean that PRMs who 
are domestic passengers will remain be the only  kind of PRMs that remain excluded from the 
minimum set of rights agreed for the other mode s of transport and for cross border passengers 
by boat. The main difference between passengers in  general and PRMs is th at the lack of right 
for passengers does not prevent them from trav elling, whereas the absen ce of rights for PRM 
under a Community action will perpetuate their exclusion from maritime travel. 
5.2.2.2.  Additional employment in ports 
A growing number of passengers  travelling by ship may requi re extra staff at ports and 
passenger terminals76. , Only the possible additional tra ffic due to increased numbers of 
PRMs travelling as tourists has been consider ed for the purpose of estimating the possible 
impact on employment. 
Based on the index for the estimated number of  personnel needed in ports for every 1000 
passengers, the potential number of additional employees to be hired at ports would total 
approximately 176.400 in the more conserva tive case (see Table 20 in annex 2). 
5.2.2.3.  Additional employment on ships 
For shipping services, the need for new employees  is strictly related to the number of ships, 
which in turn depends on their capacity and on the relative loading factor with respect to 
current traffic. According to the traffic figures (see table 20 annex 2), the predicted potential number of accessible tourism trips represents, at most, an increase of 0.85% on the current 
traffic
77. This percentage is not high enough to justify an in crease in the number of vessels to 
serve the new demand. For a 0.67% in crease in traffic (optimistic scenario), the capacity of a 
vessel would be wholly taken up on ly if it were currently operated with an average load factor 
of 96.3%, which is unusual on the EU shipping ma rket. However, such a traffic increase 
might justify the introduction of additional journeys by existing ships in a few cases, 
depending on the specific market requiremen ts of the particular period of the year. 
Three different scenarios are therefore possible:  (1) the traffic increase can be handled by the 
existing fleet; (2) the traffic increase might allow an increase in the number of journeys; (3) the new traffic demand may justify additional investment in fleet and crews (including 
replacing ships with bigger vessels). 
For the reasons mentioned above, the most likel y scenarios are (1) and (2), for which the 
likely employment increase would be  very limited. Nonetheless, it is still very difficult to 
                                                
 
76 It should be noted that additional staff in ports are not required because assistance must be provided to 
PRMs, but because the number of passengers as a whole is expected to increase. This does not represent a threat to the industry, since the additional labour cost  will be fully offset by the consequent increase in 
port and carrier revenues. 
77 It is estimated  that the total potential number of accessible to urism vacations by ship is at most 1.8 
million, corresponding to 3.6 million passenger journeys. Moreover, it has been estimated that the total 
number of passenger trips by ship in the EU varies between 243 600 000 (Eurostat) and 306 600 000 
(ShipPax). Finally it was calculated that potential acce ssible tourism traffic is expected to be between 
0.67% and 0.85% of total passenger traffic by ship. It is worth recalling that these figures might be 
overestimates, since many other barriers apart from t hose affecting ship transpor ts still prevent potential 
customers from travelling. 
 
EN 54   EN predict the effect of an in crease of passenger traffic on shipping employment because, on the 
one hand, the assessment depends on the decisions  of operators, who might decide that it is 
better to forgo part of the mark et, since the predicted marginal cost might be higher than the 
relative marginal revenue. On the other hand, the shipping market is cap ital-intensive, and an 
increase in fleet numbers and the attendant, cost of employees must be justified by the 
stability (or steady increase) of the market in  order to optimise the return on investment. 
5.2.2.4.  Additional employment in the tourism sector 
The increase in passenger traffic might also  increase the level of employment (and turnover) 
in the tourism industry.  
The relative impact on employment is calculate d by taking into account the additional tourism 
revenues estimated in the Section of the econom ic impact on the tourism industry. In 2004 the 
average turnover per person employed in the hotels and restaurant s sector was €44 60078. 
Table 21 in Annex 2 presents an estimate of th e potential number of new employees in the 
tourism sector. 
Depending on the scenario considered the estimated number of additional employees needed 
in the tourism industry varies from almost 12 300 to more than 24 600 FTEs. 
5.2.3.  Environmental impact 
The main issue here is the potential shift be tween modes of transport due to the improved 
quality of maritime transport services. This will depend on two main factors: 
• increased tariffs, a factor  that reduces demand; 
• better quality of services for passengers  in general and PRMs in particular, a 
factor that increases demand. 
A significantly better quality of services for passengers would increase the demand for 
maritime transport. In this case, two aspects should be considered for any modal shift: 
• If the number of passengers were to increas e, this would not ne cessarily entail an 
increase in transport frequencies or servic es. In fact, the main effect would be to 
increase average load factors and allo w better management of the existing 
European fleet; 
• If the number of maritime transport servic es were to increase, given that most new 
passengers would come over from other (more polluting) modes of transport, 
there would be a marginal posi tive impact on the environment. 
It might be concluded that th is option does not take account of any important environmental 
impacts. 
                                                 
78 Eurostat Database: NACE H Hotels and Restaurants, year 2004, EU-27  
 
EN 55   EN 5.3. Option 3: EU coordination and exchange of best practices to enhance national 
legislations 
5.3.1.  Economic impact 
The adoption by some Member States of the measures proposed to enforce passengers rights 
might result in an increase in passenger fare s. However, the UK's e xperience (see Annex 12) 
shows that the impact is likely to be limited. 
A positive impact on the tourism industry is exp ected. However, potential additional revenues 
from tourism would be lower than with option 2, since services would be fully accessible only 
in Member States that fully adhe re to the EU recommendations.  
If the national legislation approach were to be  adopted, all of the types of costs for option 2 
above would also be incurred. However, total co sts in this case would be lower than with 
option 2, since only the operators of Member Stat es that adhered to the EU recommendations 
would bear any additional costs. 
Some distortion of competition may be expected  between ports situated in the same area but 
in different Member States, where the applicable  legislation on accessibility may be different. 
It is not possible to ensure that all Member States will specify one or more specific authority 
for monitoring and complaint management. 
5.3.2.  Social impact 
The aim of the measures proposed to ensure  the following: a service of quality; proper 
information to passengers in all circumstances;  accessibility and assi stance in ports, and 
assistance aboard ships for PRMs; and for en forcement and monitoring, are the same for 
every policy option. However, each policy option differs in terms of delivery mechanisms 
(European or national) and the level of complia nce required of the sect or in implementing the 
measures. With this option, the likely benefits  and costs will thus depend on the level of 
commitment of the EU Member States in  adopting and enforcing the new rules. 
A number of Member States have already adop ted specific legislation to protect passenger 
rights in maritime transport, while others may decide to take action to improve the current 
passenger rights situation. However, all things be ing equal, few Member States are likely to 
enact specific legislation on this matter in the coming years. If no action is taken, there is a 
real risk of creating widening disparities between European Me mber States, especially as 
regards the level of accessibility for PRMs: 
• For accessibility in ports , one of the main dangers is th e following: a route with a fully 
accessible departure or arrival port (because it is  located in a Member State with proactive 
legislation for PRMs) and a non-accessible depart ure or arrival port (because it is located 
in a Member State with no or insufficient le gislation for PRMs) is a fully non-accessible 
route, despite all the efforts made by the pr oactive Member State. Even where both ports 
are accessible, the potential lack  of clarity in the two Member  States as regards rules and 
conditions for accessibility and assistance may in itself be a disincentive for PRMs to travel, and “de facto” nullify the investment made by both Member States in this area. 
 
EN 56   EN • As regards assistance in board ing and disembarking from ships , maritime passenger 
carriers that operate between two or more EU Member States may find it economically 
costly and difficult in practice to  comply with different sets of legislations on PRMs, even 
if they are similar in scope and content.  
All passengers would potentially benefit from th e proposed measures in those Member States 
that implement the EU recommendations. As with option 2 above, there should be positive 
impacts on employment. However, employment im pacts would be confined to Member States 
that actually implement the EU recommendations. 
5.3.3.  Environmental impact 
As noted above and with regard to option 3, the likely benefits and costs depend on the level 
of commitment by Member States in adopting new rules.  
Improved quality of service in countries that ad opt the measures proposed by the EU is likely 
to result in an increase the number of passengers . Considering that maritime transport is in 
second place in terms of lower external cost s, a modal shift would probably have a positive 
environmental impact. 
In those countries that do not adopt the measur es proposed by the EU, se rvice is not likely to 
improve. Passengers are thus likely to express their dissatisfaction by opting for alternative 
modes of transport that are more polluting than maritime transport. 
5.4. Option 4: Voluntary agreements 
5.4.1.  Economic impact 
The types of costs are the same as for previous  options. However, the total costs are expected 
to be limited compared to the other options, since only a limited number of operators are likely to bear any additiona l costs on a voluntary basis. 
PRMs, for their part, would benefit from accessibl e travel services only when embarking and 
disembarking at EU ports and terminals where accessibility was already acceptable and where operators and port authorities ha d taken voluntary initiatives to improve the existing situation. 
Therefore, if only a few operators voluntarily improve their services, maritime and inland waterway transport will still be perceived by PRMs generally as a non-accessible mode of 
transport. Here, the major risk is that operators that do invest in accessibility will not see an 
increase in their traffic, simply because PRMs would not even consider this mode of 
transport.  
5.4.2.  Social impact 
In this case, the policy option differs from th e others in terms of its delivery mechanism 
(mandatory vs. voluntary) and the level of compliance by the sector in implementing the proposed measures. Under this option, the likely benefits and costs would thus depend on the 
level of commitment by operators  in adopting the new rules, accepting them if they are 
adopted collectively, and in any ev ent respecting them in practice. 
Even if a large proportion of operators adhe red to acceptable voluntary agreements, the policy 
objectives would still not be satisfactorily achieved. In maritime and inland waterway 
transport, a variety of actors and operators all play a part in  providing a pass enger service. 
 
EN 57   EN Therefore, a small proportion of operators not co mplying with the voluntary agreements could 
result in non-accessibility in many cases. 
The effectiveness of voluntary agreements in passenger transport is a much debated subject: 
strong views expressed by consum er organisations confirm that the very few codes of conduct 
that have so far been developed have failed to  deliver. Past experience in regulating the air 
transport sector seems to confirm the agreements  of this type have only very limited success. 
Initially, the EU allowed air operators (air carriers and airports) to conclude agreements to ensure passenger rights by means of voluntar y commitments. However, although the content 
of such voluntary agreements was valid, they were  not correctly applied either by operators in 
the sector as a whole or even by those who had explicitly committed to them. This failure led the Community to introduce compulsory rules in  order to make sure that passenger rights are 
ensured and enforced. 
Further pointers as to the likelihood of success for this policy option in achieving its 
objectives in maritime transport can be drawn from the EUSG Report
79. According to this 
report, some 531 transport operato rs across all modes of transpor t were contacted in order to 
find out what kind of voluntary agreements and/ or service guarantees they offered to their 
customers -if any. About 70% of the operators who were contacted provided information on 
their passenger service standards. For the ope rators surveyed, 148 quality charters and 161 
service guarantees were identifi ed (see table 22 in annex 2).  
Compared with all other modes of transport, the maritime sector had the lowest number of 
quality charters and service guarantees. Only a few ferry companies in Italy, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom provided details. Three quality charters and five service guarantees were 
identified for all the maritime operators surveyed. These examples either have some formal basis such as legislative or contractual obligat ions or are described as  “informal guarantees”. 
Voluntary schemes in the strict sense are t hus even rarer than the figures indicate. 
As with option 2 above, there ought to be positive impacts on employment. However, 
employment impacts would be confined to co mpanies that actually do implement the EU 
recommendations. 
In conclusion, as mentioned previously there is  no guarantee that th e objectives will be 
achieved: given the non-enforceable nature of such rules, too much depends on the 
willingness of operators. 
5.4.3.  Environmental impact 
As noted above, with regard to  option 4, the likely benefits a nd costs depend on the level of 
commitment by operators in adopting new rules.  
Maritime services are not expected to improve. Passengers are therefore likely to express their 
dissatisfaction by opting for alternative modes of transport that are more polluting than 
maritime transport. 
                                                
 
79 TENDER TREN/A5/25-364/2005: “Evaluation and monitoring of trends with regard to passenger needs 
on the level of service and treatment of passenge rs” (“EU Service Guarant ees — EUSG”) (Dec. 2006) 
 
EN 58   EN 5.5. Administrative costs 
5.5.1.  Enforcement through monitori ng, and complaint management 
Preliminary remark  
Three main means of redress can be menti oned: complaint handling within companies, 
arbitration external to companies, and sche mes run by public authoriti es. These three means 
of redress have their merits and their limitations in the context of this proposal.  
Arbitration external to companie s involves significant costs due to the type of litigation at 
stake here: the price of the ti ckets is normally quite low, which makes such litigations 
candidates for small claims courts under civil la w, where such courts exist. Therefore it has 
not been considered in the context of this proposal.  
The system of self regulation, including compla int handling within companies, was tested 
between 2001 and 2004 in the air transport sect or. The air transport business model is more 
passenger-focused than the maritime model, and is better organised for self regulation. However, self regulation in air transport,  including complaint handling by companies, 
ultimately failed (companies did not enforce the rules they had established). This failure led to Regulation 261/2004 being adopted by the Parliame nt and the Council. There is no reason 
why the outcome in the maritime sector would be different.  
This proposal actually provides for an enforcem ent scheme run by public authorities: namely 
the national enforcement bodies. The Member St ates must also esta blish a regime of 
sanctions. This type of enforcement will be assessed below. 
The entity responsible  for enforcement and monitoring of the envisaged rules and for 
complaint management would be very similar -in terms of its activity, tasks and structure- to 
the body designated in each Member State to en force the “Regulation on International Rail 
Passengers’ Rights and Obligations”
80 or the “Regulation on Air Passengers’ Rights”81. The 
experience already gained in air transport is therefore very valuable in this respect. 
It can be estimated that the designated nationa l enforcement bodies (or NEBs) would have to 
employ at most 7.6 FTEs to handle complaints  about maritime trans port (not even one 
employee per Member State). Given that the av erage labour cost of an FTE employee in 
public administration in the EU-27 was €32 600 per year in 200482, the total cost of 
employing 7.6 extra FTEs will be €249 800 (see Annex 11). 
It is possible that this figure for the administrative costs is an overestimate; in fact, 
considering the small number of staff needed, it is likely that complaints would be handled 
initially by existing staff. However, if the numb er of complaints rise s significantly, additional 
staff may need to be employed.  
                                                 
80 Regulation (EC) Nº 1371/2007 of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations. JO L315 
of 3.12.2007. 
81 Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 
establishing common rules on compensation and as sistance to passengers in the event of denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. 
82 Eurostat Labour Market Survey (2004). 
 
