Communication from the Commission on the enhanced safety of passenger ships in the Community
Date: 2002-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, carriage of passengers, maritime safety, maritime transport, safety standard, transport safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 25.03.2002
COM(2002) 158 final

2002/0074 (COD)
2002/0075 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

on the enhanced safety of passenger ships in the Community

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998, on safety rules and standards
for passenger ships

(presented by the Commission)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

on the enhanced safety of passenger ships in the Community

1.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In this Communication, the Commission proposes a set of measures aiming at improving the
existing Community legislation on the safety of passenger ships, in line with policy objectives
outlined in the Commission’s White Paper on Transport Policy.1 The measures proposed in
the present communication include a proposal on specific stability requirements for ro-ro
passenger ferries and a revision of Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for
passenger ships. It also presents the Commission’s line of thinking in relation to the liability
regime for carriers of passengers by sea and the on-going revision of the IMO Athens
Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974.

In the 1993 Communication on a common policy on safe seas,2 the Commission highlighted
the need for a number of measures to improve and to harmonise the safety regime which
applies to passenger vessels. A series of tragic accidents involving passenger ships in EU
waters further emphasised the need to take measures in this area.3 Within a time span of only
a few years the Community undertook a major reinforcement of its legislation on safety of
passenger vessels. In particular, four new Community instruments were introduced in order to
ensure equal safety standards on all passenger ships in the Community4, particular
requirements on ro-ro ferry services5, better information about passengers travelling on board
passenger ships6 and an early implementation of the ISM Code on passenger ships.7

The process of implementing these measures and evaluating their effectiveness showed
certain shortcomings and confirmed that the aim of achieving harmonised rules for all
passenger ships entering or leaving an EU port has not yet been fully achieved. A process of
evaluating the passenger safety regime with a view to proposing improvements had already
started, when the latest European tragedy involving a passengers ferry, the Express Samina
accident in Greece, underlined the need for Member States and the Commission to increase
their efforts in order to avoid such accidents from happening again.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

include the constant

White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide COM(2001)370 of 12/09/2001. The
priorities outlined in this document
improvements of shipping safety,
improvements to the transport of citizens and their rights as passengers in the different transport modes.
Commission Communication for a common policy on maritime safety COM(93)66 of 24.2.1993.
See e.g. Council Resolution of 22 December 1994 on the safety of ro-ro passenger ferries, OJ C 379 of
31.12.1994.
Council Directive 98/18/EC, of 17 March 1998, on safety rules and standards for passenger ships,
OJ L 144 of 15.5.1998, p.1.
Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe
operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high speed passenger craft services, OJ L 138 of 1.6.1999, p.1.
Council Directive 98/41/EC, of 18 June 1998 on the registration of persons on board passenger ships
OJ L 188 of 2.7.1998, p. 35.
Council Regulation No. 3051/95/EC, of 8 December 1995 on the safety management of roll-on/roll-off
passenger ferries (ro-ro ferries) OJ L 320 of 30.12.1995, p.14, amended by Commission Regulation
(EC) No. 179/98 of 23 January 1998 OJ L 19 of 24.1.1998, p.35.

2

Furthermore, the developments in the construction of passenger vessels, more particularly
their increasing size (up to 150.000 gross tons) and passengers capacity (up to 5.000
passengers and crew), is being closely followed by the Commission. In fact a number of
questions have been raised regarding the adequacy of the presently applicable construction
and operational safety standards for very large passenger vessels. IMO is now analysing this
subject at technical level and in the light of this work and subsequent analysis at Community
level, the Commission will propose further initiatives in the area of safety and security of
passenger vessels during the second half of 2002.

2.

SPECIFIC STABILITY REQUIREMENTS
OPERATING TO OR FROM EU PORTS

FOR RO-RO PASSENGER VESSELS

2.1.

Background

The stability of passenger vessels following a collision is of key importance for the safety of
ro-ro passenger ships. The longer a ship remains afloat in case of serious damage, the more
efficient will the evacuation of passengers and crew and search and rescue operations be. This
consideration becomes even more important in view of the escalating size of ro-ro ships
serving Community ports and the increasing number of passengers and crew they carry.
Indubitably, one of the major dangers for a ro-ro ship with an enclosed ro-ro deck is the effect
of a build-up of significant amount of water on that deck.

At international level, the principal standard regulating the stability of ro-ro passenger vessels
is the so-called SOLAS 90 standards, which implicitly address the effect of water entering the
ro-ro deck in a moderate sea state with significant wave height in the order of 1.5 metres.8 These
standards are also applied to domestic EU trades, by means of Directive 98/18/EC.

In February 1996, in the aftermath of the Estonia disaster in the Baltic Sea, eight European
States (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United
Kingdom) agreed, through a special agreement, the “Stockholm Agreement”,9 to introduce
specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships. The key idea of the Stockholm
Agreement is that a ship should be designed to resist capsize even when a certain quantity of
water has made its way to the ro-ro deck. The technical requirements of the Agreement go
beyond those that had been established in the SOLAS 90 standards as they increase the
survivability of the vessels in more severe sea states, by upgrading the SOLAS requirements to
take into account also the effect of water which could accumulate on the ro-ro deck following
damage.

The stability requirements are applicable to all ro-ro passenger ships, irrespective of flag,
operating on regular scheduled international voyages carrying passengers between designated
ports to or from designated ports in the area covered by it. In addition, all Parties to the
Stockholm Agreement have currently extended its application to equivalent domestic trades.

8

9

Furthermore, Directive 1999/35/CE on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular
ro-ro ferry and high speed passenger crafts provides in its article 4.1.e that ro-ro ferries shall fulfil the
specific stability requirements adopted at regional level, when operating in the region covered by such
regional rules.
Agreement concerning specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships undertaking regular
scheduled international voyages between or to or from designated ports in North West Europe and the
Batic Sea, Annexed to IMO circular letter N° 1891 of 29 April 1996.

3

2.2.

The Commission’s position

At
the conclusion of the Diplomatic Conference at which the Stockholm Agreement was
adopted, the Commission issued a statement, taking note of the Agreement concluded and
expressing the opinion that the same level of safety should be ensured for all ro-ro passenger
ships operating in similar conditions. Noting that the Agreement is not applicable in other parts
of the Community, the Commission announced its intention to examine the prevailing local
conditions, under which ro-ro passenger ferries sail in all European waters and examine the
effects of the application of the Stockholm Agreement in the region covered by it. The statement
concluded that in the light of this examination the Commission would take a decision with regard
to the need for further initiatives in this area.

the Commission has examined the extent and effect of the
Following its commitment,
application of the Stockholm Agreement concerning specific stability requirements for ro-ro
passenger ships and the suitability of extending its scope of application to European waters not
covered by it. This analysis was finalised in 2001 and the main findings, which are based on
inputs from various sources including a specific study contracted by the Commission, may be
summarised as follows:

• Wave heights in the Mediterranean are comparable to those of the Baltic Sea, while wave
heights in the Eastern Atlantic (the Atlantic coast of France, Spain and Portugal) are
comparable to those of the North Sea and Channel area. Factors relating to visibility and
water temperature are generally more favourable in the Mediterranean than in the area
covered by the Stockholm Agreement, but on the other hand waves tend to be steeper in
the Mediterranean. In conclusion, the wave heights in the South European waters are
comparable to those in the North.

• The implementation of the Stockholm Agreement did not cause major problems for the
industry or the contracting governments involved. A significant number of the ships
concerned did not need any upgrade at all. 69% of the totality of 140 vessels concerned
€
were upgraded for less than
85 million, but the main part of those costs related to the accelerated compliance with
SOLAS 90 standards, rather than just to compliance with the Stockholm Agreement as
such.

1 million. The estimated total cost of upgrade was around

€

• The modification cost of the Southern European fleet for compliance with the provisions of
the Stockholm Agreement would be approximately the same as those associated with
compliance with the SOLAS 90 requirements. Since full compliance with SOLAS
Regulations in any event is due to take place in the coming years, on the basis of the IMO
timetable (international trades) and Directive 98/18/CE (domestic EU trades), the industry
should already have foreseen investments in upgrading the vessels concerned.

• The introduction of the additional requirements of the Stockholm Agreement for the South
European vessels will offer uniformity of stability requirements throughout the EU and
thus increased safety level in the Community.

In light of the above, the Commission considers that the division of north/south as regards
stability requirements for
ro-ro vessels in damaged condition (Stockholm Agreement
standards in the North and SOLAS 90 standards in the South) is unjustified, as regards both
safety parameters and techno-economic reasons. For these reasons the Commission proposes
a Directive implementing the specific stability requirements of the Stockholm Agreement to
all ro-ro passenger ships operating on international trades in the EU. This initiative has the

4

advantage of providing increased safety of passenger ships in the Community and creating
uniformity in the regulation of passenger vessels in international trades. The proposal is
attached in Annex I to this Communication.

Taking into account that operating conditions for ro-ro passenger ships in domestic voyages
in the Member States are often similar to those in international voyages, the Commission also
proposes to revise Council Directive 98/18/EC in order to introduce the same or equivalent
stability standards for ro-ro ships operating in domestic voyages.

3.

REVISION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/18/EC OF 17 MARCH 1998 ON SAFETY RULES
AND STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER SHIPS

3.1.

Introduction

Although Council Directive 98/18/EC on Safety Rules and Standards for Passenger ships10 is
a relatively recent Directive, a number of problems have already emerged in relation to its
implementation. The Commission therefore considers it appropriate to propose certain
amendments to it. The proposed revision would mainly concentrate on a strengthening of
certain key parts of the Directive and simplification of some of its provisions. The proposal is
attached in Annex 2 to this Communication and includes the following amendments.

3.2.

Publication of the lists of sea areas (Article 4.2)

Article 4 of Directive 98/18/EC provides for the definition of sea areas in different categories
for the purpose of limiting the scope of traffic for different categories of vessels. Paragraph 2
of the article lays down a procedure for notification by Member States of such sea areas to the
Commission. Once the sea areas have been approved by the Commission, assisted by the
Committee, they shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Experience with the implementation of this article has pointed at a number of problems. Part
of these problems have been of a legal nature, in that Member States have interpreted the
meaning of the article in very different ways. In addition, there have been serious delays in
the notification of sea areas. At a more technical level, the format chosen by some Member
States for presenting the list of sea areas has been unsuitable for the purpose of publication in
the Official Journal. Given that that the classification of sea areas is a crucial aspect of the
effective implementation of the Directive as a whole,
these shortcomings need to be
overcome.

The Commission therefore proposes a new Internet-based procedure for the notification and
publication of sea areas, which would make the procedure more clear and simple while at the
same time bringing more transparency into the system, as the information would be more
easily available to the parties concerned.

3.3.

Derogation for Greece

Article 6.3.g includes a derogation for existing Class A or Class B vessels operating in
Greece. The derogation gives these vessels an opportunity to operate without complying with
the safety requirements of the Directive until they reach the age of 35 years, whilst the age of
compliance with this Directive from 2007 would be considerably lower for other vessels.

10

OJ L144, 15.5.1998, p. 1.

5

For the purpose of this extension, Greece was required to notify the Commission of the details
of each such ship, and those details were to be published in the Official Journal. This list was
published with a Commission decision of 24.6.199911 and revealed that only a very limited
number of ships were concerned by the derogation. In addition to the limited practical
relevance of the derogation, its political significance has been greatly reduced. For these
reasons, the Commission proposes to delete the derogation clause for passenger vessels
operating in Greek waters as from 1.1.2005.

3.4.

High Speed Craft Code 2000

Directive 98/18/EC currently applies the High Speed Craft (HSC) Code12 in full to all high
speed craft operating on domestic services. Since the Directive was adopted, however, an
additional High Speed Code has been elaborated for new ships. This new HSC 2000 code was
adopted on 5 December 2000 and applies to all new vessels whose keels are laid or which are
at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 July 2002.13 The HSC 2000 does not replace the
previous code older high speed vessels, but applies to new vessels only.

In order to keep up with these developments at international level, the Commission proposes
amend Directive 98/18/EC, to enable the HSC Code 2000 to be made applicable through
amendments to the Directive developed through the Comitology procedure. This requires an
amendment of article 8.a of the Directive. This would ensure the same flexible method for
amendments of the Directive in relation to developments international legislation for both
passenger ships and high speed craft code, which is currently not the case.

3.5.

Stability requirements and phasing out for Ro-Ro Passenger Vessels

The first legislative proposal of this communication on passenger ship safety introduces
specific stability requirements on ro-ro passenger ships operating on international routes
to/from EU portsby 1 October 2010 at the latest. To ensure consistent levels of safety between
international and domestic trade, the amendments to Directive 98/18/EC also include a
proposal for applying these or equivalent stability requirements to ro-ro ships operating
domestically.

To encourage compliance with the stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships operating
in different types of sea areas under the same sea conditions, the Commission proposes that
the specific stability requirements shall apply to all new ro-ro passenger ships of classes A, B
and C as from 1 October 2004. For new ro-ro passenger ships of class D, the application of
the specific stability requirements is not justified, due to the restricted operational conditions
applying to these ships. However, taking into account the difficulties that can be encountered
in upgrading existing vessels of classes A and B, the Commission proposes to introduce as an
alternative the possibility of phasing out such vessels at the age of 30 years if the specific
stability requirements cannot be complied with. The same phasing out possibility shall apply
to existing ro-ro passenger ships of classes C and D, unless they fully comply with the
stability requirements set out in paragraph II-1/B/8 of Annex I of the Directive. This means
full compliance of these vessels with the SOLAS 90 stability requirements, an obligation from
which they are presently exempted.