EN 59   EN In order to ensure th at the measures adopted are applie d correctly and that the processes 
involved are managed in accordance with the ru les, a specific entity should be given 
responsibility for monitoring . NEBs may take on this task, although the choice will depend on 
the specific form of organisation to be set up. 
In general, monitoring  should encompass the following acti vities: assessment of the number 
of well-trained employees in ports and ships;  reporting on complaint management; detection 
of bottlenecks and feedback to improve the pr ocess; corrective interventions, where needed; 
and reporting to the EU authority  in charge of collecting and organising Member State data. 
These activities have predictable co sts. Assuming that 2 and 4 man-days83 respectively are 
needed for each shipping operator and port to carry out the monitoring exercise, and also 
assuming that the collection and organisation of da ta in each Member State takes at most three 
days, the total predictable cost would be about  €568 000 for the EU (see table 23 in annex 2).  
5.5.2.  Administrative cost for the sector 
The sector will incur additional costs in order to provide assistance and information and to 
construct or refurbish accessible facilities. To ensure smooth implementation of the new rules, 
and at the same time reduce the administrative costs of enforcing passenger rights, the EU 
needs to consider the resources needed in orde r to ensure effective planning to comply with 
the obligations impos ed on the sector. 
Under the EU rules, Member States would be  required to report to  the Commission on the 
investment needed in infrastructure and fac ilities to guarantee adequate accessibility in each 
national port, on the entities pr oviding passenger services when  in port, and on the personnel 
needing specific disability awareness training for each national port.  
The effort required might differ from port to por t. Moreover, most port authorities generally 
administer more than one port, so the reso urces needed might be the same for several 
terminals. Therefore, a conservative estimate put s the effort required of each Member State to 
undertake this reporting activity at 5 man-days fo r each port, i.e. one man-day for each of the 
following activities: a) Specifica tion of procedures and responsi bility for assistance to PRMs; 
b) Identification of the infrastructure and facilities needed; c) Evaluation of the investment needed and, where appropriate, reasons for non-intervention; d) In ternal approval of 
measures; and e) Administrative documentation. 
On the basis of these data, the total administra tive cost is estimated at €1 632 000 (see table 
24 in annex 2). 
5.6. Small and medium-sized enterprises 
5.6.1.  The importance of small and medium-s ized enterprises in the sector 
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are defined as enterprises that have fewer than 
250 employees, and have either an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 40 million or an 
annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 27 m illion. Where it is necessary to distinguish 
between small and medium-sized enterprises, a ‘s mall enterprise’ is defined as an enterprise 
                                                
 
83 The reason for the greater number of  days needed for port monitoring is that more indicators need to be 
checked, as set out in the table of indicat ors in “Monitoring and evaluation” below. 
 
EN 60   EN that has fewer than 50 employees and has either an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 7 
million or an annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 5 million84. 
In order to determine whether the envisaged measures will have an impact on SMEs in the 
passenger carrier business, an analysis of the struct ure of the sector has to be carried out first. 
The maritime and IWW (inland waterway) passenge r sector in the EU is characterised by a 
lack of reliable, aggregated data on a number of aspects85. To our knowledge, as confirmed by 
the European associations concerned86, the size of the sector, or  the percentage of SMEs 
among maritime and IWW passenger carriers, is one of these missing statistics. Moreover, 
given the complex definition of SM Es, constructing these statistics for the entire sector for the 
sole purpose of this impact assessment woul d have been a disproportionate exercise. 
However, a proxy can be obtained using only one  component of the definition, namely the 
number of employees per company. A distincti on should be made between cruise and ferry 
operators. 
Regarding ferry operators , data on the number of empl oyees are available for 109 
companies87 out of a total of 288 operators, which amounts to 38% of the sector. Among these 
109 operators, 38 companies report having fewer than 250 employees and therefore could be 
considered as SMEs.  
Regarding the cruise sector , there are around 21 cruise compan ies working in the EU. If the 
same proxy, namely the number of employees pe r company, is used to determine the size of 
the sector, the conclusion is that the number of small and medium-sized cruise companies is 
either zero or not significant88. 
5.6.2.  The impact on SMEs in the maritime sector 
In the previous chapters, all economic social  and environmental impacts of the measures 
proposed were assessed. It is worth recalling that the measures proposed under options 2, 3 and 4 do not differ in essence. In fact, the opti ons differ only in terms of the manner in which 
the proposed measures are to be implemented (e ither binding or not binding, at national or at 
Community level), and the degree of compliance with the measures.  
A preliminary issue to be explored is whether the SMEs should benefit from a more flexible 
regime than other companies. In this respect,  three measures are relevant for SMEs in the 
proposal: (1) measures in favour of PRMs (essentially assistance), (2) assi stance measures for 
cancellations and delays and (3) comp ensation for cancellations and delays. 
                                                
 
84 Article 1 of Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of 
small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4), quoted in Annex I of Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises — OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, pp. 33–42. 
85 This lack of data is acknowledged by the industry  and research bodies. See ShipPax Market Statistics 
’07, page 16. See also the summary of contributions received by the Commission in response to the Commission consultation mentioned in point 1.2.2. 
86 European Cruise Council (ECC) and European Community Shipowners Association (ECSA). 
87 ShipPax Market statistics ’07, table in page 16, plus data provided to the Commission by some ferry 
operators. 
88 Commission analysis of data collected from compan y websites and an ad hoc survey carried out via 
phone calls to companies. 
 
EN 61   EN The issue of compensation in case of delay and/ or cancellation was evaluated earlier in this 
report, (see Section 5.2) a nd also when the question of SMEs was taken into account. 
Nevertheless, it is worth recalling that the imp act of establishing such a compensation scheme 
might be greater in SMEs than in large compan ies. SMEs usually operate only in one market 
and are therefore more dependent inter alia, on local exceptional weather conditions because 
they cannot change their route. These exceptiona l circumstances must therefore be taken into 
account in order to mitigate damaging economic impacts on SMEs.  
Regarding to measures in favour of PRMs, the provisions of the draft regulation are based on 
four principles (accessibility, assistance, non discrimination a nd information). All companies 
have to respect these principl es vis-à-vis PRMs. However, companies are free to determine 
the best way for them to fulfil these objectives. This very significant flexibility naturally also 
applies to SMEs. In the air transport sector, this type of approach has so  far proved to be very 
satisfactory. 
The same flexibility applies in respect of a ssistance in case of cancellation and/or delay. The 
content of the assistance to be given will have to be assessed with the particular operational constraints of each company. This flexibility will also have to be reflected when the company 
is a SME. Such an approach has been also fo llowed with success in the air transport sector. 
As regards the specific costs incurred by SMEs in  the maritime sector, the costs calculated in 
the previous chapters also apply to SMEs. As  shown above, the costs for operators would be 
minor, regardless of the size of th e operator. As an example, the cost for operators to provide 
assistance in ports for PRMs would be ar ound €170 per employee on training and about €150 
per employee for assistance on ships. Both costs arise in the first year only, since refresher 
training courses will not be necessary until so me years later. Moreover, since the ship 
operator may itself provide assist ance at the port and use the same personnel on board and in 
ports, these costs, already modest, will be borne only once. 
In view of the structure of the sector, SMEs  are unlikely to face competition on most of the 
routes they sail. In most cases PSO contracts granted to operators demonstrate the lack of 
commercial viability for competitive service offe rs. The profitability of SMEs on the market 
would not be affected by the proposed measures  for three reasons: firs tly, the costs involved 
are small; secondly, on more than 60% of the domestic routes, companies may be cushioned against the costs of the new measures throug h PSOs contracts; thirdly, the low level of 
competition on the majority of routes allows companies to determine their own pricing policy and, even in cases where there is some competit ion, it is likely to be among enterprises of a 
similar size. In view of the modest size of th e burden that will be imposed on operators by the 
measures envisaged, the small proportion of SMEs  in the sector as a whole, the fact that 
companies do not face strong competition on the vast majority of routes, and the actual 
structure of the routes, the conclusion is that the impact of these measures on SMEs in the 
maritime sector would not be significant, whichever option is considered. 
5.7. Assumptions on routes subject to Pub lic Services and Member States which 
accessible infrastructure 
A) It might be that some Member States have  included certain passenger rights, especially 
regarding the principle of non discrimination a nd some assistance for PRMs, in a number of 
their public service contracts. 
 
EN 62   EN That is why the EU regulation would leave some flexibility for measures on routes subject to 
public service contracts (see point 2.2). It will give Member States the possibility of exempting maritime transport services covere d by PSCs from the Regulation when such 
contracts ensure a level of passenger rights co mparable to the level afforded by Community 
action.  
B) Secondly, it may be the case that some Member  States have already achieved the minimum 
standards on accessibility in ports desired by th e Commission. This could be the case for the 
United Kingdom, and might be pa rtially the case for Ireland and the three Nordic countries.  
In order to assess the implications of these tw o cases, four scenarios have been constructed. 
The baseline scenario as descri bed earlier assumes that 100% of the market would be affected 
by the proposed measures. This assumption is ma de because: A) the kinds of rights that may 
already be in place for some routes through PSC  under the first assumpti on are unlikely to be 
the same as those being assessed here. Th e main difference is that the rights under a 
Community action are specifically aimed to provide passengers with  an automatic and 
immediate solution on the spot to  cope with the inconveniences of a critical event, whereas 
the few Member States who have addressed the issue of maritime passenger rights have focused on other types of rights, such as those linked to liability in case of accident, or general 
consumer rights; B) the second assumption only affects accessibility for PRM, which is but a 
small part of the scope of the Community action. 
An extreme assumption would have been to excl ude from the market all the PSCs routes and 
all the routes from the most advanced count ries, this would have meant excluding roughly 
50% of the market
89. A more realistic approach would be to consider that only some Member 
States impose - through their PSC - obligati ons reflecting passenger rights, including, 
accessibility for PRM, and that only some of the most advanced Member States have already achieved the minimum accessibility standards for all their ports. To reflect this approach, two 
scenarios have been selected; one excludes 40%  of the market and the other excludes 20%.  
In the range between total inclusion (100%, whic h is the baseline) and total exclusion (50%), 
the estimates provide indications  of the impact of Community action if some Member States 
already apply a similar level of passenger righ ts. The table below makes assumptions based 
on these four scenarios. 
. 
 All routes A few PSC on 
domestic 
routes 
excluded + all 
routes from 
UK excluded  Many PSC on 
domestic 
routes 
excluded + 
UK and two 
other of the 
most advanced 
countries 
excluded  All PSC 
domestic routes 
excluded + all 
routes from UK, 
IE, SE, DK, FI 
excluded 
                                                 
89 Which amounts to the addition of 28 % of the total PSC routes plus a ll the remaining routes for five 
countries (UK, IE, DK, SE, FI) which means roughly 22% of the total market. 
 
EN 63   EN  100% 80% 60% 50% 
Unit cost per passenger 
ticket* 60 cents 60 cents 60 cents 60 cents 
Total increase in 
tourism 1.8million  1.44 million 1.08 million 0.9 million 
PRM passengers 
beneficiaries 90 38.1 million 30.48 million 22.86 million 19.05million 
* Estimate based on the air sector costs for comparable measures 
For the sake of simplicity, the ta ble above assumes that the excl usion of a certain percentage 
of routes would result in an  identical percentage decrease in the number of PRM passengers 
who are beneficiaries. However, this assump tion is probably too pessimistic, because PSC 
routes are often minor domestic routes with little passenger numb ers. But lack of data on this 
point makes it impossible to adjust the range of PRM passengers mentioned to get a sound fixed figure.  
6. C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
In order to recommend the “most promising” policy option, the proposed options are analysed 
and compared in terms of effectiveness in achieving the main policy objectives; cost; and 
added-value for the EU. 
The evaluation criteria used are thus:  
• Effectiveness: none (-), very modest ( √), modest ( √√), significant ( √√√), high 
(√√√√ ), very high ( √√√√√ ). 
• Additional costs: none (-), very modest (€),  modest (€ €), significant (€ € €), high 
(€ € € €), very high (€ € € € €). 
• Added value for the EU : none (-), very modest (+), modest (+ +), significant (+ + 
+), high (+ + + +), very high (+ + + + + ). Accessibility in port for PRMs 
It should be noted that the number of potential beneficiaries mentioned in this Impact 
assessment is different from the numbe r of additional beneficiaries.  
6.1. Rights of Persons with Reduced Mobility 
6.1.1.  Accessibility in ports  
The suggested policy is “ Option 2 — EU regulation ”. This option will guarantee that the 
policy objective is achieved in all Member States. Under option 2, about 38.1 million PRMs 
will potentially benefit from full accessibility in all EU ports. Moreover, a significant impact 
on the tourism sector is expected.  
                                                 
90 See footnote 31 
 
EN 64   EN Under this option, the cost  of adaptation might be very high for some EU ports. Other ports in 
Member States that already have specific legal requirements regarding PRM accessibility 
might have to bear extra costs in or der to comply with new requirements. 
Depending on the port charging systems in the Me mber States, the costs of new investment 
might be passed on in port tariffs, i.e. spre ad across all passengers . However, the UK 
experience (see Annex 13) shows that  this is not necessarily true. 
To avoid or mitigate these risks, the legislat or may consider the following recommendations: 
• As far as possible, the EU regulatory text should  try to avoid technical details so as not to 
conflict with any existing national law on the ma tter. If a specific investment is found not 
to be reasonable compared with the expected benefits, this will then allow alternative and 
cost-effective interventions to be explored on a case-by-case basis. 
• Ideally, ports could be required to meet all th e low-cost requirements set by the legislator 
in the short term, whereas high-cost interven tions could be undertak en when the port or 
terminal is undergoing a major refurbishment,  although not later than a fixed date. In 
practice, this would mean a tr ansitional period that allows th e sector to spread costs over 
time. 
Accessibility in ports for PRMs 
Options Effectiveness Costs  Added value for the EU 
Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 3 3 
Specific legislation in some 
Member States already 
addresses this issue.  - 
N/A  
N/A 
Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 3 3 3 3 3 
Ensures that the objective will 
be achieved in all Member 
States. This measure applies 
equally to all kind of ports 
(inland waterway and sea ports). Passengers in some 
member states may already 
benefit from accessible ports. 
Passengers in some domestic 
routes of some member states 
may already benefit from 
some kind of assistance under 
the service public contracts. 
 
Costs of invest ment might be 
passed on in port tariffs, thus 
spread over all passengers.  
 
3 3 
Cross border only sub-option: 
The objective will not be 
achieved for 60% of the 
market.  € € € € € 
For some ports the cost of 
adaptation may be very high,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
€€ €
 
Cross border only sub-option: 
For the member states where 
this accessibility is already in 
place, the EU regulation will 
imply no extra cost. + + + + + 
All PRM passengers in the EU) can benefit from full accessibility in all EU 
ports. 
 
Passengers in some domestic routes of 
some member states may already benefit 
from some kind of assistance under the 
service public contracts. 
 
 
 
 
  
+ +
 
 
Cross border sub-option: PRM will not benefit from full accessibility in a large 
number of ports. Lack of clarity about 
their rights is a main deterrence to PRM 
travel.  
Option 3: 
National 
Legislation 3 33 
Ensures that the objective will 
be achieved only for those 
Member States following the 
recommendations.  € € € 
Costs will be significant but 
not as high as with option 2 
(more flexibility than with option 2).  + + + + 
PRMs will benefit from full or acceptable 
accessibility in most EU ports. 
 
EN 65   EN Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 3 
No assurance that the 
objective will be achieved. € 
Port authorities and terminal operators are not likely to 
bear major costs if they can 
avoid it. + + 
Benefits are not expected to differ from option 1 since only few operators are 
likely to invest voluntarily in 
accessibility. 
6.1.2.  Assistance in ports  
The suggested policy is “Option 2 — EU Regulation” as this ensure s that the objective will be 
achieved in all Member States. Following implementation of this measure, ship operators will 
be responsible for assistance to PRMs in ports. Ship operators should be able to provide such 
assistance without incurring in any additional co sts, since their onboard personnel can take on 
this task when the ship is moored in port. Onboard personnel will have to undergo training in 
order to provide adequate assi stance to PRMs, both in ports and on board. Alte rnatively, ship 
operators may contract one or more ot her parties to provide the assistance. 
Although port authorities and terminal operators  will not be responsible for assistance to 
PRMs in ports, their personnel are likely to come into  direct contact with  PRMs. Therefore, it 
is reasonable to expect these employees to receiv e training so that they  can provide adequate 
and qualified assistance to PRMs when asked to do so. Approximately 24 300 workers 
employed in EU passenger ports will be trained to provide assistance to PRMs. The cost to 
port operators for providing training to their employees will be very modest (about €167 per 
employee per 8 hours). Employees wi ll need to be trained only for the first year and will then 
be required to follow refresher courses. 
This approach will allow PRMs to benefit from harmonised procedures for assistance in all 
EU ports. Furthermore, as it will help increas e the confidence of PRMs in travelling by ship, 
positive effects on the tourism sector are also expected. 
Assistance in ports for PRMs 
Options Effectiveness Costs  Value added to the EU 
Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 3 
Specific legislation in a 
few Member States 
already addresses this 
issue.  - 
N/A - 
N/A 
 
EN 66   EN Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 3 3 3 3 3 
The objective will be 
achieved in all Member 
States. This measure 
applies equally to all kind 
of ports (inland waterway 
and sea ports).  
Passengers in some 
domestic routes of some 
Member States may 
already benefit from some 
kind of assistance under 
the service public 
contracts. 
 
 
 
3 3 
Cross border sub-option: 
The objective will not be 
achieved for domestic only 
ports. 
 
 € 
No additional cost to ship operators since training is needed 
anyway for assistance on ships. 
The cost per port and terminal 
operator will be very modest 
(about €167 per employee). This 
cost applies both to sea and to 
inland waterway ports. 
 
 
   
€ 
Cross border sub-option: No 
additional cost to ship operators 
since training is needed anyway 
for assistance on ships. 
 
 + + + + + 
All PRM passengers in the EU) can 
obtain assistance when needed in all 
EU ports. About 24 300 workers 
employed in EU passenger ports will be 
trained to provide assistance and made 
aware of the specific needs of the PRM 
segment of the society 
Passengers in some domestic routes of 
some member states may already 
benefit from some ki nd of assistance 
under the service public contracts. 
 
 
+ + 
Cross border sub-option: PRM will not 
benefit from assistance in a large 
number of ports. Lack of clarity about 
their rights is a main deterrence to PRM 
travel.  
Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 3 33 
The objective will be 
achieved only for the 
Member States following 
the recommendations.  € 
No additional cost to ship 
operators for the same reason 
given above.  
Costs per port and terminal 
operator will be very modest, and 
unlike with option 2 not all 
workers will necessarily be 
required by Member States to be 
trained. + + + + 
PRMs will benefit from assistance in 
most EU ports. Possibly not all the 
workers will be trained. Assistance 
procedures will not be harmonised as 
with option 2. 
Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 3 
No assurance that the 
objectives will be 
achieved. - 
Costs will be negligible since 
only few operators will 
voluntarily commit. + + 
Benefits are not expected to differ much 
from option 1. 
6.1.3.  Assistance on ships  
The suggested policy is “Optio n 2 — EU Regulation”. This op tion will guarantee that the 
policy objective is achieved in all Member States. Under option 2, about 38.1 million PRMs 
will benefit from assistance in ships when trav elling in Europe. As with the other measures 
outlined above, this measure will have a positive impact on the tourism sector.  
In drafting a new Regulation, it is recommende d that the legislator should refer to the 
specifications in the STCW95 C ode, sections A-V/2 and A-V/3.91 
                                                 
91 The IMO STCW95 Code specifies sta ndards for training for seafarers, also with regard to the specific 
needs of PRMs. The Code is the result of the 1995 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which was signed by all European Member States. 
Unfortunately, only a few Member States have so fa r taken effective steps to comply with the STCW95 
Code. 
 
EN 67   EN Assistance on ships for PRMs 
Options Effectiveness Costs  Added value for the EU 
Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 3 
Specific legislation in a few 
Member States already 
addresses this issue. Training 
for assistance is also required 
by the IMO STCW95 Code.  - 
N/A - 
N/A 
 
Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 3 3 3 3 3 
The objective will be 
achieved in all Member States 
and for the two segments of 
the market, ferries and 
cruises, independently of the 
kind of port they use (sea and 
inland waterways). 
Passengers in some domestic 
routes of some member states 
may already benefit from some kind of assistance under 
the service public contracts. 
 
 
 
3 3 
 
Cross border sub-option: The 
objective will not be achieved 
for domestic only carriers. 
 
 € 
The cost per operator will be 
very modest (about €150 per 
employee). Since the cost is 
related to training, it may be 
assumed that the cost linked 
to the training of a seafarer is 
the same for the two segments 
of the market: ferry and 
cruise. 
 
   
€ 
Cross border sub-option: there 
will be no cost for the 
excluded carriers. + + + + + 
PRMs will benefit from assistance if needed on all kind of ships and market 
segments in the EU.  
70 500 seafarers employed on EEA 
passenger ships will be trained to 
provide assistance and made aware of 
the specific needs of the PRM segment 
of the society. 
Passengers in some domestic routes of 
some member states may already 
benefit from some ki nd of assistance 
under the service public contracts. 
 
 
+ + 
Cross border sub-option: PRM will not 
benefit from assistance in a large 
number of routes. The uncertainty of 
assistance will deter PRM from using 
transport by boat. 
Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 3 33 
The objective will be 
achieved only in the Member 
States following the 
recommendations.  € 
The cost per operator will be 
very modest (about €150 per 
employee) and unlike with 
option 2 not all workers will 
be necessarily required by 
Member States to be trained.  + + + + 
PRMs will benefit from assistance 
when travelling by ship in the EU.  
Possibly not all seafarers will be 
trained.  
Assistance procedures will not be 
harmonised as with option 2. 
Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 3 
No assurance that objectives 
will be achieved. - 
Costs will be negligible since 
only few operators will 
voluntarily commit. + + 
Benefits are not expected to differ much 
from option 1. 
6.2. Quality of service and assistance in  case of cancellation and delays 
The suggested policy is “Optio n 2 — EU Regulation”. This op tion will guarantee that the 
policy objective is achieved in  all Member States. Under option 2, about 398 million of 
passengers will benefit from better services and assistance in case of cancellation and delays 
when travelling in Europe. As with the other measures outlined above, this measure will have a positive impact on the tourism s ector. None of the 27 Member St ates currently offers to the 
passenger in any of the segments of the market  the kind of automatic, immediate rights on the 
spot that are sought by the Commun ity action assessed (see point 4).  
 
EN 68   EN Quality of service and assistance in case of cancellation and delays  
Options Effectiveness Costs  Added value for the EU 
Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 3 3 
Specific legislation in some 
Member States already 
addresses this issue.  - 
N/A - 
N/A 
Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 3 3 3 3 3 
Ensures that the objective will 
be accomplished in all 
Member States. Guarantees 
full harmonisation, enabling 
the global assessment of 
sector performance in whole 
EU covering all passengers. 
 
3 3 
 
Cross border sub-option: The 
objective will not be achieved 
for domestic only carriers. €€  
Minimum cost for operators 
are envisaged. The cruise 
segment of the market will 
likely have no added costs 
related to the assistance in 
case of delays. 
 
 
- 
 
Cross border sub-option: there 
will be no cost for the 
excluded carriers. + + + + + 
 About 398 million passengers (including 
PRM) will benefit from standards of 
quality service and assistance in the event 
of cancellation and de lays at EU level 
which do not currently exist in any of the 
27 Member States. 
 
 
 
+  
 
Cross border sub-option: passengers of 
domestic maritime and inland waterways 
transport will remain the only passengers 
in the EU (all modes of transports 
included) with no minimum standard 
rights in case of cancellation, delays and 
refuse of carriage. 
Option 3: 
National 
Legislation 3 33 
Not an insurance that is 
widely subscribed to. Ensures 
that the objective will be 
achieved only for those 
Member States that follow the 
recommendations  € 
Same as in option 2, but total 
costs would be lower since 
only operators of Member 
States adhering to EU 
recommendations would bear additional costs.  + + + + 
Potential increase if compare with option 
4, once it is expected that most countries 
will follow EC guidance. Likely 
economic impact as regard innovation 
and performance improvements resulting from monitoring/benchmarking 
Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 3 
Not sufficient to improve the 
quality of the sector. No 
assurance that the objective 
will be achieved. - 
Port authorities and terminal operators are not likely to 
bear major costs if they can 
avoid it. + + 
Benefits are likely to be limited in the beginning, but may increase if voluntary 
agreements become more general across 
the EU. 
6.3. Information provided to passengers before and during their trip 
The suggested policy is “Option 2 — EU Regulation”, as it ensu res that the objective will be 
achieved in all Member States. Not just general passengers but some 38.1million PRMs could potentially benefit from harmonised information provided in all the formats required for every 
category of passengers with reduced mobility or sensory/cognitive impairment (Braille 
format, large format, signs in relief, etc.). Th is measure will also increase the confidence of 
passengers in travelling by ship.  
In fact, proper information has positive effect s not only by facilitating the choice of the means 
of transport, but also by enabling passengers to  determine in advance what their needs will be 
and what problems they may encounter, thus av oiding possible emergencies. Furthermore, the 
measure might have positive effects for the tourism sector too, as it will make it easier generally to travel by ship. 
The cost to operators for providing information will be very modest, as this can mostly be 
achieved with the normal means of communication they already use to pr omote their services. 
 
EN 69   EN Information delivered to passengers before and during their trip 
Options Effectiveness Costs  Value added to the EU 
Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 3 
PRMs will benefit from 
accessible information in only 
a few instances, as only 9.3% 
of operators provide 
information in Braille, 16.3% 
adapt information points to 
PRMs, 2.3% provide specific information to PRMs, while 
14% of operators do not 
provide any particular 
information to PRMs.  - 
N/A - 
N/A 
Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 3 3 3 3 3 
The objective will be 
achieved in all Member 
States. Guarantees full 
standardisation of information procedures in the whole of the 
EU covering all passengers. 
 
 
 
 
3 3 
 
Cross border sub-option: The objective will not be achieved 
for domestic-only carriers.
 € 
Costs for shipping operators 
(both ferries and cruise), port 
authorities (for both sea and 
inland waterway ports) and 
travel agencies will be very 
modest as most of the 
objectives can be achieved 
with the normal means of 
communication already used 
to promote their services. 
 
-_ 
Cross border sub-option: there 
will be no cost for the 
excluded carriers. + + + + + 
Passengers (includi ng PRM passengers 
will benefit from adequate and standard 
information which will allow them to 
better plan their trips and what to 
expect from the carrier.. 
 
+  
 
Cross border sub-option: passengers of 
domestic routes will remain the only 
passengers in the EU (from all modes 
of transports) with no minimum 
standard rights regarding information. 
Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 3 33 
The objective will be 
achieved only for the Member 
States following the 
recommendations.  € 
Costs for shipping operators, 
ports authorities and travel 
agencies will be very modest 
not only for the above-
mentioned reasons, but also 
because only operators in 
compliant Member States will 
incur costs.  + + + + 
Passengers will bene fit from adequate 
information when travelling in the EU  
 
Possibly not all operators will use 
harmonised tools and procedures as 
with option 2. 
Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 3 
No assurance that the 
objective will be achieved. - 
Cost will be negligible since only few operators will 
voluntarily provide adequate 
information to both general 
passengers and PRMs. + + 
Benefits are not expected to differ much 
from option 1 
 
6.4. Enforcement, monitoring and complaint management 
The suggested policy is “ Option 2, EU Regulation ”. This option will allow better enforcement 
of the EU legislation and thus ensure that the policy objectives  are achieved in all Member 
States. Under option 2, maritime passengers will be  able to avail themselves of a standard 
complaint management system, which allows out-of-court procedures. 
Furthermore, under this option all Member Stat es will be required to designate a specific 
authority responsible for reporting to the monito ring system. As a result, this system will be 
able to verify whether the legislation is being implemented and to what extent it is achieving 
 
EN 70   EN its objectives. Where a problem is identified, corrective action can be taken to re-align 
implementation to the primary objectives. 
Choosing this option entails a certain lack of fl exibility regarding the de finition of the nature 
and structure of the enforcement and monito ring authorities, incl uding procedures and 
interventions. However, this risk can be mitigated by allowing Member States to set 
additional indicators to monitor specific national issues without  modifying the basic set of 
indicators proposed by the EU. 
Enforcement, monitoring and complaint management 
Options Effectiveness Costs  Benefits 
Option 1: 
No 
Intervention - 
N/A - 
N/A - 
N/A 
Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 3 3 3 3 3 
Objective will be achieved in 
all Member States. 
 
  
 
3 3 
 
Cross border sub-option: The 
objective will not be achieved 
for domestic-only carriers.  € € 
Cost per complaint is 
insignificant. 
Modest cost to Member States 
for reporting activities to the 
monitoring system. 
 