11

12

13

OJ L180, 24.6.1999, p. 5.
“International Code for Safety of High Speed Craft”, IMO Resolution MSC 36(63) of 20 May 1994.
“International Code for Safety of High Speed Craft, 2000 (2000 HSC Code)”, IMO Resolution MSC
97(73) of 5 December 2000.

6

The requirements/options for ro-ro vessels trading in the 4 types of domestic sea areas
(classes A, B, C and D) are presented in a summarised way in the following table:

Class of ship

Stability requirements

Transitional measures for
existing ships

New class A, Class
B and class C ro-ro
ships, built on or
after
1 October 2004.

Same rules as for ships trading in
international
apply.
voyages
to
the specific stability
Introduction of
requirements (Stockholm Agreement).

New class D ro-ro
ships.

SOLAS 90 stability requirements apply
(Annex I/II-1/B/8).

Existing class A
and class B ro-ro
ships, built prior to
1 October 2004.

Existing class C
and class D ro-ro
ships, built prior to
1 October 2004.

Same rules as for ships trading in
international voyages to apply. Specific
(Stockholm
stability
Agreement)
by
1 October 2010.

requirements

introduced

stability

SOLAS
(Annex
1 October 2010.

90
I/II-1/B/8)

requirements
by

introduced

In case of non compliance by
1/10/2010, phasing out on the
date ro-ro ships reach the age
of 30 years. However, final
for phasing out:
deadline
1 January 2015.

In case of non compliance by
1/10/2010, phasing out on the
date ro-ro ships reach the age
of 30 years. However, final
deadline
for phasing out:
1 January 2015.

3.6.

Safety requirements for passengers with reduced mobility

Demographic change of the population of the European Union is contributing to an ageing
population. A larger proportion of society, and hence a larger potential transport service
consumer group, will in the future have some form of reduced mobility, due to old age or a
disability. Making passenger vessels operating on domestic services safe and accessible for
people with reduced mobility (PRM14) is therefore increasingly relevant, as the number of
persons directly benefiting from increased accessibility can be up to 30% of the population.
Designing passengers ships for all passengers,
including those with reduced mobility,
furthermore means making the ship safer and more user-friendly for all passengers.

The European Commission’s White Paper titled “European Transport Policy for 2010: time to
decide” states that : “Successful intermodality depends also on easy access to all transport
modes. In this context, it is important that account be taken of the difficulties encountered by
people with reduced mobility who use public transport, for whom changing to one mode to

14

Definition of a person with reduced mobility in Directive 2002/xx/EC relating to “special provisions for
vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s
seat, amending Directives 70/156/EEC and 97/27/EC” reads: “Passenger with reduced mobility” means
all people who have a difficulty when using public transport, such as disabled people (including people
with sensory and intellectual impairments, and wheelchair users), people with limb impairments, people
of small stature, people with heavy luggage, elderly people, pregnant women, people with shopping
trolleys, and people with children (including children seated in push chairs).

7

another can sometimes be a real obstacle”15. Article 13 of the EC Treaty furthermore calls for
measures to combat discrimination on among other grounds, disability and age, and other
recent Community legislation and Commission proposals16 include access for people with
reduced mobility as a requirement for operation.

Examples of barriers on passenger ships facing people with reduced mobility are: physical
access when boarding, moving to and from car deck, access to on board facilities, lack of
access to information about safety (escape routes, emergency announcements) and access to
accommodation areas.

The Commission proposes the insertion of a new article in the Directive regarding safety
requirements for passengers with reduced mobility, and an additional annex including
guidelines for this purpose. These safety requirements cover all classes of vessels, both new
and existing, although the solutions will vary depending on the size and type of the ship. The
development of specific technical requirements should be left to the Member States, in
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Consultation by Member States of organisations
representing people with reduced mobility is crucial. Although it is considered that taking into
account these safety guidelines at the design stage is thought to include no significant
additional costs, it is recognised in the proposed new article that adaptations of existing
vessels may be costly, and a safeguard against adaptations that impose an unreasonable
economic burden on the shipowner is therefore built into the Directive. In this context, the
Commission also proposes that it should be possible to amend Annex II and III with the
assistance of the Committee.

4.

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS BY SEA

4.1.

Introduction

The liability for damage caused to passengers carried by sea is not subject to fully harmonised
rules, neither at international nor European level. There is no Community legislation in this
field and the protection of passengers varies between Member States, depending on what
international conventions, and which amendments to them, have been ratified by the State in
which the claim is settled. Consequently, maximum compensation amounts for death or
personal injury to a passenger show great variations within EU Member States. In addition,
none of the applicable conventions or protocols stipulates a strict liability for the carrier or an
obligation for carriers to take out insurance to meet claims from passengers.

Given the importance of adequate and uniform protection of passengers carried by sea, the
Commission considers that the present state of affairs is untenable. The need for a passenger
liability regime in shipping is accentuated by the fact that the size and passenger carrying
capacity of ferries and cruise liners continues to increase and that there are ever-more
operators in this market, which continues to grow as people increasingly have more time and
money to spend on travel and holidays. A uniform and adequate passenger liability regime
should therefore form an integral part of the Community legal framework for passenger ships.
This is all the more so as the Community, through Regulation 2027/97/EC on air carrier

15

16

White Paper “European transport policy for 2010 : time to decide”, COM(2001)370 final of 12.9.2001.
See e.g. Directive 2001/XX/EC quoted in footnote 12 and Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and the Council on action by Member States concerning public service requirements and the
award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway(COM(2000)7
final of 26.7.2000).

8

liability in case of accidents, has already established a comprehensive EU-wide passenger
liability regime for air carriers.

This section puts forward the Commission’s views on the key elements of a workable
maritime passenger liability regime. Such a regime shall, in the view of the Commission be
put in place within the EU within a near future. The introduction of a regime at EU-level,
coincides with the revision on the international rules on the liability for carriers of passengers
by sea at international level. It is considered that if the international regime satisfies, or at
least does not prevent the application of all the key elements outlined below, it is preferable to
implement the EU-regime within the context of the international rules. Should, however, the
international regime fail
the
Commission is of the opinion that the importance of the matter requires specific Community-
wide initiatives and will put forward a proposal to that effect before the end of this year.

those expectations or be significantly delayed,

to meet

4.2.

Background

4.2.1.

Shipping

The principal international convention governing the liability of carriers of passengers by sea
is the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea,
1974 (hereinafter the Athens Convention), which establishes a regime of liability for damage
suffered by passengers on seagoing vessels. The Athens Convention establishes a fault-based
liability regime, in which the carrier can limit his liability unless he acted “with intent to
cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably
result”. This limit of liability is set at 46,666 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) (about
67,000)
per passenger in case of death or personal injury. As far as loss of or damage to luggage is
concerned, the carrier’s limit of liability varies, depending on the nature and the location of
the luggage. The Athens Convention entered into force in 1987 and is now ratified, or
acceded to, by 26 States, including six EU Member States,17 representing one third of the
world’s seagoing tonnage. The main reason for the relatively low number of ratification
among EU Member States is that the convention limits are considered to be too low. Efforts
to raise the limits were made in the late 1980’s, but the resulting 1990 Protocol is not widely
ratified and has not entered into force.

€

In view of the generally unsatisfactory situation as regards the compensation of passengers on
seagoing vessels, the Legal Committee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
decided to carry out a review of the Athens Convention. One of the underlying purposes of
the revision was to ensure at least a similar level of protection for passengers as that provided
by the revised air passenger liability regime, while taking into account the specific operational
and insurance conditions of the shipping industry. The Commission participates in this work
of the IMO, the outcome of which is more fully presented in Section 4.4 below.

There is currently no Community legislation on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea.
When considering such a regime, the corresponding legislation in the aviation sector therefore
serves as a useful reference point.

17

The EU Member States which have ratified the Athens Convention are: Belgium, Greece, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom. In addition, the Nordic States apply the substance of the
convention, but with the limits of its 1990 Protocol.

9

4.2.2.

Aviation

At Community level Regulation 2027/97/EC establishes a liability regime for air carriers in
the event of accidents. It only applies to carriers established in the Community and provides
for unlimited liability of the carrier in case of death or injury of passengers, which is divided
into two tiers. For claims totalling under 100.000 Special Drawing Rights (around
143.000)
per passenger, the carrier is prevented from using the legal defence that he took all possible
measures to avoid the accident. Regulation 2027/97 further specifies that carriers shall be
insured up to the limits of the strict liability and beyond that up to a ‘reasonable level’. The
Regulation does not cover damage to luggage.

€

At international level a uniform set of rules has been agreed through the adoption of the 1999
Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air
(the Montreal Convention). This convention, which is not yet in force, is similar to the
existing Community regime as regards claims for death and injury for passengers, but is
broader in scope as it includes, among other things, provisions on liability for damage to
luggage and cargo. The Montreal Convention also includes an obligation for States Parties to
require carriers to maintain “adequate insurance covering their
this
Convention”.

liability under

Efforts are currently underway to align the Community regime to the Montreal Convention,
by including claims for loss of or damage to luggage and delay into its scope and to pave the
way for the Community and the Member States jointly to become parties to the Montreal
the simultaneous
Convention. According to the conclusions reached by the Council,
ratification of the Convention by the Community and the Member States shall take place
before the end of 2002.

4.3.

The Commission’s view

4.3.1.

Introduction

The Commission is of the firm opinion that the liability regime which applies for passengers
carried by sea needs to be updated and strengthened in favour of passengers. Many features of
the Athens Convention as it stands are outdated and fail to meet the expectations of citizens
travelling on passenger ships in Community waters and beyond. The adequate protection of
passengers is particularly important as regards compensation for damage relating to death or
personal injury, which is also the focus of Regulation 2027/97/EC on air carriers’ liability.

It has to be acknowledged, however, that there are a number of relevant differences between
the two modes of transport, which imply different solutions for the respective liability
regimes. Those differences include the way in which passengers spend their time during the
carriage, the way in which carriers are organised and arrange their insurance and the way the
two industries themselves view matters related to liability. Because of these and other
divergences,
it would not necessarily be practicable or even desirable to implement an
identical passenger liability system for the two modes of transport. For example, the large and
ever-increasing number of passenger ship carriers, not all of whom are well-known, calls for
very specific insurance requirements in the maritime sector. Similarly, coverage of all
carriers, irrespective of the flag of the vessel, is crucial if the maritime passenger liability
regime is to be effective.

In order to ensure adequate protection of passengers, certain key principles have to be
incorporated in a Community maritime passenger liability regime. At least the six features

10

outlined below should, in the view of the Commission, form part of an EU-wide maritime
passenger liability regime.

4.3.2.

Strict liability

Strict liability is aimed at improving the position of claimants, as the liability is not dependent
on an act of fault or negligence by the carrier. In contrast to the liability regime that applies in
the aviation sector, none of the applicable maritime passenger liability conventions provides
for a liability of the carrier for death or personal injury which is totally independent of fault
on his part.18 Frequently, this difference between the modes of transport has been justified by
reference to the contrasts between the roles of a passenger on board a passenger ship or a
cruise ship and an air passenger. While the latter normally is expected to remain seated for the
is
main part of the voyage, the passenger on board a ship, in particular a cruise ship,
considerably more mobile and active and has more time and opportunities to engage in acts of
contributory negligence. A cruise ship passenger may often be more comparable to a
customer in a restaurant, discotheque, hairdresser or spa. Since none of those service
providers is normally subject to strict liability, it has been considered unfair to place such a
burden on the carrier of passengers by sea. In support of this view, it has been stated that
some 90 per cent of the passenger claims in the marine sector are claims by one or a few
passengers, while claims in the aviation sector, when they arise, tend to involve all or most
passengers on board the aircraft.

Nevertheless, that line of reasoning fails to take into account passenger vessel accidents that
origin in causes which are beyond the control of the passengers on board. Such incidents,
including shipwreck, grounding, collision, fire etc. are fully comparable to typical accidents in
the aviation sector and should be regulated accordingly. For this reason, the Commission, like
text of the new Protocol to the Athens Convention, considers that a
the present draft
distinction should be made between two categories of claims. Damage which is caused by the
operation of the ship and where the possibility of passengers to control the events typically is
very limited (‘shipping incidents’) should be subject to a strict
liability regime while a
negligence-based liability system may suffice for other types of personal injury damage
incurred on board.

4.3.3.

Sufficient limits of liability

The Commission accepts that the strict liability of the carrier could be subject to maximum
limits, in particular as the regime in order to be effective needs to be coupled with rigorous
insurance requirements. Such limits, however, need to be set at a limit which is deemed
sufficiently high, in particular as regards death and personal injury claims.

The determination of an adequate limit is complicated by the generally limited availability of
statistical information on the costs of passenger ship accidents. Generally speaking, despite a
series of tragic ferry accidents in European waters, there are few known cases, out of those
already settled, indicating manifest shortcomings in the compensation regime for seaborne
passengers. This, however, may be taken as an indication of flexible insurance practices rather
than evidence in favour of the adequacy of the current maximum limits. In the view of the
fair compensation of passengers should minimise the reliance on such
Commission,

18

Article 3.3 of the Athens Convention, however, does provide for a presumption of fault of the carrier if
the damage arose from shipwreck, collision, stranding, explosion or fire, or defect in the ship.

11

flexibility, even in expensive claims, and should therefore be based on limits which
correspond to, or exceed, those of comparable compensation regimes.