€ 
Cross border only: even more 
modest cost for Member 
States. + + + + + 
National enforcement bodies will be 
designated by all Member States. 
Passengers travelling by boat will 
benefit from complaint management 
allowing out-of-court procedures. 
EU-wide monitoring system will allow 
a better knowledge of the sector and 
further improvement. 
+ + 
Cross border sub-option: The objective 
will not be achieved for the domestic 
segment. 
Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 3 33 
The objective will be 
achieved only for the Member 
States following the 
recommendations.  € 
Cost per Member State will 
be as with option 2 above. 
However, only Member 
States that follow the 
recommendations will incur 
costs. + + + 
Benefits predicted for option 2 above 
will be achieved only in the Member 
States following the recommendations. 
Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 3 
No assurance that objectives 
will be achieved. - 
Cost will be negligible since 
only few operators will 
voluntarily commit. +  
Possibility of surveys launched by 
operators to check specific PRM needs 
and requirements 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
A monitoring and evaluation system needs to be  established in order to verify whether the 
policy or regulation is being implemented and to  what extent it is achieving its objectives. 
This will identify discrepancies with respect to  the policy objectives, and their causes (such 
as: problem definition is not accurate, objectives are not relevant and/or attainable, parties do not fully understand the policy or  are unable to implement it). Once the root causes have been 
identified, corrective action can be taken to re-align implementation with the primary objectives. Monitoring–evaluation–c ause identification–correctio n should be an iterative 
process throughout policy implementation. 
7.1. Core monitoring indicators 
The definition of a monitoring and evaluation sy stem starts with identification of the key 
indicators. An indicator can be defined as th e measurement of an objective to be met, a 
resource mobilised, an effect obtained, a gauge of quality, or a context variable. The table 
 
EN 71   EN presented in Annex 12 details th e indicators identified for monito ring the rights of passengers 
when travelling by sea or inland waterways within the EU. 
7.2. Monitoring and evaluation  
7.2.1.  Monitoring 
The key indicators will be iden tified in order to report regu larly on performance and enable 
measurement of the extent to which policy objectives are being ach ieved. Data should be 
relevant for the responsible au thorities, the operators  and PRM representativ e organisations at 
different levels. 
The monitoring system will operate from the outse t, and adequate provisions will be in place 
to ensure that the collection of data from Memb er States or third parties proceeds reliably and 
smoothly. See Annex 12. 
The potential users of the information are th e Commission and stakehol ders with their own 
areas of responsibilities and th erefore their distinctive information needs. The following table 
shows the main information suppliers to be involved in the monitoring process.  
Type of supplier Supplier of information 
Public bodies European Commission, Member  States, Ministries of 
Transport, Port Authorities 
Transport operators Shipping operators, inland waterways and maritime 
passenger liners, terminal operators, tour operators 
Wider public, including civic organisations Education / research organisations, PRM 
representative organisations, training institutions 
Source: PwC analysis 
Furthermore, given that implementation of the proposed measures depends on the joint efforts 
of the Member States, it is crucial that the national monitoring systems should be harmonised 
so that they can be integrated  in order to provide an overall vision. Moreover, efforts must be 
made to enhance the level of efficiency  in transmitting and exchanging reports. 
7.2.2.  Evaluation 
In order to ensure that the chosen policy option contributes to the achievement of the 
objectives set, an initial evaluation of its implementation will be launched at the latest three years after the legal instrument has become fully applicable. 
The evaluation will assess to what extent the legal instrument has been effective and efficient 
in collecting data, reporting and monitoring cri tical events; pr oviding assistance  to passengers 
when travel is interrupted; establishing sta ndards for the provision of information about 
maritime passenger rights; and in reducing inequa lities as regards PRMs' access to and use of 
maritime transport. The evaluation might recomme nd, if necessary, elements for the revision 
of the legal instrument in view of past e xperience. Moreover, the evaluation will assess the 
reliability and added value of the existing re porting and monitoring tools and will provide 
recommendations in this regard if relevant. Fi nally, the evaluation will  recommend dates for a 
new evaluation of the legal instrument. 
 
EN 72   EN Annex 1  
Summary of the public consultation launched in 2006  
Unlike with other modes of transport, the rights of maritime users are not generally covered either by 
Community legislation or by international agreem ents (except for the Protocol to the Athens 
Convention92). The contributions received clearly indicate divergences in the protection of maritime 
passengers between different Member States. Pass enger protection varies from country to country 
depending on the level of rights established by national legislation, b est practices and voluntary 
commitments by operators.  
Taking due account of all types of maritime trans port, the aim of this consultation was to allow 
interested parties to express: 
– their views on whether the principles of existing Community policy on the protection of users of 
other means of transport should be  applied to maritime transport; 
– how they view the general situation and the la ws concerning the protection of the rights of 
passengers carried by sea or inland waterway and the information provided to travellers; 
– their opinions and suggestions on how best to make the improvements that might be needed, and 
what general and legal means should be used. 
Many contributions draw the Commission’s attenti on to the specific and distinctive features of the 
maritime passenger transport sector. For instance:  
– there are more factors that could result in delays and interruption of journeys (mostly the influence 
of bad weather, which is greater for maritime transp ort than for any other mode of transport, or the 
difficulty of changing ships in the event of a ship breaking down);  
– there are big differences in weather and infr astructure conditions depending on countries and 
regions within a country; 
– local and regional services play a particular role;  
– some services (e.g. maritime regional transport) ar e mainly provided by medium-sized enterprises 
with limited financial means;  
– maritime transport is essential for people liv ing on islands and in peripheral regions; 
– maritime passengers tend to be people with lo wer purchasing power than air passengers, and who 
are not accustomed or do not have the means to lodge  a complaint or to stand up for their rights.  
– The scope of the definition of maritime transport is subject to discussion, which is not the case for 
air transport. 
The contributions received reveal a clear split betw een maritime operators and their associations and 
federations on the one hand, and c onsumer associations on the other, even though all of them (Member 
States included) agree that a common minimum level of protection of passengers' rights throughout the EU is necessary. As a general rule, operators see a limited need for regulation at Community level, 
whereas consumer associations call for extensive ri ghts for passengers and even more so where PRM 
                                                 
92 Athens Convention relation to the Carriage of Pa ssengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, and its 
Protocol of 2002. 
 
EN 73   EN passengers rights are concerned. Most of the replies received from Member State governments 
supported a further strengthening of protection in the sector through EU intervention.  
There is no unanimity among respondents about the in clusion or exclusion of particular types of 
service (namely the cruise sector, inland waterway servi ces, or coastal routes, which tend to be local 
and regional services) within the definition of mariti me transport for the purpose of this consultation. 
It can be seen from all the answers received that, unlike the case in air transport for denied boarding, 
long delays or the principle of assistance, for example, there are no agreed common definitions of certain "critical events" in maritime transport. It is  also clear from the answer s that neither the Member 
States nor the operators, with very few exceptions, ha ve ever compiled data or statistics relating to 
such critical events.  
This lack of consensus regarding the definition of so me critical events, as well as the lack of data and 
statistics on the actual incidence of these events, he lp to explain why operators appear not to be 
conscious of, or do not evaluate in the same way,  the difficulties that confront passengers in such 
cases.  
Consumer associations feel that the level of consum er protection is far from sufficient. As a matter of 
principle, they believe that maritime passenge rs should enjoy the same level of protection as 
passengers in other transport modes, which is not  yet the case. They consider that self-regulation 
initiatives and voluntary commitments may indeed bene fit consumers, but are insufficient due to their 
non-binding nature, and that nati onal regulation would create differe nt levels of protection among 
countries linked by intra-Community routes, which militates against the proper implementation of 
such passenger rights.  
Some Member States and some operators are also concerned that any increase in the regulatory burden 
could raise fares and be passed on to consumers. Concerns were also voiced that provisions for 
compensation in the event of delays could undermine safety.  
As to means of redress, a very large majority of  respondents consider that legal action may be too 
expensive, too slow or too complicated for passe ngers inconvenienced during a journey who wish to 
claim their rights. The exercise of these rights must be made as simple as possible. The best way of 
protecting passenger rights will be to provide fast, transparent, flexible and straightforward out-of-
court procedures for settling disputes.  
Various suggestions have been made regarding the practicalities of such a system of redress. Some 
favour complaint handling within companies, while others favour arbitration systems external to 
companies or schemes run by public authorities at national or EU level. A very large majority of 
contributors support the idea of creating a national body for complaint handling and providing means 
of redress. Only the operators are opposed to such  a system. Similarly, most PRM and consumer 
associations, together with local authorities, are in favour of the publication of an annual list of 
complaints received, broken down by the subject of the complaint and how it was resolved. In 
contrast, most operators and some Member States consider this unnecessary. 
With regard to the information provided to passengers  on their rights an also on the quality of services, 
there are some differences of opinion. Most consumer  and PRM associations think that the information 
provided on tickets for journeys by sea is insufficient. Many Member States and most operators take the opposite view. Consumer and PRM associations ar e generally in favour of quality standards, 
whereas operators are reluctant. Member States are divided on the issue.  
As to the protection of the rights PRMs in the European Union: Need for regulation
. There is a consensus among stakeholde rs on the need for a minimum set of 
standards for the rights of passengers with reduced m obility, which should be consistent with what has 
 
EN 74   EN been established for other modes of transport while re flecting the particularities of maritime transport. 
On the other hand, stakeholders' views are divided as to the means of setting those standards: some 
advocate a regulatory approach through Community  action and others prefer a self-regulatory 
approach via codes of conduct or voluntary agreements. 
Non-discrimination and assistance . Most associations representing consumers and PRMs consider, 
along with Member States and national authorities, that the assistance given by shipping companies 
and ports to PRMs, including access to ports and ships, is not satisfactory. In contrast, most operators 
consider that the situation is constantly improving.  There is at least a consensus on the fact that 
information aimed PRMs should be improved. All respondents also agree on the following point: the 
additional costs of measures to improve accessib ility and assistance for PRMs should not be borne 
solely by the latter. The contributions received point out that access must be extended in particular to 
deaf, blind and intellectually impaired people. For in stance, blind people are a substantial group: 1 in 7 
European citizens over 70 years of age have a visual  disability, rising to 1 in 4 for those over the age 
of 8093.  
Information and accessibility issues . Stakeholders consider that a dditional facilities are needed at 
ports. They suggest introducing a variety of technological equipment and tools to provide 
information94. 
Enforcement.  Consumer associations are in favour of  a common complaint handling system imposed 
on companies by regulation. As regards the prot ection of the rights of passengers with reduced 
mobility in the European Union, they agree on a common, harmonised three-step system (direct 
complaint to the company; complaints not satisfact orily settled to be dealt with by a cheap, quick out-
of-court conciliation and arbitration body; and, fi nally, complaint to the Court of Justice). 
Regulation 1107/2006  on the rights of persons with reduced mobility travelling by air gives airport 
authorities a major role in providing services fo r passengers with reduced mobility. There is a 
consensus among respondents that ports clearly have a role to play in providing specific services to 
PRMs travelling by sea. 
                                                 
93 In particular, the main suggestions regarding the type of assistance for persons with reduced mobility 
are: care during boarding/disembarking and journey, care at ports, loading luggage, travel information 
in required format, physical  assistance at any stage. 
94 Such as: vibrating, visual and acoustic alerts, brochure published in an accessible format, tactile 
information boards. 
 
EN 75   EN Annex 2: Figures and tables  
Figure 1: Percentage of complaints occurred in intra-community traffic for 2005.  
44%
27%26%3%
Delay s
Cancellations
Interruptions
Refused carriage / Denied boarding
 
Figure 2: Level of accessibility in the 49 EU terminals surveyed  
84%
71%
20% 20%
2%71%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Accessibility for
WU from port
entrance to terminal
or berths/vesselsAccessibility for
WU in terminal and
from terminal to
berths/vesselsAccessibility for
visual impaired
persons to terminal
and berths/vesselsAvailability of
counters with lower
level for WUAvailability of
induction loopsAvailability of
accessible toilettes
 
Source: PwC analysis of survey results (2007) 
 
EN 76   EN Figure 3: Population ageing in the EU-25  
 
 
Source: OECD Demographic and Labour Fo rce database, used in OECD (2007), Society at a Glance: OECD Social 
Indicators 2006 
 
EN 77   EN   
Table 1: Distribution of passengers by zones  
Source: ShipPax (2005) SAI (2005) 
Baltic Sea:   187 182 008 (36'5% ) 147 113 319 (40'3%) 
North Sea:   131 772 903 (25'6%) 90 514 727 (25%) 
Mediterranean Sea:   192 195 725 (37'5%) 126 733 725 (35%) 
 
Table 2 - Passenger ports in Europe categori sed by their major type of traffic (2004)  
 National Intra-
community International Cruise All major 
passenger ports 
Mediterranean 20 19 4 12 55 
Atlantic 66 59 5 13 143 
Baltic 67 67 1 4 139 
Nordic 107 17 0 0 124 
Total EU 260 162 10 29 461 
Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 
 
EN 78   EN  
Table 3 Passenger Traffic at major EU seaports  
Total (passengers embarking + disembarking) 1000 Passengers  
   2002 2003 2004 2005 
1 Dover (UK) 16449 14770 14429 13501 
2 Calais (FR) 14991 13729 13259 11695 
3 Helsingborg (SE) 11666 11693 11808 11102 
4 Helsingor (DK) 11609 11646 11612 11023 
5 Paloukia Salaminas (EL) 12133 12541 11568 11663 
6 Perama (EL) 12133 12541 11568 11663 
7 Piraeus (EL) 8639 9315 10713 11076 
8 Messina (IT) 10256 9833 10128 9802 
9 Reggio Di Calabria (IT) 10137 9698 9992 9645 
10 Antirio (EL) 14210 13688 9105 2414 
11 Rio (EL) 14210 13688 9105 2414 
12 Helsinki (FI) 8871 8549 8747 8854 
13 Stockholm (SE) 6826 7294 7823 8211 
14 Napoli (IT) 6708 6811 6801 6084 
15 Rodby (Faergehavn) (DK) 6508 6421 6744 6761 
16 Puttgarden (DE) 6592 6422 6741 6760 
17 Tallinn (EE) 5136 5172 6452 6701 
18 Santa Cruz De Tenerife 
(ES) 4861 5011 5164 4564 
19 Capri (IT) 5028 4749 4771 3860 
20 Algeciras (ES) 4286 4542 4605 4828 
 
EN 79   EN Source: EU 2007/2008 statistical pocketbook 21 Turku (FI) 4025 4039 3828 3697 
22 Palma Mallorca (ES) 2286 2537 3773 4611 
23 Piombino (IT) 3675 3716 3702 3277 
24 Porto D'Ischia (IT) 3576 3494 3535 3169 
25 Frederikshavn 3597 3537 3449 3004 
26 Portoferraio 3176 3120 3195 2829 
27 Portsmouth 3469 3169 3127 2679 
28 Olbia 2683 2764 2908 3253 
29 Mariehamn 2311 2389 2843 3192 
30 Goteborg 2747 2750 2608 2267 
31 Genova 2820 2961 2507 2406 
32 Sjaellands Odde 2191 2294 2381 2310 
33 Norddeich 2285 2332 2267 2257 
34 Holyhead 2371 2333 2262 2173 
35 Rostock 2099 2332 2253 2417 
36 Igoumenitsa 2202 2467 2221 2338 
37 Ceuta 2353 2091 2147 2135 
38 Civitavecchia 1975 1932 2145 2099 
39 Barcelona 1473 1869 2039 2208 
40 Livorno 1792 1907 2013 2103 
 
EN 80   EN Table 4: Routes by number of passengers  
Routes 
with  More than 
1.000.000 
pax/year More than 
500.000 pax/year More than 100.000 
pax/year More than 
50.000 
Pax/year Less than 
50.000 
pax/year 
Baltic zone 
 Approx. 18+7* 
(13,8%). 
5 routes with 
competitors Approx. 16 (8,8%) 
2 routes with 
competitor  Approx. 46 (25,5%) 
4 routes with 
competitors  Approx. 16 
(8,8%) Approx. 79 
(43.8% ) 
North 
Sea zone Approx. 19 
(9,5%). 
2 routes with 
competitors Approx. 19 (9,5%) 
2 routes with 
competitors  Approx.51 (25,5%) 
4 routes with 
competitors  Approx. 27 
(13.5%) 
 Approx. 83 
(41.5%) 
 
Mediter
ranean 
Zone Approx. 17 (4,3% 
of the total). 
9 routes with 
competitors Approx. 14 (3,5% 
of the total) 
11 routes with 
competitors  Approx 57 (14,6% ) 
26 routes with 
competitors  Approx. 20 
(5,1%) 
4 routes with 
competitors  Approx. 282 
(72.3%) 
19 of them 
with 
competitors  
*domestic NO 
Table 5 - Maritime ferry operators in Euro pe by main type of activity and main 
area of operation  
 National International Cruise All operators 
Mediterranean 26 32 55 113 
Atlantic 15 29 15 59 
Baltic 3 17 0 20 
Nordic 26 22 0 48 
All European 
operators 70 100 70 240 
 
EN 81   EN Table 6 - Number of critical events and pa ssengers affected, reported by country 
and type of traffic  
Country UK France Ireland Poland Estonia 
Type of traffic Nat (4) Intra (5) Mixed 
(1) Intra (1) Intra (1) Intra (1) 
Delays 14.932 257 219   1 
(400)    
Cancellations 1.429 419   50     
Interruptions 1.136 50
(6.644)        
Refused carriage / 
Denied Boarding   77
(228)    3 
(3)   
Handling 
complaints         45 
(63)   
Total 17.497 803 219 50 49 100 
Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 
Legend: Between brackets is the number of passengers affected.  
There is a lack of data on number of criti cal events. Individual companies differ in their definition of delays. Only the UK 
and Poland had reported the number of critical events disaggr egated by their cause, along with the number of passengers 
affected. In the case of Estonia, France and Ireland, only one operator (in each country) provided data on critical events. Dat a 
presented here should be understood as illustrative.  
 
EN 82   EN Table 7 – Current situation regarding protection of passenger rights  
 General policy on Passenger 
rights  Maritime Passenger rights  
 PRM rights (general and in maritime 
transport) Internationa
ls  Athens Convention relating to the 
Carriage of Passengers and their 
Luggage by Sea 1974 (IMO) Protocol to the Athens Convention 1976. “Recommendation on the Design and 
Operation of Passenger Ships to Respond to 
Elderly and Disabled Persons’ Needs” (IMO) European Com (2001) 370: White Paper European transport policy for 2010 : time to decide 
COM (2004) 374 final: White 
Paper on services of general interest COM (2005)46 final: 
Strengthening passenger rights 
within the European Union Directive 90/314/EEC: Package 
travel, package holidays and 
package tours regulations REGULATION (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European 
parliament and of  the council of 
27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of 
consumer protection laws (the 
Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) COM (2002) 158 final: Communication 
from the Commission on the enhanced safety of passenger ships in the 
Community 
Directive 2003/25/EC, 14 April 2003 - specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships 
COM (2003) 375 final: Proposal for a 
Council Decision concerning the conclusion by the European Community 
of the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens 
Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea,1974 
COM (2005) 592 final: Proposal for a 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland 
waterway in the event of accidents Directive 1999/35/EC on a system of 
mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferries and high speed 
passenger craft services 
COM (2000) 284 final – Towards a barrier free Europe for people with disabilities Directive 2003/24/EC, 14 April 2003 - 
amending Council Directive 98/18/EC on 
safety rules and sta ndards for passenger 
ships; 
COM (2003) 650: Equal opportunities for 
people with disabilities: A European Action Plan CEN/CENELEC Workshop Agreement: 
Guidelines to standardisers of Collective 
Transport Systems - Needs of older people and persons with disabi lities - Part 1: Basic 
guidelines (CWA 45546-1:2004) 
 
 
EN 83   EN Table 8 - Information provided to passengers in general  
 
Estonia (1) 
France (3) 
Germany (1) 
Greece (3) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (3) 
Malta (1) 
Netherlands (2) 
Nordic 
countries (6) * 
Poland (3) 
Portugal (1) 
Spain (3) 
UK (15) 
Printed 
copies of 
applicable framework x x x   x     x   x       
Copy of 
applicable 
framework on ticket    x   x   x         x     
Reference to 
web site x x x   x     x           
Oral 
information only x     x       x 1 x x x 11 
Other 
information         x           x     
Passengers 
request   x         x         x   
Written 
information     x           4       15 
Identification 
of the operator     x           1 
      5 
Comparative 
information     x     x               
Electronic 
notice board         x                 
Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 
Legend: * Nordic countries – Denmar k, Finland, Norway and Sweden.  
Between  brackets is the number of res ponders in the respective country. 
 
EN 84   EN Table 9: Information provided to PRMs  
  Information in 
Braille Information 
points adapted 
to PRM needs  Information 
adapted to 
PRM needs No special 
information for 
PRMs Number of 
respondents 
Estonia         1 
France         3 
Germany   1     1 
Greece         3 
Ireland 1       1 
Italy         3 
Malta         1 
Netherlands         2 
Nordic countries * 1     4 6 
Poland     1   3 
Portugal         1 
Spain   1   1 3 
UK 2 5   1 15 
Total EEA 9.3% 16.3% 2.3% 14.0% 43 
Legend: * Nordic countries = Denmark, Finla nd, Norway and Sweden (TiS.pt Report, 2006) 
Table 10 -Information provided in case of critical events  
  
Estonia (1) 
France (4) 
Greece (3) 
Italy (3) 
Malta (1) 
Netherlands (2) 
Nordic 
countries (6) * 
Poland (3) 
Portugal (1) 
Spain (3) 
United 
Kingdom (15) 
Printed copies of 
applicable framework D, C, I, 
DB D, C, I, 
DB, RI      On 
requestD, C, I, 
RC, O D, 
C, I, 
DB   D, C D, C, I, RC 
Copy of applicable 
framework on ticket  D, C, I, 
DB D, C, I, 
DB, RI D, C, I, 
DB D, C, I, 
DB, RI    X     all D, C, I, RC 
Reference to web site D, C, I, 
DB D, C, I, 
DB, RI D, C, I, 
DB D, C, I, 
DB, RI  Someti
mes D, C, I, 
RC, O D, 
C, I, 
DB   all D, C, I, RC 
Oral information only O       D, C, 
I, RCSometi
mes   D, 
C, I, 
DB D, C, I, 
DB, RI, 
O D, C, I, 
DB D, C, I, RC, 
O 
No information     RI      x       D, C, I, RC, 
O 
Other information                    D, C, I, RC 
Passengers request         x             
 
EN 85   EN Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 
Legend: D: Delay; C: Cancellation; I: Interruption; DB: Denied  Boarding; RI: Refusal of Information; RC: Refused Carriage; 
O: Overbooking. Nordic countries – Denm ark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. ( ) Between brackets is the number of 
responders. 
Table 11: Specific services provided to PRMs  
  Support / 
Assistance to 
PRMs Accessibility 
facilities Assistance 
throughout the 
entire trip 
Cyprus       
Estonia   1   
France 1 1   
Germany 1 1   
Greece       
Ireland 1 1   
Italy 1 1   
Malta 1 1   
UK* 11 9 5 
Legend: * Out of 13 respondents (TiS.pt, 2006) 
Source: ShipPax Statistics, 2004 
Table 12: Average external costs in  2000 by category and transport mode  
 Average Costs for Passengers (EUR / 1000 pkm) Average Costs for Freight (EUR / 1000 tkm) 
Road Road 
Environmental impact 
Car Bus MC Tot Rail Air Tot 
LDV HDV Tot Rail Air Water Tot 
Noise 5.2 1.3 16.0 5.1 3.9 1.8 4.2 32.4 4.9 7.4 3.2 8.9 0.0 7.1
Air pollution 12.7 20.7 3.8 13.2 6.9 2.4 10.0 86.9 38.3 42.8 8.3 15.6 14.1 38.5
Climate change 10.1 4.8 6.7 9.5 3.6 26.4 13.6 32.8 7.3 9.7 1.9 134.7 2.5 9.7
Nature & Landscape 2.9 0.7 2.1 2.1 0.6 0.8 2.0 10.9 2.0 2.9 0.3 3.8 0.8 2.6
Up/Downstream 5.2 3.9 3.0 5.0 3.4 1.0 3.9 22.4 7.4 8.8 2.4 7.4 3.3 8.0
Urban effects 1.6 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.3 0.0 1.1 5.2 1.1 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3
Total EU-1795 37.7 31.8 32.7 36.4 19.7 32.4 34.8 190.6 61.0 73.1 16.6 170.4 20.7 67.2
Source: INFRAS/IWW, 2004 
                                                 
95 EU-15 plus Switzerland and Norway. 
 
EN 86   EN Table 13: Facilities to be provided at term inal buildings to perm it better accessibility  
Facility Cost 
Ramps  €200 per m2 
Automatic doors  €15 000 each 
Accessible toilet at terminal building €15 000 each 
Double handrails on stairs  €100 per m 
Glass markings  €20 per area of glass 
Guideways  €100 per m 
Warning markings  €100 per m 
Obstacle markings  €200 per m2 
Indications in relief  €400 each 
Spoken information  €150 per transmitter 
Source: COST 335 
Table 14: Average number of employees in passenger terminals for every 1000  
passengers  
 Small ports Medium-sized 
ports Large ports Average for all 
ports  
Front office 0.143 0.052 0.024 0.049 
Back office 0.118 0.021 0.002 0.025 
All employees 0.261 0.073 0.026 0.074 
Source: PwC analysis of survey results (2007) 
Table 15: Estimated number of employees in EU passenger ports per geographic area  
 Front Office Back Office Total 
Baltic 4 324  1 588  5 912  
North 3 085  1 211  4 297  
Med 9 869  3 673  13 542  
Total 17 642  6 637  24 279  
Source: PwC analysis of survey results, Eurostat and ShipPax (2007) 
 
EN 87   EN Table 16: Estimated training costs in ports  
Country Front Office Employees  
(€ thousand) Back Office Employees  
(€ thousand) All Employees 
(€ thousand) 
DK 411 186 597 
EE 31 6 37 
FI 82 18 100 
LT 4 3 7 
LV 4 2 6 
PL 24 13 37 
SE 165 38 203 
Baltic 721 265 986 
BE 11 6 17 
DE 250 107 357 
NL 21 11 32 
IE 22 7 30 
UK 210 71 281 
North 515 202 717 
BG 0 0 1 
CY 6 4 10 
ES 115 34 149 
GR 829 339 1 168 
IT 511 168 678 
MT 5 4 9 
FR 164 53 217 
PT 16 10 26 
SI 1 1 2 
Med 1 647 613 2 259 
Total 2 883 1 080 3 963 
Source: PwC analysis of survey results (2007) 
 
EN 88   EN Table 17: Estimation of the co st of training in the EEA  
Ship categories No of ships Thousand GT Employees in 
deck and hotel 
areas Estimated 
training costs 
(EUR) 
Cruise 79 2 694 23 118 2 889 731 
Ferries 1 167 9 536 37 237 4 351 327 
Fast Units 781 270 6 517 907 759 
Other Ro-Pax 56 53 1 341 100 544 
Ro-Ro Cargo Ferries 278 4 030 2 243 168 228 
All Passenger Ships 2 361 16 583 70 456 8 417 589 
Source: PwC analysis of ECSA Annual Report 2005-2006 and Confitarma  
 
EN 89   EN Table 18: Port governance in European MSs  
 Investment & Maintenance 
Baltic    
DK Superstructure 
100% private sector 
(buildings/mobile equipment) 
100% port authority 
(cranes, warehouses) 
EE Superstructure 
Service provider  
FI Superstructure 
100% private sector 
100% port authority (cranes)  
LV N/A 
LT Superstructure 
Operators 
PL Superstructure 
Private sector 
Port authority 
SE Superstructure 
100% port authority or private operators  
North   
DE Superstructure 
100% private sector  
NL N/A 
UK Superstructure  
100% port authority or terminal operators  
NO N/A 
IE Superstructure 
100% port authority  
BE Superstructure 
100% private sector  
Mediterranean   
CY N/A 
GR Road, rail and superstructure  
Outside: 100% State 
Inside: 100% port authority  
ES Superstructure 
100% port authority and private operators  
IT Superstructure 
Private operators / undertakings  
MT N/A 
FR N/A 
PT Superstructure 
100% port authority or concessionaries  
SI N/A 
BG N/A 
RO N/A 
 
Source: PwC analysis of “Factual report on the European port sector 2004-2005” ESPO 
 
EN 90   EN Table 19: Potential market for accessible maritime tourism  
  PRM 
passengers 1.6% will 
use a ship 
to travel for 
tourism 
purposes Multiplier 
effect for 
accompanying 
friends and 
family  Accompanying 
friends and 
family Total 
potential 
accessible 
tourism by 
ship Average 
expenditure 
per person 
per holiday Potential 
additional 
tourism 
revenues 
0.5 0.3 million 0.9 million € 0.55m 
 38.1 million 0.6 million 
2 1.2 million 1.8 million €620  
€1.1m 
Source: PwC analysis of OSSATE and Eurostat (2005) 
Table 20: Potential number of a dditional employees at ports  
 Total potential 
accessible 
tourism 
vacations by ship Total accesses 
(embarking and 
disembarking)96 Index 
employees per 
1000 
passengers Total potential 
new employees in 
ports 
First scenario 0.9 million 3.6 million  176 400 
Second scenario 1.8 million 7.2million 0.049 
352 800 
Source: PwC analysis 
Table 21: Potential additional employees in the tourism sector  
 Potential additional 
tourism revenues Average turnover per 
person employed in 
hotels and restaurants New potential employees in 
the sector (thousand FTE) 
First scenario €0.55m 12.3 
Second scenario €1.1m €44 6000 
 24.6 
Source: PwC analysis of OSSATE (2005) and Eurostat (2004) 
                                                 
96 We assume that a return journey consists of two embarkations and two disembarkations. In fact, there 
might be trips (such as cruises) with a higher number. 
 