€

The strict liability of the air carrier is limited to around
143.000 at EU-level. This figure is
likely to become applicable at international level, through the entry into force of the Montreal
Convention, within a near future. In the maritime context, the 1990 Protocol to the Athens
Convention,
250.000), which
corresponds to the overall limit laid down for passenger ships in the 1996 Protocol to the
Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC). Despite having been
implemented in the legislation of some Member States, neither of these Protocols have
entered into force internationally.

increased the limit substantially up to 175.000 SDR (

€

In the view of the Commission, the limit of the 1990 Protocol to the Athens Convention, as
deflated into present day value,19 constitutes the minimum acceptable figure for a strict
liability regime for death and personal injury claims. That figure has already been agreed by
the international community in the context of negotiations of previous instruments. However,
such a figure presupposes that the overall per passenger liability, including liability in case of
fault or neglect by the carrier, will be substantially higher.

4.3.4.

Extended liability in case of fault or neglect

It is generally accepted that the right of carriers to limit their liability should be waived in
cases of gross misconduct. Currently the limitation right, both in the Athens Convention and
in the LLMC regime, is lost only where the carrier has acted “with intent to cause such
damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result”. Clearly,
there can be very few incidents involving passenger ships that would satisfy those criteria and
for practical purposes the limitation right may therefore be considered to be unbreakable at
present. In the view of the Commission, this is a major default of the existing regime, as an
unbreakable limitation right amounts to a right for carriers and their insurers to deny
passengers compensation above a certain limit, no matter how justified the claims may be and
irrespective of the cause of the accident. In addition, unbreakable limitation rights in general
provide little incentive for the carrier to take the appropriate precautions to avoid accidents in
the first place.

The Commission considers that the liability for death and personal injury to passengers,
whether caused by a shipping incident or not, shall be subject to a significantly higher
limitation figure than that proposed for the part covered by strict liability described in the
previous section. If there shall be a limit for the liability for death and personal injury at all, it
should be high enough to fully cover foreseeable losses. This would correspond better to
normal principles of tort law and would be more consistent with the regime applying in the
aviation sector as well as being coherent with the Commission’s views regarding the liability
regime for oil pollution damage.20 In order to ensure further consistency with the regime
applicable in the aviation sector, a distinction should be made between shipping incidents and

19

20

In 1990, SDR 175.000 corresponded to an average of ECU 186.752.7 (Eurostat/New Cronos). By
deflating this figure with the consumer price index between 1990 and 2003 (estimated time for adoption
of the proposed limit), which according to the Commission’s estimates is 142.27 for the 15 EU Member
265.000. In other words, due to the difference in value between SDR
States, one arrives at a figure of
and ECU/EUR since 1990, the deflated limitation figure is only marginally different from the one
adopted in 1990.
The Commission’s views on the international oil pollution liability and compensation regime are laid
down in COM(2000)802 final of 6 December 2000.

€

12

other incidents as regards the basis of liability. For shipping incidents it is reasonable to
presume fault or neglect on behalf of the carrier. In other words, like in the Montreal
Convention, the carrier should be held liable for loss suffered as a result of death of or
personal injury to a passenger, unless the carrier can prove that the incident occurred without
fault or neglect on his part.

4.3.5. Compulsory insurance

liability,

the applicable international conventions on passenger

includes a
None of
requirement for carriers to be adequately insured. The absence of insurance requirement on
passenger carriers is out of any proportion with the risks involved in the carriage of hundreds
or thousands of passengers on board a ship. While it
is true that most passenger ships
nevertheless are financially protected, usually through entry in one of the mutual Protection &
Indemnity (P&I) Clubs, the absence of formal requirements on insurance standards lacks
justification. Compulsory insurance requirements must therefore form an integral part of any
the
passenger liability regime. For the purpose of ensuring equality between carriers,
insurance requirements shall apply to all carriers, irrespective of flag of the ship, providing a
service to or from an EU port. As to the amount, the insurance needs to cover the maximum
strict liability limits per passenger and a reasonable amount beyond that limit, multiplied by
the maximum number of persons on board.

4.3.6. Direct action

The possibility for claimants to make their claims directly against the insurer is of key
importance in shipping, as the carrier may at times be difficult to trace and/or unable to fully
meet its financial obligations. Therefore, the existence of a right of ‘direct action’ against the
insurer is instrumental in any maritime liability regime if it is to serve its purpose effectively.
It is clear therefore, that such a requirement must be included in a future passenger liability
regime for carriers of passengers by sea. As to the economic extent of this right, it should
equal the full per capita limitation amount which is subject to compulsory insurance.

4.3.7. National carriage

The liability regime should cover all transports in the Community, including carriage within a
single Member State. The Athens Convention regime only applies to international voyages. A
number of Member States, however, have decided to extend its application to national
carriage as well. In line with the Community’s philosophy underlying its existing legislation
for passenger ships, that the level of protection of passengers shall not depend on whether the
service is between two Member States or purely domestic in nature, the liability regime shall
therefore extend to all types of carriage.

4.4.

The way ahead

A Community liability regime for passengers carried by sea that meets all the criteria outlined
above would satisfy the present day needs of passengers on board ferries and cruise ships and
would create a uniform liability regime within the Member States. In sum, such a regime
would include many of the key features of the liability regime which applies in the aviation
sector, but would provide some additional benefits for passengers in that the limits of the
strict liability would be higher and the insurance requirements would be considerably more
elaborated. Importantly, the insurance requirements would cover all carriers, irrespective of
the flag or registration of the vessel entering or leaving Community ports. The Commission

13

considers that such a liability regime for carriers of passengers by sea should be put in place
within the Community as soon as possible.

The preparation of a proposal for an EU-wide maritime passenger liability regime coincides
with the elaboration of a new Protocol to the Athens Convention, which is scheduled for
adoption in late 2002. A draft Protocol was approved by the IMO Legal Committee at its 83rd
session on 8-12 October 2001 and will be transmitted for adoption by a Diplomatic
Conference scheduled for October-November 2002. The draft Protocol introduces, among
other things, compulsory insurance requirements for passenger carriers and a regime of strict
liability coupled with rights of direct action. It is also intended to considerably raise the
liability limits for death or personal injury to passengers caused by shipping incidents. A
possibility for States Parties to apply higher limits of liability for claims of loss of life or
personal injury to passengers in case of negligence by the carrier (where shipping incidents
would be subject to a reverse burden of proof for the benefit of claimants) is also introduced.
As to the application of the provisions of the Protocol to national carriage, which is not
directly addressed in the text, it appears that the international regime would not prohibit such
complementary measures by its contracting parties.

In sum, it seems likely that the new Protocol would largely satisfy the concerns expressed
above, provided that the limits of liability are sufficiently high. Importantly, even if the
overall liability limit for claims relating to death or personal injury would not be sufficiently
high, the Protocol as presently drafted would still allow for the possibility for its contracting
parties to apply higher limits or no limits at all. In the interest of promoting widespread
adherence to the passenger liability regime, the Commission therefore considers that the
Member States and the Community as a whole should make efforts to have the new Protocol
to the Athens Conventions adopted and brought into force on a wide scale as soon as
possible.21

The new Protocol to the Athens Convention looks set to provide for the possibility for the
Community as such to become a contracting party to it. Community adherence to the new
Protocol alongside with its Member States is necessary in light of the exclusive Community
competence over certain matters regulated in the Protocol,22 which followed the adoption of
Regulation 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.23

The form of the Commission’s proposal to achieve a maritime passenger liability regime that
meets the elements outlined above is not yet certain. This will depend on the outcome of the
Diplomatic Conference on the Athens Protocol. Ideally, the Community regime could be
applied within the global regime and thus form part of a wider internationally harmonised
regulatory framework. An international solution would have a number of advantages, not least
from the practical and procedural perspective, given that passenger claims by their nature are
susceptible to govern disputes involving potentially many different parties and many different
States’ legal systems. At the same time, however, the Commission in this case considers that a
satisfactory regional solution is to be preferred to an unsatisfactory international one. Should

21

22

23

The entry into force of the new Athens Protocol is conditional upon a certain number of States
expressing their consent to be bound by it. The number of States required to bring the Protocol into
force is yet to be established, but the number serving this purpose in the Athens Convention was ten.
Article 10 and 11 of the draft Protocol, replacing or amending Articles 17 and 17a of the Athens
Convention, relate to the jurisdiction,
the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in
accordance with the Protocol. Those provisions affect the provisions of Regulation 44/2001.
OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

14

the Diplomatic Conference adopting the Athens Protocol

the outcome of
represent
fundamental shortcomings with respect to the key elements outlined in this section, or other
impediments to their implementation, the Commission will therefore propose a Community-
wide regime containing the necessary elements. Considering the importance of the matter
under regulation, the adequate compensation of death and personal injury of passengers, the
Commission believes that a Community-wide regime in this area is a well-justified and
necessary measure, should the international agreement
to provide the necessary
guarantees.

fail

15

2002/0074 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships

16

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.

Background

The stability following collision damage is an issue of prime importance for the survivability
of ro-ro passenger ships, due to their particular design. It is obvious that in general, the longer
the period a ship remains afloat in case of serious damage, the more efficient the eventual
evacuation or search and rescue operations can be.
In that perspective the stability
requirements applicable to these ships influence directly the safety of passengers and crew.
These considerations become even more important in view of the escalating size of ro-ro
ships serving Community ports and the increasing number of passengers and crew they carry.

As both practise and research has demonstrated, the most dangerous problem for a ro-ro ship
with an enclosed ro-ro deck is the one posed by the effect of a build-up of significant amount
of water on that deck. However, with the application of the appropriate technical standards a
damaged vessel may stay afloat even when a certain amount of water made its way to the ro-
ro deck (the car deck). Research has clearly shown that the residual freeboard of the ship and
the waves height in a particular sea area had a significant effect on the amount of water which
may accumulate following collision damage.

The stability of ro-ro passenger ships has been addressed at
level by the
International Maritime Organisation and specific standards have been established in that
respect, particularly on the basis of the SOLAS 90 Convention24 and Resolution A265. These
standards, implicitly include the effect of water entering the ro-ro deck in a sea state in the order
of 1.5 m significant wave height and have a phasing-in timetable for existing ships ranging from
1 October 1998 to 1 October 2010.

international

Following the Estonia disaster, eight European countries (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland,
Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom) decided in February 1996 to require
higher standards of damage stability for ro-ro passenger ships than those prescribed by SOLAS
90. These new standards were introduced in the context of the Stockholm Agreement (SA) to
which the above eight countries became parties. The Stockholm Agreement stability
increasing the
requirements are complementary to the SOLAS 90 standard, aimed at
survivability of the ro-ro vessels in sea states between 1,5 m and 4 m significant wave height.
These complementary requirements take specifically into account the probability of water
accumulation in the car deck, up to a height of 0,5 m. The Stockholm Agreement established
a phasing-in period ranging from 1 April 1997 to 1 October 2002.

At the adoption of the Stockholm Agreement, noting its regional application, the Commission
announced its intention to examine the prevailing local conditions, under which ro-ro
passenger ferries sail in all European waters and that this examination would include the
extent and effect of the application of the Agreement
in the region covered by it. The
statement concluded that in the light of this examination the Commission would take a
decision with regard to the need for further initiatives.

The Council entered a similar statement into the meeting of the 2074th Council meeting of
17 March 1998 at which Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger

24

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea as revised in 1990

17

ships was adopted25. In this statement the need to ensure the same level of safety for all ro-ro
passenger ferries operating in similar conditions was more precisely defined by referring to both
international and domestic voyages. Directive 98/18/EC made mandatory the application of
SOLAS 90 stability standards to domestic EU trades for new class A, B, C and D ships and
existing class A and B ships26.

Following the last serious accident involving a ro-ro passenger ship, the "Express Samina"
which occurred in Greece in September 2000,
invited the
Commission to examine the effectiveness of the Stockholm Agreement and other measures
for improving the stability and safety of passenger vessels27.

the European Parliament

In this context and following a thorough analysis on the Stockholm Agreement,
Commission included this item in its work programme for 2001.

the

2.

2.1.

2.2.

25

26

27

28

29

The SOLAS stability requirements and the Stockholm Agreement

The question of stability of passenger vessels has been addressed repeatedly by the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in the context of the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the first damage stability
requirements were introduced in 1948 followed by improvements in 1960 and 1974.
However, the major step in the development of stability standards for ro-ro ships
came in 1990 with the introduction of a new section28 in the SOLAS Convention.
These requirements (known as SOLAS 90 stability standard) are internationally
accepted and apply to passengers vessels involved in international voyages from/to
EU ports, as well as to domestic trades within Member States by means of the
Directive 98/18/EC. The SOLAS 90 standard implicitly include the effect of water
entering the ro-ro deck in a sea state in the order of 1.5 m significant wave height.

The SOLAS 90 requirements have a phasing-in period for all existing ro-ro
passenger ships with dates of compliance ranging from 1 October 1998 to 1 October
2010 depending on a combination of different factors29.

In the aftermath of the Estonia disaster, 8 European countries (Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom), agreed
in February 1996 in Stockholm to require higher standards of damage stability for ro-
ro passenger ships than what had been determined just a few years earlier by the
IMO SOLAS 90 standard. The key idea behind this initiative was that a ship should
be designed to resist capsize even when a certain quantity of water has made its way
to the vehicle (ro-ro) deck.

The Stockholm Agreement (SA) was established in the context of IMO Resolution
14 of the 1995 SOLAS Conference, allowing contracting governments to conclude
such an agreement if they consider that prevailing sea conditions and other local

OJ L144, 15.05.1998, p. 1
These classes are defined in line with the type of sea area the ships operate, in accordance with article 4
of Council Directive 98/18/EC.
EP Resolution B5-0783, 0787 and 0791/2000 of 5 October 2000
SOLAS Chapter II-1, part B.8 (Stability in damaged condition).
These factors are: the vessel's A/Amax value, the number of persons carried and its age. (The A/Amax
calculation procedure is a simplified version of probabilistic damage stability calculation of ships,
adopted by IMO as a means of trying to compare the survivability of one ship against another in order
to achieve a hierarchy for phasing-in purposes. It is not a survivability standard.)

18

conditions require specific stability requirements in a designated area. It was notified
to the IMO on 1 April 1996 in accordance with operative paragraph 3 of Resolution
14 and entered into force on 1 April 1997 in accordance with its article 1030. In
simplified terms, the SA standards are complementary to SOLAS 90 standards with
the addition of technical requirements to satisfy explicitly the “water in the car deck”
probability. Compliance with these requirements is measured whether on basis of
numerical calculations defined in the Agreement or by performing model
experiments in accordance with the model testing method of SOLAS 95 Resolution
14.

According to the logic of the Agreement, the residual freeboard of the vessel and the
significant wave height (hs) of the area where a ship operates determine the height of
water on the car deck that would arise following the occurrence of an accidental
damage. Consequently, a ship should be designed to withstand the significant wave
heights that prevail in the routes, or areas, where she operates. Taking into account
the above parameters, the result from the application of the SA stability requirements
is that a vessel should resist capsize even with a flooded ro-ro deck up to a level of
0.5 metre. The maps indicating significant wave heights values by area that appear in
the Stockholm Agreement, have been defined by the contracting governments and
they are based on all year round statistics.

The specific stability requirements of the SA are applicable to ro-ro passenger ships
regardless of flag, operating on regular international voyages carrying passengers
between designated ports to or from designated ports in the area covered by the
Agreement. As for their enforcement, the Agreement provided for a phasing-in
period ranging from 1 April 1997 for ro-ro passenger ships with the lowest A/Amax
values, to 1 October 2002 for ships already complying with the SOLAS 90 stability
standard.

The EU position towards the Stockholm Agreement

At the conclusion of the Conference at which the Agreement was adopted, the
Commission services issued a statement, taking note of the Agreement concluded
and expressing the opinion that the same level of safety should be ensured for all ro-
ro passenger ferries operating in similar conditions. Noting that the Agreement is not
applicable in other parts of the European Union, the Commission announced its
intention to examine the prevailing local conditions, under which ro-ro passenger
ferries sail in all European waters and that this examination would include the extent
and effect of the application of the Agreement in the region covered by it. The
statement concluded that in the light of this examination the Commission would take
a decision with regard to the need for further initiatives.

This Commission statement was confirmed at the 1907th meeting of the Council, on
11 March 1996, at which the outcome of the Stockholm Agreement was discussed by
the Ministers of Transport.

into the meeting of the 2074th
The Council agreed to enter a similar statement
Council meeting of 17 March 1998 at which Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety
rules and standards for passenger ships was adopted In this statement the need to

3.

3.1.

30

IMO Circular letter No. 1891 of 29 April 1996.

19

ensure the same level of safety for all ro-ro passenger ferries operating in similar
conditions was more precisely defined by referring to both international and
domestic voyages. Directive 98/18/EC made mandatory the application of SOLAS
90 stability standards to domestic EU trades for new class A, B, C and D ships and
existing class A and B ships.

Furthermore, Directive 1999/35/CE on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe
operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high speed passenger crafts, provides in its article
4.1.e that ro-ro ferries shall fulfil the specific stability requirements adopted at
regional level, when operating in the region covered by such regional rules. This
obliges host States to check that ro-ro ferries “comply with specific stability
requirements adopted at regional level, and transposed into their national legislation
in accordance with the notification procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure
for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations
and of rules on information society services, when operating in that region a service
covered by that national legislation, provided those requirements do not exceed
those specified in the Annex of Resolution 14 (Stability Requirements Pertaining to
the Agreement) of
the 1995 SOLAS Conference and have been notified to the
Secretary-General of the IMO, in accordance with the procedures specified in point
3 of that resolution.”

Following its earlier commitment the Commission contracted a study to examine the
extent and effect of the application of the Stockholm Agreement concerning specific
stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships and the suitability of extending its
scope of application to European waters not covered by it. Furthermore the economic
impact of the application of the Stockholm Agreement has been analysed and found
acceptable, as demonstrated in the following chapter.

The European Parliament with its Resolution B5-0783, 0787 and 0791/2000 of
5 October 2000, which followed the "Express Samina" accident, stressed that it
"awaits the evaluation by the Commission of the effectiveness of the Stockholm
Agreement and other measures for improving the stability and safety of passenger
vessels"

Following the evaluation made by the Commission, based on consultation of
interested parties and inputs from various sources including the findings of the above
is considered that a legislative initiative in the field covered by the
study,
Stockholm Agreement is justified.

it

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

20

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY INITIATIVE

Research following the accidents of Herald of Free Enterprise and Estonia, demonstrated that
the worst stability related danger for a ro-ro ship with an enclosed ro-ro deck is caused by the
effect of a build-up of significant amount of water on that deck.

The current IMO damage stability requirements applicable to ro-ro passenger ships (SOLAS 90),
which also apply to domestic EU trades by means of the Directive 98/18/EC, implicitly include
the effect of water entering the ro-ro deck in a sea state in the order of 1.5 m significant wave
height. However, the damage stability requirements defined by the Stockholm agreement
increase the survivability of the vessels in more severe sea states, since they complement the
SOLAS requirements to take into account the effect of water which could accumulate on the ro-
ro deck following damage.

The Commission has declared that it could propose the application of these specific stability
requirements for the entire EU after having studied the local conditions in the South European
waters. Although the expert study of the Commission sustains that other safety critical
conditions (as visibility or water temperatures) may be generally less severe in the South
European waters, the significant wave heights values are comparable or even higher than
those in the Baltic sea, whilst waves are known to be steeper in South European waters.

The analysis shows that the introduction of the SA in the North of Europe took place without
particular trouble for the industry or the contracting governments. Based on a sample of 82
vessels, out of a total of 140 that needed to comply with the Agreement, it appears that 36%
of the vessels in that sample did not need any upgrade. Furthermore, 69% of the total 140
vessels were upgraded for less than 1 million EURO. The estimated total cost of upgrade was
around 85 mio EURO. However it is important to note that most of that cost is related to the
accelerated compliance with SOLAS 90 standards (a necessary step before compliance with
the Stockholm Agreement) rather than just to compliance with the Agreement as such.

The economic analysis in the study concludes that, given the common value of significant
wave heights in the Southern EU waters is around 2,5 metres, the modification cost of the
South European fleet for compliance with the provisions of the SA will be approximately the
same as the associated cost for compliance with the requirements of the SOLAS 90 two
compartment standard31. Since full compliance with SOLAS Regulations is to take place by
2010, on the basis of the IMO timetable (international trades) and of Directive 98/18/CE
(domestic EU trades) the industry should have already planned to invest in the coming years
in the upgrade of the vessels concerned. The study states that 264, operating both in
international and domestic trades, vessels will be affected from the SOLAS upgrade and that
the cost of compliance will be among 106 and 250 million EURO (these figures do not take
into account possible removals from service of aged ro-ro ships). As already mentioned,
compliance of these ships with the specific stability requirements set out in the Stockholm
Agreement will not increase their SOLAS compliance cost in a prohibitive way.

It appears therefore that
the application of the SA stability requirements to the South
European ro-ro passenger vessels will offer a uniformity of stability requirements and an
the EU, without
increased level of survivability of ro-ro passenger ships throughout

31

SOLAS 90 two compartment standard establishes that the ship can survive without capsizing with two
main compartments flooded following damage.

21

increasing substantially the economic effort of the affected part of the industry, which has to
comply anyway with the SOLAS 90 standard.

In light of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the division of north/south as
regards stability requirements for ro-ro vessels in damaged condition (Stockholm Agreement
standards in the North and SOLAS 90 standards in the South) does not seem justified on
grounds of the safety parameters or for techno-economic reasons.

A European Parliament and Council Directive imposing the specific stability standards as
defined in the Stockholm Agreement to all ro-ro passenger ships engaged in international
voyages from/to EU ports is the right way forward. It is to be noted that newly built ferries,
both for operation in Northern and in Southern Europe, generally comply with the
aforementioned increased stability standards. The upgrading of existing ro-ro passenger ships
operating in southern Europe will require a transitional period, as it was the case with the
introduction of the Stockholm Agreement standards for the fleet operating in northern Europe.

Taking into account that operating conditions for ro-ro passenger ships in domestic voyages
in the Member States are often similar to those in international voyages, the Commission
proposal amending Council Directive 98/18/EC contains specific provisions to that respect. In
fact it provides for the introduction of the same or equivalent stability standards for ro-ro
ships operating in domestic voyages, as those proposed for ro-ro ships operating in
international voyages.

22

CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED DIRECTIVE

The proposed Directive will introduce the specific stability requirements of the Stockholm
Agreement to the entire EU, covering all ro-ro passenger ships operating from/to EU ports in
international voyages.

The specific stability requirements are a complement
international IMO
standard (SOLAS 90) and are already applicable to 7 northern EU Member States, which are
parties to the Stockholm Agreement established in the context of the IMO Resolution 14 of
the 1995 SOLAS Conference. This Directive will create a uniformity of stability requirements
for ro-ro passenger vessels operating under same conditions and will introduce in the EU
framework a regional Agreement agreed under IMO auspices.

to the present

The main advantage of the proposed stability requirements is their contribution to an
improved survivability of this type of ships following collision damage and the direct
connection of the applicable standard to the specific service the ships are engaged in. The
requirements are indeed established on the basis of the values of the significant wave heights
occurring in the sea areas the ships travel. Taking into account the operating conditions of the
ship, the specific stability requirements guarantee the ship's stability in damaged condition
with up to 0,5 metres of water accumulated in its ro-ro deck.

In view of the structural modifications that the existing ships may have to undergo in order to
comply with the new stability requirements, the Directive introduces a phasing-in period,
taking into account the compliance dates of SOLAS 90.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Article 1

The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a uniform level of specific stability requirements
for ro-ro passenger ships, which will improve the survivability of this type of vessels in case
of collision damage and provide a higher level of safety for the passengers and the crew. In
view of the fact that 7 northern EU Member States already apply these specific stability
requirements by means of a regional Agreement, the proposed Directive will result at the
introduction of this regional Agreement in the Community framework and its extension to the
Southern European waters and the Atlantic coast.

Article 2

This article contains the definitions of the key terms used in the Directive and are based on
the IMO SOLAS Convention (International Convention for the safety of life at sea)
definitions, as well as existing Community legislation, particularly Directive 98/18/EC of
17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships.

Article 3

Article 3 defines the scope of the Directive. This will apply to all ro-ro passenger ships
operating to or from a port of a Member State on a regular service, regardless of their flag,
when engaged on international voyages.

23

Article 4

This article specifies that
determining the height of water on car deck when applying the specific stability standard.

the value of the significant wave heights shall be used for

Article 5

This Article specifies that in the light of Article 4, Member States have to establish the sea
areas under their jurisdiction as well as the areas between Member State and Member States
and third countries, where ro-ro passenger ships which serve the Community ports undertake
voyages.

These areas and the corresponding significant wave heights will be notified to the
Commission and be publicly available by the competent maritime authorities of Member
States.

Article 6

This Article establishes the connection to the specific stability requirements set out in the
Annex 1 of the Directive. These requirements will apply in addition to the requirements of
SOLAS regulation II-1/8 on stability in damaged conditions.

The specific stability requirements are therefore complementary to the SOLAS 90 stability
standard and take specifically into account the effect of water which could accumulate on the
ro-ro deck following damage, in order to enable the ship to survive in more severe sea states
than 1,5 m significant wave height.

The specific stability requirements introduced by this Directive are based on a mathematical
formula which calculates the height of water on the ro-ro deck following a collision damage
depending on two basic parameters: the ship's residual free board and the significant wave
height in the sea area where the ship operates.

This article makes also reference to the guidelines to Member States for applying the specific
stability requirements set out in Annex I, which are presented in the Annex II of the Directive.
These guidance notes were presented to the International Maritime Organisation by the
governments of Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom at the 40 session of the
IMO sub-Committee on stability and Load Lines and Fishing vessels safety of 5 July 1996.

Article 7

Article 7 specifies that new ships will comply with the specific stability requirements as from
1 October 2004, while it introduces a phasing-in period for the compliance of existing ships.
Such period has been considered necessary in view of the structural modifications the existing
ships will have to undertake, in addition to the modifications which they will have to
undertake on the basis of the SOLAS 90 requirements. A final deadline for compliance has
been set on 1 October 2010. This timetable takes into account that the large majority of ro-ro
passenger ships will have to comply with SOLAS stability standards by 1 October 2005 and
that the final date of compliance under SOLAS is also 1 October 2010.