EN 91   EN Table 22: Total number of char ters and service guarantees identified (cross-national 
schemes are included for each country where an operator adheres to them)  
Quality Charter Service Guarantee 
Country 
Rail Coach Local Air Ship Rail Coach Local Air Ship Total per 
country 
Austria 2 1 -- 1 -- 2 -- -- -- -- 6 
Belgium 1 1 1 2 -- 3 -- -- -- -- 8 
Cyprus -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 
Czech Rep. -- -- 4 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 6 
Denmark 2 -- 2 1 -- 3 -- 10 -- -- 18 
Estonia -- 24 4 2 -- -- 15 5 -- -- 5 
Finland 1 1 -- 2 -- 1 -- -- -- 1 6 
France 2 -- 6 4 -- 1 -- 1 -- -- 14 
Germany 2 1 24 2 -- 2 -- 56 1 -- 88 
Greece 1 2 4 -- -- 1 2 3 -- -- 13 
Hungary 1 1 -- -- -- 3 -- -- -- -- 5 
Italy 1 1 10 2 2 2 1 8 1 2 5 
Ireland 2 1 1 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 31 
Latvia -- 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 
Lithuania 1 2 -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 4 
Luxemburg 1 -- -- 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 3 
Malta -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 
Netherlands -- 1 1 1 -- 2 -- 2 -- -- 7 
Poland 1 1 1 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 5 
Portugal 1 -- -- 1 -- 3 -- -- -- -- 5 
Slovakia -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1 
Slovenia 1 -- -- 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 3 
Spain -- 1 1 -- -- 16 -- 17 1 -- 5 
Sweden 1 2 5 1 -- 3 1 14 -- 1 28 
UK 12 1 6 -- 1 12 1 6 -- 1 40 
Total  33 20 66 26 3 45 7 101 3 5 309 
Source: EUSG (December 2006) 
 
EN 92   EN Table 23: Estimated cost of monitoring  
 Number of:  Man-days 
needed for 
monitoring Daily cost per 
man 
(EUR)97 Total cost  
(EUR) 
Ship operators  274 2 105 565 
Ports  583 4 449 228 
MSs on coast 22 3 193 
12 714 
Total predictable cost 567 507 
Source: PwC analysis of “Maritime passenge r traffic in Europe: a picture of the ferry and RoRo sector” - DG TREN 
(2007) 
Table 24: Administrative costs for the sector  
Total number of 
passenger ports98 
(q1) Number of man-
days per port 
 (q2) Total number of 
man-days  
(Q = (q 1) x (q 2)) Average 
administrative cost 
per day99  
(P) Total 
administrative cost 
(P x Q) 
583 5 2 915 €560 €1 632 000 
Source: PwC elaboration 
                                                 
97 The above estimation of the labour cost per day for administrative employees is augmented by 30% for 
expenses and allowances. 
98 Total number of EU passenger ports was estimated in Annex II — “Market Analysis” 
99 In order to calculate the average daily administrative cost, we have assumed in line with Eurostat data 
that the gross hourly tariff for an expert consultant is €70. 
 
EN 93   EN Annex 3   
Public Service Obligations and Contracts in the Member States  
 
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
  
Rønne-Ystad and Rønne-Køge 
  
PSO  
-  
-  
- 
 
Rønne-Ystad and Rønne-Køge 
  
PSO / PSC  
1/5/04  
5 years  
30/4/09 
 
Kolby Kås-Kalundborg 
  
PSO / PSC  
1/10/03  
5 years  
30/9/08 
 
Bøjden-Fynshav 
  
PSO / PSC  
1/5/03  
5 years  
30/4/08 
 
Spodsbjerg-Tårs 
 
  
PSO / PSC  
1/5/06  
5 years + 1  
30/4/11  
    
DENMARK 
           
Baagø-Assens 
 
  
PSC  
1/1/01  
5 years  
31/12/06 
Expired but 
extended  
 
EN 94   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
 
Bjørnø-Faaborg 
 
  
PSC  
1/1/01  
5 years  
31/12/06 
Expired but 
extended 
 
 
Avernakø-Lyø-Faaborg 
 
  
PSC  
1/1/01  
5 years  
31/12/06 
Expired but 
extended  
 
 
Strynø-Rudkøbing 
  
PSC  
1/1/01  
5 years  
31/12/06 
Expired and 
extended until 
31/12/2007 
 
 
Birkholm-Marstal 
  
PSC  
1/1/01  
5 years  
31/12/06 
Expired but 
extended  
 
 
Sælvig-Hou 
  
PSC  
1/12/03  
4 years 10 
months  
30/8/08  
     
DENMARK 
      
 
         
Marstal-Rudkøbing, Ærøskøbing-
Svendborg, Søby-Faaborg 
  
PSC  
1/5/02  
4 years 8 
months  
1/5/02 
 
EN 95   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
 
Agersø-Stigsnæs, Omø-Stigsnæs, Sejerø-
Havnsø, Nekselø-Havnsø 
  
PSC  
1/1/02  
5 years  
31/12/06 
 
16 routes:  
 
Anholt-Grenaa; Egholm-Aalborg; Aarø-
Aarøsund; Orø-Holbæk; Livø-Rønbjerg; 
Askø-Bandholm 
Tunø-Hou; Fejø-Kragenæs; 
Femø-Kragenæs; Barsø-Barsø Landing; 
Venø-Kleppen; Fur-Branden; Skarø-
Drejø-Svendborg; Hjortø-Svendborg; 
Endelave-Snaptun-Horsens; Hjarnø-
Snaptun 
  
PSC  
- 
  
            
 
DENMARK 
         
11 routes:  
 
Thyborøn-Agger; Bogø-Stubbekøbing; 
Feggesund 
Næssund; Sundsøre-Hvalpsund; 
Udbyhøj 
Mellerup-Voer; Stige 
Hardeshøj-Ballebro; Læsø-
Frederikshavn; Kulhuse-Sølager  
PSC  
- 
 
EN 96   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
 
 
Rohuküla–Heltermaa, Virtsu–Kuivast 
  
PSO / PSC  
24/3/06  
10 years  
30/09/2016 
  
 
Sốru–Triigi 
  
PSO / PSC  
27/9/06  
5 years  
30/09/11 
 
Rohuküla-Sviby (county of Läänemaa) 
  
PSC 
 
  
    
ESTONIA 
       
 
Roomassaare-Ruhnu, Pärnu-Ruhnu, 
Pärnu-Kihnu, Kihnu-Munalaid and 
Ruhnu-Munalaid (county of Pärnumaa) 
  
PSC  
  
 
- 
 
   
FINLAND  
Southwestern Islands, 14 routes between 
mainland and islands   
PSO  
Depends 
on the 
route 
(normally 
at the 
beginning 
of the year) 
  
2-5 years  
Depends on 
the route 
(normally at 
the end of the 
year) 
 
EN 97   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
 
Gulf of Finland, 4 routes between 
mainland and islands  
PSO  
Depends 
on the 
route 
(normally 
at the 
beginning 
of the year) 
  
2-5 years  
Depends on 
the route 
(normally at 
the end of the 
year) 
  
      
 
 
Åland Islands, 3 routes 
  
PSC  
- 
  
5 years  
- 
 
  
FRANCE  
Mainland - Corsica 
(various routes) 
  
PSO  
-  
-  
- 
 
Marseille - Corsica 
  
PSC  
1/1/02 
  
  
5 to 7 years  
Still running 
 
Côtes d’Armor: 
Bréhat Island (3 routes)  
  
PSO / PSC  
31/8/05  
6 years  
30/8/11  
 
        
 
Finistère: 
Sein, Ouessant and Molène Islands  
PSC  
1/1/03 
  
6 years 
  
31/12/08 
 
 
EN 98   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
(7 routes)  
    
 
Finistère:  
Batz Island (1 route) 
  
PSC  
1/1/03 
  
6 years  
31/12/08 
 
Morbihan: 
Belle-Ile-en-Mer, Groix, Houat and 
Hoëdic Islands (5 routes)  
 
  
PSO / PSC  
1/1/01 
   
7 years 
   
31/12/07 
  
 
Morhiban:  
Vannes - Arz Island  
PSC 
 
  
 
 
PSC  
1/1/2007 
 
  
 
 
1/1/2006 
  
5 years 
 
  
 
 
6 years  
31/12/2011 
 
  
 
 
31/12/2011  
        
FRANCE 
   
 
        
 
Var: 
Hyères Islands (Porquerolles, Port-Cros 
and Le Levant Islands) 
(5 routes for passengers; 3 for goods; 2 
for transport of cars) 
  
PSC  
28/12/1990
  
20 years  
27/12/2009 
 
EN 99   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
 
  
  
Bouches du Rhône: 
Marseille - Frioul Island 
  
PSC  
4/5/2006  
12 years  
3/05/2018 
 
Ministry of Mercantile Marine: 22 routes 
  
PSO / PSC   
Most approx. 
1 year 
 
   
 
GREECE 
 
  
Ministry of Aegean and Aegean Policy: 
39 routes 
  
PSO / PSC   
Most approx. 
1 year  
 
 
ITALY 
  
19 national lines 
11 to Sardinia 
2 to Sicily 
2 to Sardinia and Sicily 
29 local lines to islands 
  
PSO / 
Conventional 
order  
1/1/1989  
20 years  
31/12/2008 
 
MALTA 
  
Cirkewwa-Mgarr (island of Gozo)  
PSO / PSC  
2004  
6 years  
2010 
 
  
Mainland Portugal to 
Islands of Madeira and Azores  
PSO  
-  
Continuity of 
the service 
must be 
guaranteed  
- 
 
EN 100   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
 for at least 2 
years. 
  
 
PORTUGAL 
  
Madeira Island: 
Funchal – Porto Santo 
  
PSC  
23/2/1996  
29 years and 
8 months  
11/11/2025 
 
Balearic Islands 
(21 routes: Peninsula to Balearic Islands 
+ Inter-islands connections) 
 
Canary Islands 
(18 routes: Peninsula to Canary Islands + 
Inter-islands connections) 
 
Ceuta and Melilla 
(4 routes: Peninsula to Ceuta and 
Melilla) 
  
PSO     
         
SPAIN 
 
 
Balearic Islands 
(6 routes: Valencia and Barcelona to 
Palma, Ibiza and Mahón) 
 
Canary Islands 
(1 route: Cádiz to Santa Cruz de 
Tenerife and Las Palmas) 
 
Ceuta and Melilla 
(3 routes: Algeciras to Ceuta and Melilla  
PSO / PSC  
1/10/2007  
5 years  
1/10/2011 
 
EN 101   EN  
Country  
Route / Area 
  
PSO / 
PSC 
  
Start 
date  
Duration  
Expiry 
date 
to Almeria and to Málaga). 
 
 
SWEDEN 
  
 
Mainland – Gotland 
2 routes: 
Visby – Nynashamn 
Visby – Oskarshamn 
  
 
PSC  
 
1/1/98  
 
4 +2 years  
 
31/12/03 
 
 
Ballycastle – Rathlin Island  
 
PSC  
 
2002  
 
2 years with 
scope for 
further 1 year 
extensions 
  
 
2008 
 
Northern isles 
 
Mainland –Orkney/ 
Shetland -2 routes 
  
PSC  
6/07/06  
6 years  
5/7/12 
 
Clyde and Western 
Isles -28 routes 
  
PSC  
1960 
(most 
recent 
Undertak.:
1995)  
Open ended  
None  
    
UNITED 
KINGDOM 
 
 
Gourock – Dunoon  
PSO / PSC  
2007/2008  
6 years  
2013/2014 
 
EN 102   EN  
Annex 4  
Handling the missing data in critical events  
Little quantitative data was available in relation to criti cal events that could evaluate clearly if there is 
a problem. Despite the incompleteness of the da ta, the following process was undertaken to produce 
sound estimates of the parameters of interest: 
(1) Main assumptions for handling missing data : 
(a) Number of passengers and number of trips (obtained from ShipPax) considered as the 
basis for comparison100; 
(b) Ship load factors are considered as constant and calculated as number of passengers / 
number of trips; 
(c) Quality of service is considered as constant; 
(d) Legal and regulatory framework do not  influence the level of services; 
(e) Passengers affected by critical events we re calculated by the number of events 
multiplied by the occupation factor (see point b). 
(2) Concepts adopted : 
• Two units were considered for the analysis 
• Country  
• Sample = universe = 17 countries 
• Operator 
• Sample = 113 operators (selected thr ough a non-probabilistic sampling method) 
• Universe = 240 operators (estimated from ShipPax Statistics) 
(3) Definitions applied : 
Valid countries and valid operators: questionnaires in  which quantitative data on critical events is 
available (13 operators from 5 countries); Valid countries and respective sample operators: tota l operators surveyed in the countries in which 
quantitative data on critical events is av ailable (31 operators in 5 countries); 
Valid countries and respective universe of operato rs: total operators in the countries in which 
quantitative data on critical events is av ailable (84 operators in 5 countries); 
Sample countries and sample operato rs: total operators surveyed in the country sample of the study 
(113 operators in 17 countries); Universe of countries and operators: universe of the study (240 operators in 17 countries). (4) Statistical procedures adopted
 (see Figure below): 
Handling of missing data (treatment of non-responses) in two levels 
– Level 1  – from valid countries and valid operators to valid countries and 
sample operators (done); 
– Level 2  – from valid countries and valid operators to sample countries and 
sample operators (not done); 
Extrapolation (from sample to universe) 
– Level 1  – from valid countries and sample operators to universe of countries 
to universe of operators (done); 
                                                 
100 Even so this should be treated with some cautio n as the data from ShipPax still has some missing data 
in some countries. Similarly there is no assurance that  this publication covers all of the operators in the 
different countries. 
 
EN 103   EN – Level 2  – from sample countries and sample operators to universe of countries 
and universe of operators (not done). 
The statistical procedure was only performed for Level 1  both in handling missing data and 
extrapolation from the sample of operators to the universe of operators. Only this first level of 
analysis, for the five valid countries, was perform ed because this procedur e presents the following 
gaps: 
(b) Low rate of answers by country; 
(c) Available data were rather poor; 
(d) Figures came from different sources.  
Despite the detected problems related with this pro cedure, this was the only way to get an idea of the 
(non-)existence of a problem in the valid countries. For this analysis, assumptions were made (these 
are the ones identified previously).  
Level 2  of the analysis, which includes: (a) handli ng the missing data from valid countries to the 
sampled countries and; (b) extrapolation from the sampled countries to the universe was not carried 
out, given the fact that it is not guaranteed that the assumptions101 made for the five countries, for 
which answers were received, can also be assumed for the universe (17 countries) 
(a) The analysis was then only on Level 1 given the fact that for Level 2 the result would 
be extremely unreliable. While at Level 1 it could be assumed that conditions are 
fairly similar (i.e. the legal and regulator y framework) and that company organisation 
does not influence the quality of service (i.e. quality certifications), the same 
assumption could not be made directly for the universe level.  
Overall picture of the rationale used to handle missing data  
 
 VA countries and 
VA operators 
13 operators
from 5 countriesVA countries 
and  
SA operatorsHandling of missing data
(level 1)
SA countries 
and SA operatorsHandling of missing data
(level 2)
VA countries 
and U of operators
84 operators
from 5 countries31 operators
from 5 countries
Extrapolation
(level 1)
U of countries
and U of operators 113 operatorsfrom 17  countries
240 operators
from 17 countriesExtrapolation
(level 2)
VA / U 
2% of passengers, 1% of trips !!!
Data collection Sampling Statistical analysisSA: sampled units of analysis (SA= VA+ NV)VA: sampled units of analysis with answers on CE)NV : sampled units of analysis with non response on CE)
NS : non sampled units of analysis
U: universe (U= SA + NS)
 Source: TiS Analysis (2006) 
                                                 
101 Assumptions made were related to legal framework,  quality of service provided by the operators, etc. 
 
EN 104   EN Annex 5  
Reasonable Accessibility and Reasonable accommodation  
Reasonable accessibility and reasonable accommodation are two related concepts that have to 
be understood within the "social model of disabi lity". They both contri bute to so lutions to 
compensate for impairments that persons with disabilities have when interacting with goods, 
services and infrastructures and when performing activities. 
Accessibility :  
Accessibility is a broad concep t, which addresses the removal and prevention of barriers that 
pose problems for persons with di sabilities in using products, se rvices and infrastructures on 
terms equal to those persons wit hout disabilities. Gene ral accessibility measures anticipate the 
most common problems experienced  by persons with disability. 
As accessibility usually concerns products, services and infrastructures that are intended to be 
purchased or used by more than one person, a "design for all" methodology is applied. 
In the case of maritime transport, it is necessary to preventively remove the most common 
barriers in the infrastructures, carriers and related se rvices that are already known. These will 
concern general preventive measures of physic al accessibility, access to information (before 
and during the trip; for example, in emergency s ituations deaf persons should be able to know 
the instructions provided to the passenge rs), and access to the ships themselves. 
However, general accessibi lity measures can not always cover all the needs that a particular 
person with disability has in order to give them the same access as other passengers (this could be, for example, because the necessary me asures would involve a disproportionate cost 
or simply because the need of the person is so specific that it was not known beforehand or it 
would not be cost effective to address it by applying general solutions ). Therefore, and in 
order to achieve the goal of equal access, ge neral accessibility measures need to be 
complemented by "reasonable accommodation". 
Reasonable accommodation:  
This notion refers to the specific appropriate  measures to be taken, where needed in a 
particular case, to enable a particular person wi th a disability to have  equal access to a product 
or a service. These measures complement the ge neral accessibility that is already available. 
Naturally, if the measures are disproportionate, then the carrier should  not be obliged to 
implement them. However, quite often those meas ures are cheap and easy to implement. In 
the context of maritime transpor t, they could involve providi ng instructions in writing to a 
deaf person, or physically carryi ng a person in a ship when the entry is too small to place a 
ramp, helping with the luggage, etc.  It is also important to have staff that is well trained and 
able to listen to the person's needs at a particul ar moment and react accordingly in the light of 
the possibilities to accommodate his needs. 
 
EN 105   EN  
Annex 6  
Passenger Rights in all modes of transp ort - correlation table (main provisions)  
 Air transport Rail transport Bus & coach 
transport Maritime transport 
LIABILITY 
AND 
INSURANCE Regulation(EC) 
2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents
102  
 
Regulation (EC) 
785/2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators
103 
 Regulation (EC) 
1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations
104 
  Draft Proposal for 
a 
Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council on the 
rights of passengers in bus and coach transport 
 
5
th Motor 
Insurance Directive
105 Proposal for a 
Council Decision concerning the conclusion by the European 
Community of the 
Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of 
Passengers and 
their Luggage by Sea, 1974
106 
Strict liability for death and injuries x  x  
Liability for 
loss or damage to the luggage x x x x 
Advance 
payments x x x  
Compensation 
for lost or 
damage mobility x x x x 
                                                 
102 Regulation (EC) No2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents 
OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p.1; as amended by  Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of 13 May 2002, OJ L 
140, 30.5.2002, p. 2.  
103 Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and 
aircraft operators, OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 1  
104 Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on 
rail passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14–41 
105 Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending 
Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the 
use of motor vehicles (OJ L 149/14 11.6.2005) 
106 COM(2003) 375  
 
EN 106   EN equipment 
Insurance x x x  
 
 Air transport Rail transport Bus & coach 
transport Maritime 
transport 
PERSONS WITH 
REDUCED 
MOBILITY Regulation (EC) No 
1107/2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons 
and persons with reduced 
mobility when travelling by air
107 Regulation (EC) No  
1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and 
obligations.  
 
 Draft Proposal
 
  
 
Non-discrimination 
on grounds of disability and reduced mobility x x x 
- 
information x x x - 
Ticket at no 
additional cost x x x - 
Assistance based on 
notification x x x - 
Assistance at 
airports/stations/ports/terminals x x x 
- 
Assistance onboard x x x - 
Assistance providers Airport managers 
Airlines Station managers 
Railway companies Coach 
terminal 
managers 
Bus and coach 
operators - 
Accessibility rules x x x - 
Quality standards x x - - 
Training of personnel x x x - 
                                                 
107 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 
concerning the rights of disabled persons and pers ons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, 
Text with EEA relevance. (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006 p.1) 
 
EN 107   EN  
 Air transport Rail transport Bus & coach 
transport Maritime 
transport 
DELAYS 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
108 Regulation (EC) No 
1371/2007  
 
 Draft Proposal 
 - 
Reimbursement x x x - 
Re-routing x x x - 
Financial 
compensation - x x - 
Assistance x x - - 
Information x x x - 
 
 Air transport Rail transport Bus & coach 
transport Maritime 
transport 
CANCELLATIONS Regulation (EC) No 
261/2004  Regulation (EC) No 
1371/2007  Draft Proposal  
  
Reimbursement x x x - 
Re-routing x - x - 
Financial 
compensation x - x - 
Assistance x x - - 
Information x - x - 
 
 Air transport Rail transport Bus & coach 
transport Maritime 
transport 
                                                 
108 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 
establishing common rules on compensation and as sistance to passengers in the event of denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text 
with EEA relevance) – (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1–8) 
 
EN 108   EN DENIED 
BOARDING Regulation (EC) No 
261/2004  
 
 No corresponding 
provisions No corresponding 
provisions  
Reimbursement x - - - 
Re-routing x - - - 
Financial 
compensation x - - - 
Assistance x - - - 
 
 Air transport Rail transport Bus & coach 
transport Maritime 
transport 
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT BODIES Regulation (EC) No 
261/2004  Regulation (EC) No 
1371/2007  Draft Proposal   
Enforcement & 
complaint handling x x x - 
Cooperation x x x - 
Reporting obligations - - x - 
Penal sanctions x x x - 
 
EN 109   EN  
Annex 7  
Overview of the national legal framework for the maritime passenger transport sector  
All passengers (PRMs included) 
In order to measure the national level of protection of passenger rights, countries could be categorised 
according to the legislation in place: 
• Lower level of protection : countries where there is only genera l law or consumer law establishing 
minimum general rights. 
• Moderate level of protection : there are some rules concerning maritime passenger transport which 
include the carrier’s liability in the event of passenger death or injury 
• Higher level of protection : countries where there is a regulation specifying the rights of maritime 
passenger users in cases of critical events  
Framework to categorise th e existing legal regimes 
Countries with a lower 
level of protection
Countries with a m oderate 
level of protection
Countries with a higher 
level of protectionGeneral Law
Consumer Law
Transport Law
Maritime Transport Law
Specific law regarding 
maritime passengers rights 
in case of critical events
 
Source: TiS Analysis (2006) 
According to the criteria explained above, the cat egorisation of the countries is given below. 
Countries with a lower level of 
protection Countries with a moderate level 
of protection Countries with a higher level of 
protection 
   
Malta Estonia Denmark 
Cyprus France Finland 
 Germany Italy 
 Ireland Poland 
 Netherlands Spain 
 Portugal Sweden 
  United Kingdom 
Source: Country Reports  Greece 
 
EN 110   EN Once there is an overview of the national law of e ach of the countries mentioned above, Details could 
be given of the measures which respectively and typically derive from their legal framework: 
 General Law 
Consumer Law Transport Law 
Maritime Transport 
Law Specific Rules regarding maritime 
passenger rights in case of critical 
events Matters concerned Mostly related to tour operators 
and travel agents liability in 
cases of inaccurate information or misleading advertising on services provided and failure to meet financial or contractual obligations towards consumers Rules about the 
contract of passage 
where liability issues regarding death, injuries of passengers and damage or luggage loss are addressed in a detailed 
way. Interruption, delay and cancellation, 
denied boarding and refused carriage. 
 
EN 111   EN Legal Measures - In case of non compliance or 
lack of information about the services provided: indemnity or compensation for the damages or 
loss caused to consumers (e.g. 
Malta) 
- In case of termination of the 
contract by the tour operator or the travel agent: the consumer can choose between the total reimbursement of expenses 
made or the participation in 
other organized trip (e.g. Portugal). 
 - Compensation for 
the damages or loss caused to passengers and their luggage (e.g. 
UK and Poland). - In case of delay and cancellation the 
passenger has the right to demand termination of the contract and the only compensation to be given is the 
return of any fare the passenger has 
paid, which is the only entitlement provided for by the national law of most of the countries (e.g. Spain, UK, Poland and Greece). 
- In case of interruption, passengers 
are entitled to terminate the contract 
and to be reimbursed for that part of 
the ticket price corresponding to the part of journey the carrier did not accomplish (e.g. Spain and Poland). However, in some countries the carrier is obliged to complete the journey and passengers are entitled to terminate the 
contract only if he has not fulfilled his 
obligation within a reasonable time (e.g. Nordic countries); 
- Even when passengers are entitled to 
some other compensation the amount will equal the economic loss (if any) caused by the critical event. Generally, 
the passenger's right to compensation 
depends on the carrier's or master's fault or neglect (e.g. Spain and Nordic countries). 
- In cases of refused carriage or denied 
boarding without reasonable grounds , the carrier is liable for the economic 
loss suffered by passengers, who are 
entitled to compensation if the carrier has acted negligently (Nordic countries) 
 
EN 112   EN PRMs National Legislation 
Overview of some Member Stat es legislation concerning PRM 
Greece : Ministerial directive for the transport of PRM on passenger sea vessels;  
Ireland  and UK: National Disability Act;  
Italy : Law indicating carrier obligations to provide special acce ss facilities to PRM;  
Malta : voluntary practices recommended by Ministry of Social Affairs regarding PRM;  
Netherlands : Act on Equal Treatment on the Grounds of Handicap or Chronic Illness;  
Spain : Law on Equality of Opportunities, Non Discrimination and Universal Accessibility. 
LIONDAU (Law 51/2003, 2 December), sets deadlin es to ensure compliance with certain "basic 
conditions" of accessibility regarding goods, servi ces, transport, buildings and public places.  
Other EU countries : EU legislation: Article 6(b) Direc tive 2003/24/EC on safety rules and standards 
for passenger ships is crucial when it com es to securing access to maritime transport  
Anti-discrimination laws  are present in some countries such as Sweden , UK, Ireland  and 
Netherlands . These rules are mainly administered by a public  authority and, to a certain extent, cover 
PRM access to maritime transport. It is uncertain, however, to what extent these regulations give a 
PRM the right to demand access to maritime transport and assistance if this is necessary. 
 
EN 113   EN  
Annex 8  
Policy option 2: Illustrative list of measu res to be taken for accessibility in ports  
 
The aim of this annex is to show a non- exhaustive sample of  possible measures,  
• The approach to the terminal should be fre e of steps and wheelch air-accessible. When 
needed, ramps and handrails should be provided. 
• The approach to the check-in should be d esigned to be accessible to passengers with 
reduced mobility. For instance, clear signag e should indicate a designated parking area or 
a pathway. 
• The entrance(s) should be clearly identifiable by means of appropriate lighting, signage 
etc. Entrance doors should be automatic and side-sliding. 
• The reception, ticket office and check-in should be well-signposted and wheelchair-
accessible. Induction loops should be provided at desks and in terminals. It is essential for 
all counters to include at least one position at a lower level. 
• Waiting areas should be adapted. Seats should be designed to meet the safety and comfort 
needs of elderly and disabled passengers. 
• Unisex wheelchair-accessible toilets shoul d be provided. Unisex wheelchair-accessible 
baby-care facilities, for feeding and nappy changing, should also be provided. 
• Assistance dogs should be permitted in restaurants and other catering areas; 
• Emergency alarm systems should be both audi ble and visual. Means of egress should be 
designed at least to the same standard as other circulating routes and facilities. 
• The walkway from the terminal to vessels should be free of steps and wheelchair-
accessible. When needed, ramps and handrails should be provided. 
• When courtesy bus services are provided, these should be accessible to passengers 
with reduced mobility or substitute services should be made available.
 
EN 114   EN Annex 9   
Minimum information Requirements  to be provided by maritime undertakings and/or ticket 
vendors109 
Pre-journey  
a. Conditions applicable to contract 
b. Time schedules and conditions for the fastest trip c. Time schedules and conditions for the lowest fares 
d. Accessibility and acce ss conditions for PRM 
e. Availability of seats for different patterns (smoking, classes) f. Any activities likely to disrupt or delay services 
g. Availability of on board services 
h. procedures for complaining in case of failure During the journey 
 
a. On board services 
b. Delays c. Connecting services 
d. Security and safety issues 
After journey
 
a. Procedures for complaining 
Ticket information  
a. Operator carrying out the service 
b. Validity of tickets (dates, services, classes) 
c. Conditions of use of the ticket (i.e. Validation) d. Price, including taxes and other charges 
Specific Information for PRMs
 
a. Availability of information in Braille (this can be a print version) b. Availability of staff to provide oral information 
                                                 
109 These requirements have been taken from Regula tion EC 1371/2007. OJ L 315/14, 3, December 2007 
on rail passengers rights and obligations, and they have been adapted to the necessities of the maritime 
sector.  
 