Article 8

Article 8 refers to the compliance certificate to be issued to all vessels falling under the scope
of this Directive by the flag State Administration. Certificates of compliance issued by a

24

Member State will be accepted by all Member states. Each Member State acting on its
capacity as host state shall accept the operational certificate issued by a non Member State
certifying that a ship complies with the specific stability requirements established in this
Directive

Article 9

The provisions of that article authorise the specific treatment of ro-ro passenger ships
operating only on seasonal basis in an area where the significant wave height during such
season is of a lower value than that for a year round operation in the same area. In such case,
the specific stability requirements introduced by this Directive will be based on the seasonal
values of the significant wave heights to be defined by Member States. Such seasonal
operation may offer certain flexibility to operators wishing to introduce additional ships on a
high season, offering additional possibilities to the travelling public, without lowering at all
the safety standard provided.

Article 10 & 11

Article 10 makes reference to the possible adaptation of the Annexes to the Directive, in the
light of the technical progress, the experience gained or of regulatory developments in the
international (IMO) level. As established in Article 11, in such case the Commission will be
assisted by the Committee established pursuant to Article 12(1) of Directive 93/75/EC32.

Article 12

Following this article, Member Sates shall lay down a system of dissuasive measures,
penalties for breaching the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive. In view of
the complex technical nature of the standards introduced, particular vigilance is requested by
the Member States in their implementation.

Article 13

This article sets up a deadline for the transposition of this Directive in the national legislation
of Member States, which is 1 January 2004

Article 14

No comments.

Article 15

No comments

32

Council Directive 93/75/EEC of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum requirements for vessels
bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods.

25

2002/0074 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article
80(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission33,

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee34,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions35,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty,

Whereas:

(1) Within the framework of the common transport policy further measures must be taken

to improve safety in maritime transport of passengers.

(2)

(3)

(4)

The Community wishes to avoid by all appropriate means shipping accidents
involving ro-ro passenger ships and resulting in loss of life.

The survivability of ro-ro ships following collision damage, as determined by their
damage stability standard, is an essential factor for the safety of passengers and crew
and is particularly relevant for search and rescue operations; the most dangerous
problem for the stability of a ro-ro ship with an enclosed ro-ro deck, following
collision damage, is the one posed by the effect of a build up of significant amount of
water on that deck.

Persons using ro-ro passenger ships and crew employed on board such vessels
throughout the Community, have the right to demand the same high level of safety
regardless of the area in which ships operate.

33

34

35

OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .

26

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

In view of the internal market dimension of maritime transport of passengers, action at
Community level is the most effective way of establishing a common minimum level
of safety for ships throughout the Community.

Action at Community level is the best way to ensure the harmonised enforcement of
principles agreed on within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), thus
avoiding distortions of competition between the operators of ro-ro passenger ships
operating in the Community.

General stability requirements for ro-ro passenger vessels in damaged conditions were
established at international level by the 1990 SOLAS Conference and were included in
the chapter II-1, Part B8 of the SOLAS Convention (SOLAS 90 standard). These
requirements are applicable in the entire Community owing to the direct application to
international voyages of the SOLAS Convention and the application to domestic
voyages of Council Directive 1998/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and
standards for passenger ships36.

The damage stability standard of SOLAS 90 implicitly include the effect of water
entering the ro-ro deck in a sea state in order of 1,5 m significant wave height.

IMO Resolution 14 of the 1995 SOLAS Conference, allowed IMO members to
conclude regional agreements if they consider that prevailing sea conditions and other
local conditions require specific stability requirements in a designated area.

Eight northern European countries,
including seven Community Member States,
agreed in Stockholm on 28 February 1996 to introduce a higher stability standard for
ro-ro passenger vessels in damaged condition in order to take into account the effect of
water accumulation on the ro-ro deck and to enable the ship to survive in more severe
states than the SOLAS 90 standard, up to 4 m significant wave heights.

(11) Under this agreement, known as the Stockholm Agreement, the specific stability
standard is directly related to the sea area in which the vessel operates and more
particularly to the significant wave height recorded in the area of operation; the
significant wave height of the area where the ship operates determines the height of
water on the car deck that would arise following the occurrence of an accidental
damage.

(12) At the conclusion of the Conference at which the Stockholm Agreement was adopted,
the Commission noted that the Agreement was not applicable in other parts of the
Community and announced its intention to examine the prevailing local conditions
under which ro-ro passenger ships sail in all European waters and to take appropriate
initiatives.

(13)

The Council entered a statement in the minutes of the 2074th Council meeting of
17 March 1998 stressing the need to ensure the same level of safety for all passenger
ferries operating in similar conditions, whether on international or on domestic
voyages.

(14)

In the aftermath of the "Express Samina" accident, the European Parliament adopted
on 5 October 2000, its resolution B5-0783, 0787 and 0791/2000 where it expressly

36

OJ L 144, 15.5.1998, p. 1

27

stated that it awaited the evaluation by the Commission of the effectiveness of the
Stockholm Agreement and other measures for improving the stability and safety of
passenger ships.

Following an expert study by the Commission, the wave height conditions in South
European waters were found similar
to those in the north; while general
meteorological conditions may be generally more favourable in the south, the stability
standard determined in the context of the Stockholm Agreement is based solely on the
significant wave height parameter and the way this influences the accumulation of
water on the ro-ro deck.

The application of Community safety standards regarding the stability requirements
for ro-ro passenger ships is essential for the safety of these vessels and has to be part
of the common maritime safety framework.

In the interest of improving safety and avoiding distortion of competition, the common
safety standards regarding stability should apply to all ro-ro passenger ships,
regardless of the flag that they fly, providing regular services to or from a port in the
Member States on international voyages.

The safety of ships is primarily the responsibility of flag States and therefore each
Member State should ensure compliance with the safety requirements applicable to the
ro-ro passenger ships flying the flag of that Member State.

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19) Member States should also be addressed in their capacity as host States;

the
responsibilities exercised in that capacity are based on specific port State
responsibilities that are fully in line with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

(20)

The specific stability requirements introduced by this Directive should be based on a
method which calculates the height of water on the ro-ro deck following a collision
damage in relation to two basic parameters: the ship's residual free board and the
significant wave height in the sea area where the ship operates.

(21) Member States should determine and publicise the significant wave heights in the sea
areas under their jurisdiction; for international routes the significant wave heights
should be established in agreement between the States at both ends of the route.
Significant wave heights for seasonal operation in the same sea areas may also be
determined.

(22)

(23)

(24)

Every ro-ro passenger vessel engaged in voyages within the scope of this Directive,
should fulfil the stability requirements in relation of the significant wave heights
determined for its area of operation; it should carry a certificate of compliance issued
by the flag Member State, which should be accepted by all other Member States.

The SOLAS 90 stability standards provides equivalent level of safety to the specific
stability requirements established by this Directive for ships operating in sea areas
where the significant wave height is equal or less than 1,5m.

In view of the structural modifications that the existing ships may need to undergo in
order to comply with the specific stability requirements, those requirements should be
introduced over a period of years in order to allow sufficient time to the affected part

28

of the industry to comply: to that end, a phasing-in timetable for existing ships should
be provided.

(25)

(26)

Since the measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive are measures of
general scope within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of
28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission37, they should be adopted by use of the regulatory
procedure provided for in Article 5 of that Decision.

Since the objectives of the proposed action, namely to safeguard human life at sea by
improving the survivability of ro-ro vessels in the event of damage, cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale
and effects of the action, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may
adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5
of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that
Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those
objectives.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1
Purpose

The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a uniform level of specific stability requirements
for ro-ro passenger ships, which will improve the survivability of this type of vessels in case
of collision damage and provide a higher level of safety for the passengers and the crew.

Article 2
Definitions

For the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:

(a)

(b)

"ro-ro passenger ship" means a seagoing passenger vessel with facilities to enable
road or rail vehicles to roll on and roll off the vessel, and carrying more than 12
passengers;

"new ship" means a ship the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of
construction on or after 1 October 2004 : a similar stage of construction means the
stage at which:

(i)

construction identifiable with a specific ship begins; and

(ii)

assembly of that ship has commenced comprising at least 50 tonnes or 1% of
the estimated mass of structural material, whichever is less;

(c)

"an existing ship" means a ship which is not a new ship;

37

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

29

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

(m)

1.

2.

"a passenger" is every person other than the master and the members of the crew or
other persons employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business
of that ship;

"International Conventions" means the 1974 International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea (the 1974 SOLAS Convention), and the 1966 International Convention
on Load Lines, together with Protocols and amendments thereto in force on the date
of adoption of this Directive;

"regular service" means a series of ro-ro passenger ship crossings serving traffic
between the same two or more ports, which is operated either:

(i)

according to a published timetable; or

(ii) with crossings so regular or frequent

that

they constitute a recognisable

systematic series;

"Stockholm Agreement" means the Agreement concluded at Stockholm on 27 and
28 February 1996 in pursuance of SOLAS 95 Conference Resolution 14 "Regional
Agreements on Specific Stability Requirements for ro-ro Passenger Ships", adopted
on 29 November 1995;

"administration of flag State' means the competent authorities of the State whose flag
the ro-ro passenger ship is entitled to fly;

"host State" means a Member State to or from whose ports a ro-ro passenger ship is
engaged on a regular service;

"international voyage" means a sea voyage from a port of a Member State to a port
outside that Member State, or vice versa;

"specific stability requirements" means the stability requirements set out in Annex I";

"significant wave height" or ("hs") is the average height of the one third highest
observed wave heights over a given period;

"residual freeboard" is the minimum distance between the damaged ro-ro deck and
the waterline at the location of the damage, without taking into account the additional
effect of the sea water accumulated on the damaged ro-ro deck.

Article 3
Scope

This Directive shall apply to all ro-ro passenger ships operating to or from a port of a
Member State on a regular service, regardless of their flag, when engaged on
international voyages.

Each Member State, in its capacity as host State, shall ensure that ro-ro passenger
ships, flying the flag of a State which is not a Member State, comply fully with the
requirements of this Directive before they may be engaged on voyages from or to
ports of that Member State in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of Directive
1999/35/EC.

30

Article 4
Significant wave heights

The significant wave heights (hs) shall be used for determining the height of water on the car
deck when applying the specific stability standard contained in Annex 1. The figures of
significant wave heights shall be those which are not exceeded by a probability of more than
10% on a yearly basis.

Article 5
Sea Areas

Member States shall establish, not later than six months before the date mentioned in
Article 13 , a list of sea areas under their jurisdiction and the corresponding values of
significant wave heights.

The sea areas and the applicable values of the significant wave height in these areas
shall be defined by agreement between the Member States or between Member
States and third countries at both ends of the route. Where the ship's route crosses
more than one sea area, the ship shall satisfy the specific stability requirements for
the highest value of significant wave height identified for these areas.

The list shall be notified to the Commission and published in a public database
available in the internet site of the competent maritime authority. The location of
such information as well as any updates to the list and the reasons for such updates
shall also be notified to the Commission.

Article 6
Specific stability requirements

Without prejudice to the requirements of regulation II-1/8 of the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) Convention relating to watertight subdivision and stability in damaged
condition, all ro-ro passenger ships referred to in Article 3 (1) shall comply with the
specific stability requirements set out in Annex I to this Directive.

For ro-ro passenger ships operating in sea areas where the significant wave height is
equal to or lower than 1,5 metres, compliance with the requirements of regulation II-
1/8 the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention shall be considered equivalent to
compliance with the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I.

In applying the requirements set out in Annex I, Member States shall use the
guidelines set out in Annex II, in so far this is practicable and compatible with the
design of the ship in question.

Article 7
Introduction of the specific stability requirements

New ro-ro passenger ships shall comply with the specific stability requirements as
set out in Annex I.

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

1.

31

2.

1

2.

3.

1.

2.

Existing ro-ro passenger ships shall comply with the specific stability requirements
as set out in Annex I by not later than 1 October 2010.

Article 8
Certificates

All new and existing ro-ro passenger ships flying the flag of a Member State shall
carry a certificate confirming compliance with the specific stability requirements
established in Article 6 and Annex I.

This certificate shall be issued by the Administration of the flag State and will
indicate the significant wave height up to which the ship can satisfy the specific
stability requirements as well as the area for which the certificate has been originally
issued.

The certificate shall remain valid as long as the vessel operates in the same area or in
another area within which the same value of significant wave height has been
registered.

Each Member State acting in its capacity as host State shall recognise the certificate
issued by another Member State in pursuance of this Directive.

Each Member State acting in its capacity as host State shall accept the certificate
issued by a non member country certifying that a ship complies with the specific
stability requirements established.

Article 9
Seasonal operation

If a shipping company operating a regular scheduled service on a year round basis
wishes to introduce additional ro-ro passenger ships to operate for a shorter season
on that service, it shall notify the competent authority of the host state or states not
later than three months before the said additional ships are operated on that service.

Where such seasonal operation takes place under conditions of lower significant
wave height than those established for the same sea area for a year round operation,
the seasonal significant wave height value may be used by the competent authority
for determining the height of water when applying the specific stability standard
contained in Annex I. The seasonal value of the significant wave height to apply
shall be agreed between the Member States or between Member States and third
countries at both ends of the route.

Following agreement of the competent authority of the host State or States for a
seasonal operation within the meaning of paragraph 1, the ro-ro passenger ship which
undertakes such seasonal operations shall have to carry a certificate of compliance
with the provisions of this Directive, as provided for in Article 8(1).

32

Article 10
Adaptations

In order to take account of developments at international level and, in particular, in the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) or to improve the effectiveness of this Directive in
the light of experience and of e technical progress,
the Annexes may be amended in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11 (2).

Article 11
Committee

1.

2.

3.