EN 115   EN In addition  to the information requirements mentioned above: Placards in port terminals making passengers 
aware that they have rights when they  choose a certain mode of transport and that they could complain in the 
event of non compliance with the contract established (i.e. a ticket), whether or nor there is any method of 
compensation .  
 
EN 116   EN Annex 10  
IMO STCW95 Code  
The IMO STCW95 Code specifies standards for trai ning for seafarers, including with regard to the 
specific needs of persons with reduced mobility.  
The Code is the result of the 1995 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification 
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which was signed by  all European Member States. Unfortunately so 
far, only a few European Member States, which incl ude the UK, Ireland and Ital y, have taken effective 
steps to comply with the Code.  
Sections A-V/2 and A-V/3 of the STCW95 IMO C ode set mandatory minimum requirements for the 
training and qualifications of masters, officers, ratings and other personnel on Ro-Ro passenger ships 
and on other passenger ships. The re levant requirements here are: 
• Crowd management training (including traini ng in the evacuation of disabled persons and 
persons needing special assistance). 
• Safety training for personnel providing direct  services in passenger spaces with a focus on 
communication skills. 
• Passenger safety training (including emba rking and disembarking passengers, with 
special attention to disabled persons and persons needing assistance). 
Case Study: Training for assistance to PRMs in Italy  
On 4th January 2007, Italy adopted Circular No.10/SM  that sets out specific provisions for the training 
of seafarers as regards assistance to PRMs. The Circular was based on the requirements laid down by STCW95 and on previous UK experience on the same matter. 
According to letter (f) of the new Circular, the tr aining to familiarize seafarers with PRMs issues has 
to cover the following topics: 
• information on PRMs problems and type of disabilities; 
• information on obstacles and barriers faced by PRMs; 
• procedures to remove obstacles and barriers; 
• methods available for evacuation of disab led persons and persons needing special 
assistance; 
• procedure for providing assistance to PRMs by means of specific facilities; 
• procedure for the utilization of mobility devices for PRMs. 
• training course developed by CONFITARMA 
Following the adoption by Italy of the above-menti oned Circular n.10/SM, Confitarma - the Italian 
Ship owners’ Confederation - has developed a spec ific training course for seafarers employed on 
passenger ships of its members. 
The main characteristics of the course are presented below: 
 
EN 117   EN • duration: 8 hours; 
• the maximum number of participants for class is 20 and the minimum is 10; 
• the course was developed in collaboration with  AIAS – Italian Association for Assistance 
to Spastics. 
• cost of the course per person: 100 Euro 
• if the course is not held in Naples, additiona l costs for travelling and hotels for instructors 
have to be taken into account: estimate of 1.000 Euro per class. 
• average total estimated cost per person: 150 Euro 
• seafarers that should undertake the course and estimation of costs 
• According to the STCW95 code, the training on assistance to PRMs should be aimed at 
deck personnel such as masters, officers, rati ngs and other personnel (stewards, etc) that 
may have direct contact with passengers. 
• The following table gives an estimate of th e number of persons employed in deck and 
hoteling mansions on board Italian ships. 
Table 1 Estimated jobs on board Italian ships of more than 100 GT (2005) 
Ship Categories Deck and Hoteling Engineering 
department Total 
Cruise 6.250 1.250 7.500
Ferries 5.500 1.560 7.060
Fast Units 650 50 700
Other RoPax 430 430 860
RoRo Cargo Ferries 600 600 1.200
All Passenger Ships 13.430 3.890 17.320
Source: PwC elaboration Confitarma estimations (2007) 
Based on this estimation, the number of seafarers that should be trained for providing on board 
assistance to PRMs totals 13.430. Thus in Italy, for th e first year, the total estimated cost for training is 
estimated to be 2.014.500 Euro. For the following year s, the cost will be considerably lower since the 
training will be limited only to the newly employed persons. 
 
EN 118   EN Annex 11  
Calculation of the administrative co sts to the Member State authorities  
The national enforcement body (NEB) de signated by each Member State will  also have to 
process complaints received in connection with maritim e passenger issues. Acco rding to the “Review 
of Regulation 261/2004”110 on air transport, the 25 NEBs reported they had received around 32 000 
complaints under the Regulation since it came into fo rce, which is equivalent to 44 complaints for 
every million passengers departing from EU airports. 
The resources available to NEBs to handle such co mplaints vary significantly. However, the average 
number of staff working in the EU on the enforcem ent of Regulation 261/2004, expressed in terms of 
full-time equivalents (FTEs), is 0.09 per million departing passengers. In order to estimate the 
potential number of complaints from passengers in ma ritime and inland waterway (IWW) transport, is 
been assumed that the rate of complaints in mar itime and IWW transport will be similar to that 
reported for air transport. 
Given that the number of passengers embarking and disembarking in European sea ports or IWW ports 
is calculated between 398 million (Eurostat) , and 511 million (ShipPax information)111, the number of 
complaints from passengers is estimated below.  
 A B  D E 
 Passenger port 
accesses No of trips  
(60% of A)  Complaints 
per passenger Total number of 
complaints 
1st scenario 
(Eurostat) 398 000 000 238 800 000  10 507 
2nd scenario 
(ShipPax) 511 000 000 306 600 000  0.0044% 
13 490 
Source: PwC analysis of Eurostat (2005), NEB (2007) 
Accordingly, we expect that the number of PR M complaints to be handled per year will be 
between 10 507 to 13 490. We further estimate th at the designated NEBs will have to employ 
at most 7.6 FTEs to handle these complaints  (not even one employee per Member State). 
Given that the average labour cost of an FT E employee in the public administration in the 
EU-27 was €32 600 per year in 2004112, the total cost of empl oying 7.6 extra FTEs will be 
€249 800.
                                                 
110 European Commission DG TREN: “Review of Regulation 261/2004”. The report was prepared by Steer 
Davies Gleave (February 2007). 
111 Source: DG TREN. These figures duplicate trips by considering both embarking and disembarking. It 
has therefore been assumed that the actual number of passenger trips could be 60% of the estimated 
traffic figures (60% rather than 50% because extra-EU transport is not double-counted). 
112 Eurostat Labour Market Survey (2004) 
 
EN 119   EN Annex 12  
Monitoring and evaluating system process  
Table 2 Monitoring and evaluation process 
Translation of the Commission’s 
Policy into operative actions to
be undertaken by single MemberStates
Carrying out of the actions
above
 and 
continuous monitoring of 
Member States’ actions in 
order to evaluate to what
extent policy’s objectives
are being pursuedIdentification of the actions
the Member States should
undertake to achieve the settled objectives
Periodic elaboration of 
reports based on the keyindicators identified in 
the Impact Assessment
Transmission of the 
reports to the CommissionReportingCONTROL SYSTEM
Planning
Control3
45Gap analysis between
objectives and reports’ results
Identification of possible
causes
Definition of necessary
interventions in order to fill the gaps and realign results to the 
objectives
Activities planning adjustmentTranslation of the Commission’s 
Policy into operative actions to
be undertaken by single MemberStates
Carrying out of the actions
above
Systematic and 
continuous monitoring of 
Member States’ actions in 
order to evaluate to what
extent policy’s objectives
are being pursuedIdentification of the actions
the Member States should
undertake to achieve the settled objectives
Periodic elaboration of 
reports based on the keyindicators identified in 
the Impact Assessment
Transmission of the 
reports to the CommissionMonitoring
ReportingCONTROL SYSTEMAction plan Implementation
Planning
Control3
4Evaluation5Gap analysis between
objectives and reports’ results
Identification of possible
causes
Definition of necessary
interventions in gaps and realign results to the 
objectives
Activities planning adjustment11 22
Translation of the Commission’s 
Policy into operative actions to
be undertaken by single MemberStates
Carrying out of the actions
above
 and 
continuous monitoring of 
Member States’ actions in 
order to evaluate to what
extent policy’s objectives
are being pursuedIdentification of the actions
the Member States should
undertake to achieve the settled objectives
Periodic elaboration of 
reports based on the keyindicators identified in 
the Impact Assessment
Transmission of the 
reports to the CommissionReportingCONTROL SYSTEM
Planning
Control3
45Gap analysis between
objectives and reports’ results
Identification of possible
causes
Definition of necessary
interventions in order to fill the gaps and realign results to the 
objectives
Activities planning adjustmentTranslation of the Commission’s 
Policy into operative actions to
be undertaken by single MemberStates
Carrying out of the actions
above
Systematic and 
continuous monitoring of 
Member States’ actions in 
order to evaluate to what
extent policy’s objectives
are being pursuedIdentification of the actions
the Member States should
undertake to achieve the settled objectives
Periodic elaboration of 
reports based on the keyindicators identified in 
the Impact Assessment
Transmission of the 
reports to the CommissionMonitoring
ReportingCONTROL SYSTEMAction plan Implementation
Planning
Control3
4Evaluation5Gap analysis between
objectives and reports’ results
Identification of possible
causes
Definition of necessary
interventions in gaps and realign results to the 
objectives
Activities planning adjustment11 22
 
Source: PwC analysis of EU Im pact Assessment guidelines 
 
EN 120   EN Annex 13  
The influence of PRM measures on ticket  fares: The United Kingdom experience  
UK Disability Discrimination Act 1995 
In 1995 the UK adopted the Disability Discrimination Act ( DDA), which aims to eliminate discrimination against 
disabled people. The duties on service providers under Pa rt 3 of DDA 1995 have been introduced in three stages: 
Since 1996 it has been unlawful for service providers to: 
treat disabled people less favourably than other pe ople for reasons related to their disability.  
Since October 1999 service providers, have been required to take reasonable steps to: 
change any practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably di fficult for disabled people 
to use a service; and 
provide an auxiliary aid or service which woul d enable disabled people to use a service. 
Since 1 October 2004 service providers have been  required by law to take reasonable steps: 
to ensure that any physical feature that makes it impossi ble or unreasonably difficult fo r a disabled person to use a 
port should be removed or altered or a reasona ble means of avoiding it  should be provided. 
1. As indicated in the table above, most of  the investment by industry operators to 
comply with DDA 1995 was needed by the end of 1999 and by October 2004. 
2. Table below and Figure 1 show the fluctu ation in the consumer price index for 
passenger transport services by sea and inland waterway in the UK and EU-27, 
taking 2000 as the reference year.  
Consumer price index for “Passenger transport by se a and inland waterway” in the UK and EU-27 (2000 = base 
year) 
  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
United Kingdom 100 108.1 111.8 122.1 118.1 109.3 116.9 
EU-27   100 104.9 109.6 112.6 110.4 110.1 116.9 
Source: PwC analysis of Eurostat harmonise d indices of consumer prices (2007) 
3. As shown in Figure 1, prices for these types of transport services increased more in 
the UK than in the EU-27 for the period until 2003. After 2003, prices decreased more rapidly in the UK than in the EU-27. Finally, it is very interesting to note that in 2006 the prices for maritim e passenger transport servi ces were 16.9% higher than 
in 2000, with no difference between the UK and the EU-27. 
Figure 1 Consumer price index for “P assenger transport by sea and inland waterway” in the UK and EU-27 (2000 = 
base year) 
 
EN 121   EN 80859095100105110115120125
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006United Kingdom
EU 27 
 
Source: PwC analysis of Eurostat harmonise d indices of consumer prices (2007) 
4. Price variations for a specific transport service can be explained by many exogenous 
factors such as inflation, oil price fluc tuation, labour cost, or development of new 
technologies. However, over the six-year pe riod considered, all th e above factors are 
likely to have had a similar influence on both the EU-27 market and the UK market, 
which is a part of it. Therefore, it can be deduced that the extra costs borne by UK 
terminal and ship operators in order to  comply with DDA 1995 did not result in any 
significant increase in ticket fares. 
 
EN 122   EN Annex 14  
Bibliography and documentation us ed for this impact assessment  
Deloitte Touche. Tourism for All in Europe. 1993. 
European Commission. Communica tion from the Commission to the European Parliament 
and the Council — Strengthening passenge r rights within the European Union. 
COM/2005/0046 final. 
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European 
Parliament, the European Economic and Social  Committee and the Comm ittee of the Regions 
— Situation of disabled people in the enlarged  European Union: the European Action Plan 
2006-2007. COM/2005/0604 final. 
European Commission. A Single Market for Ci tizens — interim repor t to the 2007 Spring 
European Council. Brussels. COM (2007) 60, 21.2.2007. 
European Commission, Director ate-General for Transport: COST 335 — Passengers’ 
Accessibility of Heavy Rail Systems . 1999. 
European Commission, Direct orate-General for Transpor t and Energy. Evaluation and 
monitoring of trends with rega rd to passenger needs on the leve l of service and treatment of 
passengers (“EU Service Guaran tees — EUSG”). December 2006. 
European Commission, Director ate-General for Transport a nd Energy. Maritime and inland 
waterway transport, Intermodality, Short Sea Shipping, Inland Waterway, and Ports “Public 
Financing and Charging Practices of Seaports in the EU”. Bremen. 2006b. 
European Commission, Director ate-General for Transport a nd Energy. Maritime passenger 
traffic in Europe: a picture of the ferry and RoRo sector. 2007. 
IMO. Circular MSC/735: “Recommendation on th e design and operation of passenger ships to 
respond to elderly and disabled  persons’ needs”. June 1996. 
INFRAS/IWW. External costs of transport. 2004 PricewaterhouseCoopers. Analysis  of data from Eurostat a nd One-Stop-Shop for Accessible 
Tourism in Europe (OSSATE): “Accessibility Market and Stakeholder Analysis” (October 
2005). 
PricewaterhouseCoopers. Preparatory study in  view of an impact assessment on a 
Commission proposal on the right s of passengers with reduced mobility when travelling by 
sea and inland waterway. October 2007. 
SEER, Barry R. “Discrimination begins at ho me: The case for universal  design of private 
housing”. 2002. 
TiS.pt. Analysis and assessment of the level of protection of  passenger rights in the EU 
maritime transport sector. Lisbon, October 2006. 
 
EN 123   EN Steer Davies Gleave. Assessment of contract conditions and preferential tariff schemes, 
September 2008