The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee set up pursuant to Article 12(1)
of Directive 93/75/EEC38 composed of representatives of the Member States and
chaired by the representative of the Commission.

Where reference is made to this paragraph, the regulatory procedure laid down in
Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, in compliance with Article 7 (3) and
Article 8 thereof.

The period provided for in Article 5 (6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be of eight
weeks.

Article 12
Penalties

Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the
national provisions adopted pursuant
the measures
necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective,
proportionate and dissuasive.

to this Directive and shall

take all

Article13
Implementation

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 January 2004 at the latest. They shall forthwith
inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive
or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member
States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

Article 14
Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Communities.

38

OJ L 247, 5.10.1993, p. 19

33

Article 15
Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

34

ANNEX I
SPECIFIC STABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RO-RO PASSENGER SHIPS

As referred to in Article 6

1.

1.1

In addition to the requirements of regulation II-1/8 of the Safety at Sea (SOLAS)
Convention relating to watertight subdivision and stability in damaged condition, all
ro-ro passenger ships referred to in Article 3 (1) shall comply with the requirements
of this Annex.

The provisions of regulation II-1/8.2.3 shall be complied with when taking into
account the effect of a hypothetical amount of sea water which is assumed to have
accumulated on the first deck above the design waterline of the ro-ro cargo space or
the special cargo space as defined in regulation II-2/3 assumed to be damaged
(referred to as "the damaged ro-ro deck" hereinafter). The other requirements of
regulation II-1/B/8 need not be complied with in the application of the stability
standard contained in this Annex. The amount of assumed accumulated sea water
shall be calculated on the basis of a water surface having a fixed height above:

(a)

the lowest point of the deck edge of the damaged compartment of the ro-
ro deck, or

(b) when the deck edge of the damaged compartment is submerged then the
calculation is based on a fixed height above the still water surface at all
heel and trim angles;

as follows:

0.5 m if the residual freeboard (fr) is 0.3 m or less;

0.0 m if the residual freeboard (fr) is 2.0 m or more; and

intermediate values to be determined by linear interpolation, if the residual
freeboard (fr) is 0.3 m or more but less than 2.0 m;

where the residual freeboard (fr) is the minimum distance between the damaged ro-ro
deck and the final waterline at the location of the damage in the damage case being
the effect of the volume of assumed
considered without
accumulated water on the damaged ro-ro deck;

taking into account

when a high-efficiency drainage system is installed, the Administration of the flag
State may allow a reduction in the height of the water surface.

For ships in geographically defined restricted areas of operation, the Administration
of the flag State may reduce the height of the water surface prescribed in accordance
with paragraph 1.1 by substituting such height of the water surface by the following:

1.2.

1.3

1.3.1

0.0 m if the significant wave height (hs) defining the area concerned is 1.5 m or less;

1.3.2

the value determined in accordance with 1.1 if the significant wave height (hs)
defining the area concerned is 4.0 m or above;

35

1.3.3

intermediate values to be determined by linear interpolation if the significant wave
height (hs) defining the area concerned is 1.5 m or more but less than 4.0 m;

1.3.4

1.3.5

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:

the flag State Administration is satisfied that the defined area is represented by the
significant wave height (hs) which is not exceeded with a probability of more than
10%; and

the area of operation and, if applicable, the part of the year for which a certain value
of the significant wave height (hs) has been established are entered into the
certificates.

as an alternative to the requirements of subparagraphs 1.1 or 1.3, the flag State
Administration may exempt application of the requirements of subparagraphs 1.1
or1.3 and accept proof, established by model tests carried out for an individual ship
in accordance with the model test method, which appears in Appendix 1, justifying
that the ship will not capsize with the assumed extent of damage as provided in
SOLAS regulation II-1/8.4 in the worst location being considered under 1.1, in an
irregular seaway, and

reference to acceptance of the results of the model test as an equivalence to
compliance with paragraphs 1.1 or 1.3and the value of the significant wave height
(hs) used in the model tests shall be entered into the ship's certificates.

the information supplied to the master in accordance with SOLAS regulations II-
1/8.7.1 and II-1/8.7.2, as developed for compliance with regulations II-1/8.2.3 to II-
1/8.2.3.4, shall apply unchanged for ro-ro passenger ships approved according to
these requirements.

For assessing the effect of the volume of the assumed accumulated sea water on the
damaged ro-ro deck in paragraph 1, the following provisions shall prevail:

a transverse or longitudinal bulkhead shall be considered intact if all parts of it lie
inboard of vertical surfaces on both sides of the ship, which are situated at a distance
from the shell plating equal to one-fifth of the breadth of the ship, as defined in
regulation II-1/2, and measured at right angles to the centreline at the level of the
deepest subdivision load line.

in cases where the ship's hull is structurally partly widened for compliance with the
provisions of this Annex, the resulting increase of the value of one-fifth of the
breadth of it is to be used throughout, but shall not govern the location of existing
bulkhead penetrations, piping systems, etc., which were acceptable prior to the
widening.

the tightness of transverse or longitudinal bulkheads which are taken into account as
effective to confine the assumed accumulated sea water in the compartment
concerned in the damaged ro-ro deck shall be commensurate with the drainage
system, and shall withstand hydrostatic pressure in accordance with the results of the
damage calculation. Such bulkheads shall be at least 2,2 m in height. However, in
case of a ship with hanging car decks, the minimum height of the bulkhead shall be

36

2.4

2.5

not less than the height to the underside of the hanging deck when in its lowered
position.

for special arrangements such as, e.g., full width hanging decks and wide side
casings, other bulkhead heights may be accepted based on detailed model tests.

the effect of the volume of the assumed accumulated sea water need not be taken into
account for any compartment of the damaged ro-ro deck, provided that such a
compartment has on each side of the deck freeing ports evenly distributed along the
sides of the compartment complying with the following:

2.5.1

A ‡ 0.3 l

where A is the total area of freeing ports on each side of the deck in m2; and l is the
length of the compartment in m;

the ship shall maintain a residual freeboard of at least 1.0 m in the worst damage
condition without taking into account the effect of the assumed volume of water on
the damaged ro-ro deck; and

such freeing ports shall be located within the height of 0.6 m above the damaged ro-
ro deck, and the lower edge of the ports shall be within 2 cm above the damaged ro-
ro deck; and

such freeing ports shall be fitted with closing devices or flaps to prevent water
entering the ro-ro deck whilst allowing water which may accumulate on the ro-ro
deck to drain.

when a bulkhead above the ro-ro deck is assumed damaged, both compartments
bordering the bulkhead shall be assumed flooded to the same height of water surface
as calculated in paragraphs 1.1 or 1.3 above.

When determining significant wave height, the wave heights given on the maps or
list of sea areas established by Member States in line with Article 5 of this Directive
shall be used.

For ships which are to be operated only for a shorter season,
the host State
Administration shall determine in agreement with the other country whose port is
included in the ships route, the significant wave height to be used.

2.5.2

2.5.3

2.5.4

2.6

3.

3.1

4.

Model tests shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix 1.

37

Appendix

Model test method

1. Objectives

In the tests provided for in paragraph 1.4 of the stability requirements included in Annex I, the
ship should be capable of withstanding a seaway as defined in paragraph 3 hereunder in the
worst damage case scenario.

2. Ship model

The model should copy the actual ship for both outer configuration and internal
2.1
arrangement, in particular all damaged spaces having an effect on the process of flooding and
shipping of water. The damage should represent
the worst damage case defined for
compliance with regulation II-1/8.2.3.2 of the Safety at Sea Convention (SOLAS 90). An
additional test is required at a level keel midship damage, if the worst damage location
according to SOLAS 90 is outside the range ± 10% Lpp from the midship. This additional test
is only required when the ro-ro spaces are assumed to be damaged.

2.2

The model should comply with the following:

2.2.1

Length between perpendiculars (Lpp) is to be at least 3 m.

2.2.2

The hull is to be thin enough in areas where this feature has influence on the results.

2.2.3

The characteristics of motion should be modelled properly to the actual ship, paying
particular attention to scaling of radii of gyration in roll and pitch motions. Draught,
trim, heel and centre of gravity should represent the worst damage case.

2.2.4 Main design features such as watertight bulkheads, air escapes, etc., above and below
in asymmetric flooding should be modelled

the bulkhead deck that can result
properly as far as practicable to represent the real situation.

2.2.5

The shape of the damage opening shall be as follows:

2.2.5.1

rectangular side profile with a width according to regulation II-1/8.4.1

of the Safety at Sea Convention and unlimited vertical extent;

2.2.5.2

isosceles triangular profile in the horizontal plane with a height equal to

B/5 according to regulation II-1/8.4.2 of the Safety at Sea Convention.

3. Procedure for experiments

3.1
The model should be subjected to a long-crested irregular seaway defined by the
JONSWAP spectrum with a significant wave height hs defined in 1.3 of the stability
requirements and having peak enhancement factor g and peak period Tp as follows:

3.1.1 Tp = 4(cid:214) hs

with g = 3.3; and

3.1.2 Tp equal to the roll resonant period for the damaged ship without water on

deck at the specified loading condition but not higher than 6(cid:214) hs and with g = 1.

38

The model should be free to drift and placed in beam seas (90o heading) with the
3.2
damage hole facing the oncoming waves. The model should not be restrained in a manner to
resist capsize. If the ship is upright in flooded condition, 1o of heel towards the damage
should be given.

3.3
At least 5 experiments for each peak period should be carried out. The test period for
each run shall be of such duration that a stationary state has been reached but should be run
for not less than 30 min in full-scale time. A different wave realisation train should be used
for each test.

If none of the experiments result

3.4
the
experiments should be repeated with 5 runs at each of the two specified wave conditions or,
alternatively, the model should be given an additional 1o angle of heel towards the damage
and the experiment repeated with 2 runs at each of the two specified wave conditions. The
purpose of these additional experiments is to demonstrate, in the best possible way, survival
capability against capsize in both directions.

inclination towards the damage,

in final

3.5

The tests are to be carried out for the following damage cases:

3.5.1

3.5.2

the worst damage case with regard to the area under the GZ curve according to the
Safety at Sea Convention; and

the worst midship damage case with regard to the residual freeboard in the midship
area if required by 2.1.

4. Survival criteria

The ship should be considered as surviving if a stationary state is reached for the successive
test runs as required in 3.3, provided that angles of roll of more than 30o against the vertical
axis, occurring more frequently than in 20% of the rolling cycles or steady heel greater than
20o should be taken as capsizing events even if a stationary state is reached.

5. Test approval

Proposals for model

5.1
test programmes should be submitted to the host State
Administration to be approved in advance. It should also be borne in mind that lesser cases of
damage may create a worst-case scenario.

The test should be documented by means of a report and a video or other visual record

5.2
containing all relevant information on the ship and test results.

39

ANNEX II
INDICATIVE GUIDELINES TO NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS

(as referred to in Article 6.(3))

PART I

Application

In line with the provisions of Article 6.(3), these guidelines shall be used by the national
administrations of Member States in the application of the specific stability requirements set
out in Annex I, in so far this is practicable and compatible with the design of the ship in
question. The paragraph numbers appearing below correspond to those in Annex I.

Para 1

As a first step all ro-ro passenger ships referred to in Article 3 (1) must comply with the
“SOLAS ‘90” standard of residual stability as it applies to all passenger ships constructed on
or after 29 April 1990. It is the application of this requirement that defines the residual
freeboard f, necessary for the calculations required in paragraph 1.1.

Para 1.1

1.

2.

3.

This paragraph addresses the application of a hypothetical amount of water
accumulated on the bulkhead (ro-ro) deck. The water is assumed to have entered the
deck via a damage opening. This paragraph requires that the vessel in addition to
complying with the full requirements of the SOLAS ’90 further complies with that
part of the SOLAS ’90 criteria contained in paragraphs 2.3 to 2.3.4. of regulation 8 of
Chapter II-1 Part B of SOLAS with the defined amount of water on deck. For this
calculation no other requirements of Chapter II-1 regulation 8 need be taken into
account. For example the vessel does not, for this calculation, need to comply with
the requirements for the angles of equilibrium or non-submergence of the margin
line.

The accumulated water is added as a liquid load with one common surface inside all
compartments which ate assumed flooded on the car deck. The height (hw) of water
on deck is dependent on the residual freeboard (fr) after damage, and is measured in
way of the damage (see fig 1). The residual freeboard , is the minimum distance
between the damaged ro-ro deck and the final waterline (after equalisation measures
if any have been taken) in way of the assumed damage after examining all possible
damage scenarios in determining the compliance with SOLAS ’90 as required in para
1 of Annex I. No account should be taken of the effect of the hypothetical volume of
water assumed to have accumulated on the damaged ro-ro deck when calculating fr.

If fr is 2.0m or more, no water is assumed to accumulate on the ro-ro deck. If fr is
0.3m or less, then height hw is assumed to be 0.5 metres. Intermediate heights of
water are obtained by linear interpolation (see fig 2).

Para 1.2

Means for drainage of water can only be considered as effective if these means are of a
capacity to prevent large amounts of water from accumulating on the deck ie many thousand

40

of tonnes per hour which is far beyond the capacities fitted at the time of the adoption of these
regulations. Such high efficiency drainage systems may be developed and approved in the
future (based on guidelines to be developed by the International Maritime Organisation)

Para 1.3

1.

2.

3.

4.

in addition to any
The amount of assumed accumulated water-on –deck may,
reduction in accordance with paragraph 1.1, be reduced for operations
in
geographically defined restricted areas, These areas are designated in accordance
with the significant wave height ( hs) defining the area in line with the provisions of
Article 5.

If the significant wave height ( hs ), in the area concerned , is 1.5m or less then no
additional water is assumed to accumulate on the damaged ro-ro deck. If the
significant wave height in the area concerned is 4.0m or more then the height of the
assumed accumulated water shall be the value calculated in accordance with
paragraph 1.1. Intermediate values to be determined by linear interpolation (see fig
3).

The height hw is kept constant, therefore the amount of added water is variable as it is
dependent upon the heeling angle and whether at any particular heeling angle the
deck edge is immersed or not. (see fig 4). It should be noted that the assumed
permeability of the car deck spaces is to be taken as 90% (MSC/Circ.649 refers),
whereas other assumed flooded spaces permeabilities are to be those prescribed in
SOLAS.

If the calculations to demonstrate compliance with the Directive relate to a
significant wave height less than 4.0m that restricting significant wave height must
be recorded on the vessel’s passenger ship safety certificate.

Para 1.4 / 1.5

As an alternative to complying with the new stability requirements in paragraphs 1.1 or 1.3 an
Administration may accept proof of compliance via model tests. The model test requirements
are detailed in the Appendix to Annex I. Guidance notes on the model tests are contained in
part II of this Annex.

Para 1.6

Conventionally derived SOLAS ’90 limiting operational curve(s) (KG or GM) may not
remain applicable in cases where “water on deck” is assumed under the terms of the Directive
and it may be necessary to determine revised limiting curve(s) which take into account the
effects of this added water. To this effect sufficient calculations corresponding to an adequate
number of operational draughts and trims must be carried out.

Note: Revised limiting operational KG/GM Curves may be derived by iteration, whereby the
minimum excess GM resulting from damage stability calculations with water on deck is
added to the input KG (or deducted from the GM) used to determine the damaged freeboards
(fr), upon which the quantities of water on deck are based, this process being repeated until
the excess GM becomes negligible.

It is anticipated that operators would begin such an iteration with the maximum KG/minimum
GM which could reasonably be sustained in service and would seek to manipulate the

41

resulting deck bulkhead arrangement to minimise the excess GM derived from damage
stability calculations with water on deck.

Para 2.1

As for conventional SOLAS damage requirements bulkheads inboard of the B/5 line are
considered intact in the event of side collision damage.

Para 2.2

If side structural sponsons are fitted to enable compliance with this regulation, and as a
consequence there is an increase in the breadth (B) of the ship and hence the vessel’s B/5
distance from the ship’s side, such modification shall not cause the relocation of any existing
structural parts or any existing penetrations of the main transverse watertight bulkheads below
the bulkhead deck. (see fig 5)

Para 2.3

1.

2.

Transverse or longitudinal bulkheads/barriers which are fitted and taken into account
to confine the movement of assumed accumulated water on the damaged ro-ro deck
need not be strictly “watertight”. Small amounts of leakage may be permitted subject
to the drainage provisions being capable of preventing an accumulation of water on
the “other side” of the bulkhead/barrier. In such cases where scuppers become
inoperative as a result of a loss of positive difference of water levels other means of
passive drainage must be provided.

The height (Bh) of transverse and longitudinal bulkheads/barriers shall be not less
than (8 x hw)metres, where hw is the height of the accumulated water as calculated by
application of the residual freeboard and significant wave height (paras 1.1. and 1.3.
refers). However in no case is the height of the bulkhead/barrier to be less than the
greatest of:

a)

b)

2.2 metres; or

the height between the bulkhead deck and the lower point of the underside
structure of the intermediate or hanging car decks, when these are in their
lowered position. It should be noted that any gaps between the top edge of the
bulkhead and the underside of the plating must be “plated-in” in the transverse
or longitudinal direction as appropriate. (see fig 6).

Bulkheads/barriers with a height less than that specified above, may be accepted if
model tests are carried out in accordance with Part II of this Annex to confirm that
the alternative design ensures appropriate standard of survivability. Care needs to be
taken when fixing the height of the bulkhead/barrier such that the height shall also be
sufficient to prevent progressive flooding within the required stability range. This
range is not to be prejudiced by model tests.

Note: The range may be reduced to 10 degrees provided the corresponding area
under the curve is increased (MSC 64/22 refers)

42

Para 2.5.1

The area “A” relates to permanent openings. It should be noted that the “freeing ports” option
is not suitable for ships which require the buoyancy of the whole or part of the superstructure
in order to meet the criteria. The requirement is that the freeing ports shall be fitted with
closing flaps to prevent water entering, but allowing water to drain.

These flaps must not rely on active means. They must be self-operating and it must be shown
that they do not restrict outflow to a significant degree. Any significant efficiency reduction
must be compensated by the fitting of additional openings so that the required area is
maintained.

Para 2.5.2

For the freeing ports to be considered effective the minimum distance from the lower edge of
the freeing port to the damaged waterline shall be at least 1.0m. The calculation of the
minimum distance shall not take into account the effect of any additional water on deck. (see
fig 7)

Para 2.5.3

Freeing ports must be sited as low as possible in the side bulwark or shell plating. The lower
edge of the freeing poet opening must be no higher than 2cm above the bulkhead deck and the
upper edge of the opening no higher than 0.6m. (see fig 8)

Note: Spaces to which paragraph 2.5 applies, ie those spaces fitted with freeing ports or
similar openings, shall not be included as intact spaces in the derivation of the intact and
damage stability curves.

Para 2.6

1.

2.

3.

The statutory extent of damage is to be applied along the length of the ship.
Depending on the subdivision standard the damage may not affect any bulkhead or
may only affect a bulkhead below the bulkhead deck or only bulkhead above the
bulkhead deck or various combinations.

All transverse and longitudinal bulkheads/barriers which constrain the assumed
accumulated amount of water must be in place and secured at all times when the ship
is at sea.

In those cases where the transverse bulkhead/barrier is damaged the accumulated
water-on-deck shall have a common surface level on both sides of the damaged
bulkhead/barrier at the height hw (see fig 9).

43

PART II

MODEL TESTING

The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure uniformity in the methods employed in the
construction and verification of the model as well as in the undertaking and analyses of the
model tests, while appreciating that available facilities and costs will affect in some way this
uniformity.

The content of paragraph 1 of the Appendix to Annex I is self explanatory.

Paragraph 2 – Ship model

2.1

The material of which the model is made is not important in itself, provided that the
model both in the intact and damaged condition is sufficiently rigid to ensure that its
hydrostatic properties are the same as those of the actual ship and also that the
flexural response of the hull in waves is negligible.

It is also important to ensure that the damaged compartments are modelled as
accurately as practicably possible to ensure that the correct volume of flood water is
represented.

Since ingress of water (even small amounts) into the intact parts of the model will
affect its behaviour, measures must be taken that this ingress does not occur.

2.2.

Model particulars

.1

In recognising that scale effects play an important role in the behaviour of the
model during tests, it is important to ensure that these effects are minimised as
much as practically possible. The model should be as large as possible since
details of damaged compartments are easier constructed in larger models and
the scale effects are reduced. It is therefore recommended that the model length
is not less than that corresponding to 1:40 scale. However it is required that the
model is not less than 3 meters long at the subdivision load line.

.2(a) The model in way of the assumed damages must be as thin as practically
possible to ensure that the amount of flood water and its centre of gravity is
adequately represented. It is recognised that it may not be possible for the
model hull and the elements of primary and secondary subdivision in way of
the damage to be constructed with sufficient detail and due to these
constructional limitations it may not be possible to calculate accurately the
assumed permeability of the space.

.2(b) It has been found during tests that the vertical extent of the model can affect
the results when tested dynamically. It is therefore required that the ship is
modelled to at least three super structure standard heights above the bulkhead
(freeboard) deck so that the large waves of the wave train do not break over the
model.

.2(c) It is important that not only the draughts in the intact condition are verified, but
also that the draughts of the damaged model are accurately measured for
correlation with those derived from the damaged stability calculation. After

44

measuring the damaged draughts it may be found necessary to make
adjustments to the permeability of the damaged compartment by either
introducing intact volumes or by adding weights. However it is also important
to ensure that the centre of gravity of the flood water is accurately represented.
In this case any adjustments made must err on the side of safety.

.2(d) If the model is required to be fitted with barriers on deck and the barriers are
less than the height required as per paragraph 2.3 of Annex 1 of this Directive
the model is to be fitted with CCTV so that any “splashing over” and any
accumulation of water on the undamaged area of the deck can be monitored. In
this case a video recording of the event is to form part of the tests records.

.3

In order to ensure that the model motion characteristics represent those of the
actual ship it is important that the model is both inclined and rolled in the intact
condition so that the intact GM and the mass distribution are verified.

The transverse radius of gyration of the actual ship is not to be taken as being greater
than 0.4B and the longitudinal radius of gyration is not to be taken as being more
than 0.25L.

The transverse rolling period of the model is to be obtained by:

π

2
√

X0.4B

λ
gGM

Where

Note

GM: metacentric height of the actual (intact) ship

g:
λ

:

acceleration due to gravity

scale of model

B:

breadth of actual ship

While inclining and rolling the model in the damage condition may be accepted as a
check for the purpose of verifying the residual stability curve such tests are not to be
accepted in lieu of the intact tests.

Nevertheless the damaged model must be rolled in order to obtain the rolling period
required to perform the tests as per paragraph 3.1.2

.4

The contents of this paragraph are self explanatory. It is assumed that the
ventilators of the damage compartment of the actual ship are adequate for
unhindered flooding and movement of the flood water. However in trying to
scale down the ventilating arrangements of the actual ship undesirable scale
effects may be introduced. In order to ensure that these do not occur it is
recommended to construct the ventilating arrangements to a larger scale than
that of the model, ensuring that this does not affect the flow of water on the car
deck.

45

.5.2 The isosceles triangular profile of

the prismatic damage shape is that

corresponding to the load waterline.

Additionally in cases where side casings of width less than B/5 are fitted and in order
to avoid any possible scale effects, the damage length in way of the side casings must
not be less than (2) metres.

Paragraph 3 – Procedure for experiments

3.1 – Wave Spectra

The JONSWAP spectrum it to be used as this describes fetch and duration limited seas which
correspond to the majority of the conditions world-wide. In this respect it is important that not
only the peak period of the wave train is verified but also that the zero crossing period is
correct.

.1

Corresponding to a peak period of 4
γ

hs and given that the enhancement factor

is 3.3, the zero crossing period is not to be greater than:

√

{Tp/(1.20 to 1.28) } +/- 5%

.2

The zero crossing period corresponding to a peak period equal to the rolling
period of the damaged model and given that the factor
is to be 1, is not to be
greater than:

γ

{Tp/(1.3 to 1.4) } +/- 5% ;

√

noting that if the rolling period of the damaged model is greater than 6
period is to be limited to 6

√

hs.

hs, the peak

Note
It has been found that it is not practical to set limits for zero crossing periods of the
model wave spectra according to the nominal values of the mathematical formulae.
Therefore an error margin of 5% is allowed.

is required that for every test run the wave spectrum is recorded and documented.
It
Measurements for this recording are to be taken in the immediate vicinity of the model (but
not on the leeside) – see figure a below – and also near the wave-making machine. It is also
required that the model is instrumented so that its motions (roll, heave and pitch) as well as its
attitude (heel, sinkage and trim) are monitored and recorded though out the test.

The “near the model” wave measuring probe to be positioned either on arc A or arc B (Figure
a).

46

3.2., 3.3., 3.4

The contents of these paragraphs are considered self explanatory.

3.5 – Simulated damages

Extensive research carried out for the purpose of developing appropriate criteria for new
vessels has clearly shown that
in addition to the GM and freeboard being important
parameters in the survivability of passenger ships, the area under the residual stability curve
up to the angle of maximum GZ is also an other major factor. Consequently in choosing the
worst SOLAS damage for compliance with the requirement of paragraph 3.5.1 the worst
damage is to be taken as that which gives the least area under the residual stability curve up to
the angle of the maximum GZ.

Paragraph 4 – Survival criteria

The contents of this paragraph are considered self explanatory.

Paragraph 5 – Test approval

The following documents are to be part of the report to the Administration:

damage stability calculations for worst SOLAS and mid-ship damage (if different);

general arrangement drawing of the model together with details of construction and
instrumentation;

inclining experiment and rolling test reports;

calculations of actual ship and model rolling periods; and

nominal and measured wave spectra (near the wave-making machine and near the
model respectively)

representative record of model motions, attitude and drift

relevant video recordings.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

Note

All tests must be witnessed by the Administration.

47

Figures referred to in Annex 2
(Indicative Guidelines to National Administrations)

Figure 1

48

1. If s fr ‡

‡ 2.0 metres, height of water on deck (hw) = 0.0 metres

2. If fr < 0.3 metres, height of water on deck (hw) = 0.5 metres

Figure 2

1. If hs ‡

‡ 4.0 metres, height of water on deck is calculated as per fig 3

2. If hs < 1.5 metres, height of water on deck (hw) = 0.0 metres

For example

If fr = 1.15 metres and hs = 2.75 metres, Height hw = 0.125 metres

Figure 3

49

‡
‡
‡
‡
Figure 4

50

Figure 5

51

Ship without hanging car decks

Example 1

Height of water on deck = 0,25metres

Minimum required height of barrier = 2,2 metres

Ship with hanging deck (in way of the barrier)

Example 2

Height of water on deck (hw) = 0,25 metres

Minimum required height of barrier = x

Figure 6

52

minimum required freeboard to freeing port = 1.0 m

Figure 7

Figure 8

53

Deck edge not immersed

Deck edge immersed

Figure 9

54

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES(
SMES)

TITLE OF PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL ON SPECIFIC STABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RO-RO PASSENGER
SHIPS.

DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER

COM (2002) 158 - 2002/0074 (COD)

THE PROPOSAL

1.

Taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community legislation
necessary in this area and what are its main aims?

The obligations of the Community in this context are the improvement of safety in
maritime transport as provided for in Article 80(2) of the Treaty. The objective of the
action proposed is the establishment of harmonised safety requirements regarding the
stability of ro-ro passenger ships operating on international voyages from/to EU
ports.

it will be the responsibility of the
Referring to the principle of subsidiarity,
Community to ensure a framework of rules providing a harmonised level of safety
for passenger ships operating under the same conditions throughout the EU. The
responsibility of the Member States is to adopt within their own national legislation
measures which will ensure the effective application of the Directive.

THE IMPACT ON BUSINESS

2.

Who will be affected by the proposal?

–

–

–

which sectors of business

which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and medium-sized
firms)

are there particular geographical areas of
businesses are found

the Community where these

The business sector which will be affected by this proposal are entities operating ro-
ro passenger ships to and from Community ports. A vast majority of passenger ships
sailing in Community waters are operated by medium-sized and large enterprises.
the specific stability requirements introduced by this
Taking into account

that

55

it

is expected that

Directive are already in place in seven northern EU Member States which apply the
Stockholm Agreement, the proposal will have in practise implications only for the
companies operating such type of vessels in the Mediterranean sea. Since the 70% of
the ro-ro passenger ships operating in this area are under the Greek and the Italian
there will be economic impact mainly for companies
flag,
operating vessels under these two flags. Nevertheless, the large majority of ro-ro
passenger ships trading in the south European waters operate in domestic voyages,
and thus outside the scope of this Directive. Their case is addressed by the proposal
revising Council Directive 98/18/EC.It has generally been noted that following the
introduction of the Stockholm Agreement, new ro-ro passenger vessels are built with
the aim to satisfy the specific stability requirements even when these are built for
trading in the South EU waters.

3.

What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative
procedures so that operators of ro-ro passenger ships comply with the specific
stability requirements. The application of
these requirements will oblige the
operators of existing ships (those trading in the areas under the Directive) to proceed
with structural modifications on these ships in order to upgrade them up to the level
established by this Directive. A first step for business will be to subject their ships to
the model test of compliance in order to check the need for an upgrade.

4.

What economic effects is the proposal likely to have?

–

–

–

on employment

on investment and the creation of new businesses

on the competitiveness of businesses

No impact is expected on employment following the introduction of the requirements
of this Directive. The phasing-in timetable for existing ships, provided for in the
Directive, will give sufficient time to the shipping companies to upgrade their ships.
Taking into account the running SOLAS upgrade time-table, the Directive gives a
sufficient period to comply with the additional stability requirements.

The analysis conducted by the Commission demonstrates that the introduction of the
SA in the North of Europe took place without particular trouble for the industry or
the contracting governments. Based on a sample of 82 vessels, out of a total of 140
that needed to comply with the Agreement, it appears that 36% of the vessels in that
sample did not need any upgrade. Furthermore, 69% of the total 140 vessels were
upgraded for less than 1 million EURO. The estimated total cost of upgrade was
around 85 mio EURO. However it is important to note that most of that cost related
to the accelerated compliance with SOLAS 90 standards (a necessary step before
compliance with the Stockholm Agreement) rather than just to compliance with the
Agreement as such.

Given the common value of significant wave heights in the Southern EU waters is
around 2,5 metres, the modification cost of the South European fleet for compliance
with the provisions of the SA will be approximately the same as the associated cost

56

for compliance with the requirements of the SOLAS 90 two compartment standard39.
Since full compliance with SOLAS Regulations is to take place by 2010, on the basis
of the IMO timetable (international trades) and of Directive 98/18/CE (domestic EU
trades) the industry should have already planned to invest in the coming years in the
upgrade of the vessels concerned. The study states that 264 vessels trading in the
South European waters (international and domestic) will be affected from the
SOLAS upgrade and that the cost of compliance will be among 106 and 250 million
EURO (these figures do not take into account possible removals from service of aged
ro-ro ships). As already mentioned, compliance of these ships with the specific
stability requirements set out in the Stockholm Agreement will not increase their
SOLAS compliance cost in a prohibitive way.

It appears therefore that the application of the SA stability requirements to the South
European ro-ro passenger vessels will offer a uniformity of stability requirements
and an increased level throughout the EU, without
increasing substantially the
economic effort of the affected part of the industry, which has to comply anyway
with the SOLAS 90 standard.

The proposal is likely to have a beneficial impact on the competitive position of the
business, since it will harmonise the stability standards applied to ro-ro passenger
vessels trading in the EU creating a global market which will make possible the
operation of these ships to all EU trades where the same significant wave height
conditions are met. By establishing a harmonised safety regime for all ro-ro
passenger ships serving EU ports, regardless of flag, a level playing field will be
created for all operators involved, minimising the risks for distortion of competition
by operators trying to gain a competitive edge by economising on the safety
standard.

5.

Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of small
and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements etc)?

Fulfilling the requirements of the proposal should not constitute insurmountable
financial burdens for the affected companies. The experience from the introduction
of these standards in the Northern European waters demonstrated that the financial
implications for the industry were reasonable.

CONSULTATION

6.

List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline their
main views.

The Commission held a consultation meeting on 25 October with parties interested
on this issue, which was attended by representatives of shipowners (ECSA, ICS,
BIMCO), seafarers (ETF), classification societies (IACS), shipbuilders (CESA) and
disabled (European Disabilities Forum -EDF).

The proposed action was met with scepticism by the shipowner representatives,
particularly in view of the cost implications this will have for existing ships. These

39

The SOLAS 90 two compartment standard establishes that the ship can survive without capsizing with
two main compartments flooded following damage.

57

representatives felt that general weather conditions in the South did not justify the
generalisation by EU Law of the regional requirements defined in the Stockholm
Agreement. However,
the measure was clearly supported by the seafarers
representatives and the users organisation present at the meeting on the grounds that
it will offer additional safety to the travelling public and the crew. These two
organisations found essential that ships operating under similar significant wave
height conditions had to comply with the same safety standard.

58

2002/0075 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998, on safety rules and standards
for passenger ships

59

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In order to ensure harmonisation of safety regulations applying to passenger ferries
operating within the EU, the European Commission in 1996 proposed a Directive to
apply rules equivalent to those applicable at the international level in a harmonised
manner also to the domestic trade. Council Directive 98/18/EC was subsequently
adopted on 17 March 1998, and entered into force the same year. The rules included
in Annex I to the Directive translate the relevant international instruments into safety
requirements for vessels operating on domestic services. These requirements apply to
all types of domestic passenger ferries, whilst taking into account their size, age and
the characteristics of the sea area in which they are licensed to operate.

the European Commission
Although a relatively recently adopted Directive,
considers that certain provisions contained therein should be simplified or updated in
order to provide sufficient protection for passengers on domestic journeys in the EU
Member States. This Directive,
therefore proposes to amend Council Directive
98/18/EC in the following way, to:

–

–

–

–

–

update the Directive taking into account developments of
international
conventions and codes for maritime safety, notably the 2000 High Speed Craft
Code,

simplify and improve the procedure for the definition and publication of sea
areas, a procedure that is crucial for the implementation of this directive, since
the safety requirements applying to a specific vessel depend on the sea area in
which it operates,

ro-ro
introduce specific stability requirements for certain categories of
passenger ships operating on domestic services, equivalent to those in the
proposed Directive on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships
engaged on international voyages, and phase out ro-ro passenger ships which
are not upgraded to comply with such stability requirements,

require that Member States endeavour to make all
its passenger vessels,
regardless of size, age and the sea area in which they operate, safe and
accessible for passengers with reduced mobility. This is in line with other
proposals by the Commission to render other modes of transport accessible and
safe for such passengers,

remove the derogation for Greece, thus simplifying the Directive given the
marginal impact of the derogation.

2.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES

The objective of the proposed measure is to amend existing Council Directive
98/18/EC. The justification is multi-fold. Despite being a relatively recently adopted
Directive, certain problems related to its implementation have already been
identified. The principal problem with the Directive at Community level, relates to

60

the difficulty of verifying implementation, mainly since the current procedure for
publication of sea areas is not practicable. This short-coming has an implication at
Community level, and for all Member States, since the implementation of Directive
98/18/EC cannot be verified, without having a proper and workable arrangement in
place for the designation and publication of sea areas.

It is furthermore justified to ensure that the Directive is made flexible to update
certain articles in relation to developments at international level, in particular in
relation to the safety of high speed crafts.

The introduction of more specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships
operating on domestic services is also justified, to improve safety and to ensure an
equivalent level of safety between international and domestic services.

The introduction of safety guidelines for passengers with reduced mobility is in line
with the principle introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty on combating discrimination
on grounds of, among other things, disability and age.

Finally, it should be noted that certain provisions have been introduced that leave a
large degree of flexibility to the Member States in line with the principle of
subsidiarity, notably as regards safety and access requirements for passengers with
reduced mobility.

3.

CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal contains two articles making modifications to the existing articles of
Council Directive 98/18/EC, and articles to ensure the applicability of such
modifications.

4.

SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.1.

Definitions (Article 1.1)

New definition 2(w) on “persons with reduced mobility” is introduced with reference
to proposed new article 6b. The definition used is that of Directive 2001/85/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 200140, relating to special
provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passenger comprising more than eight
seats in addition to the driver’s seat, and amending Directives 70/156/EEC and
97/27/EC. This definition, recently agreed by Council and Parliament, has been
found appropriate by the Commission for this Directive also, as it relates to safety
and access requirements for a particular mode of public transport for passengers with
reduced mobility. See also paragraph 4.6.

4.2.

Procedure for the publication of sea areas (Article 1.2)

The Commission proposes a new simplified procedure for the establishment,
notification and publication of a list of the sea areas A, B, C and D, which determine
the specific safety requirements that apply to ships operating in each particular area.

40

OJ L 42, 13.02.2002, p. 1

61

The modification is prompted by the problems encountered in the implementation of
Directive 98/18/EC. It is crucial to modify this procedure to facilitate implementation
by Member States and to monitor implementation at Community level.

Furthermore the Commission proposes that the notification of sea areas to the
Commission, in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 9, should be
simplified.

The procedure proposed for
transparency for the operators at Member State and Community level.

the publication introduces more flexibility and

4.3.

Ending the derogation for Greek passenger ships (Article 2)

Directive 98/18/EC includes a derogation for passenger vessels trading on domestic
services in Greece only. Given the limited practical implication of this derogation,
the Commission proposes to delete this derogation from the Directive with effect
from 1.1.2005, in order to simplify the Directive.

4.4.

Stability requirements and phasing-out age (Article 1.3)

introduces specific stability requirements for ro-ro
The Commission’s proposal
passenger ships engaged in international voyages to/from EU ports. This would
ensure an increased level of safety of ro-ro passenger vessels operating on the above
routes, by 1 October 2010 at the latest.

Taking into account that ro-ro passenger ships encounter similar sea conditions in
domestic voyages as in international voyages and in order to achieve the same level
of safety for ships operating in different sea areas under the same sea conditions, the
Commission proposes that domestic ro-ro passenger ships should also comply with
specific stability requirements. The specific stability requirements shall apply to all
new ro-ro passenger ships of classes A, B and C as from 1 October 2004. For new ro-
ro passenger ships of class D, the application of the specific stability requirements is
not justified, due to the restricted operational conditions applying to these ships.
However, taking into account the difficulties that can be encountered in upgrading
existing vessels of classes A and B, the Commission proposes to introduce as an
alternative the possibility of phasing out such vessels at the age of 30 years if the
specific stability requirements cannot be complied with. The same phasing out
possibility shall apply to existing ro-ro passenger ships of classes C and D, unless
they fully comply with the stability requirements set out in paragraph II-1/B/8 of
Annex I of the Directive. This means full compliance of these vessels with the
SOLAS 90 stability requirements, an obligation from which they are presently
exempted.

4.5.

2000 High Speed Craft Code (Article 1.4)

Directive 98/18/EC currently applies the High Speed Craft Code(HSC Code) as
contained in IMO Maritime Safety Committee Resolution MSC 36(63) of
20 May 1994 in full to all High speed craft operating on domestic services. On
5 December 2000, the 2000 HSC Code was adopted, which will apply for all new
vessels whose keels are laid or which are at a similar stage of construction on or after
1 July 2002. The HSC Code 2000 does not replace the previous code for vessels
constructed before that date, but applies to new vessels only.

62

The Commission therefore proposes to amend Article 8(a) in order to allow the HSC
Code 2000 to be made applicable through Directive 98/18/EC in a similar manner to
the 1994 HSC Code, through the comitology procedure. This is in full accordance
with the principle included in Directive 98/18/EC as regards Annex I and definitions
in Article 2 in relation to International Conventions.

4.6.

Introducing safety and access requirements for passengers with reduced
mobility (Article 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5).

The Commission proposes to introduce specific safety requirements for persons with
reduced mobility, who can make up up to 30% of the population, and hence a large
proportion of potential passengers. The measures proposed relate equally to the
safety of and access to passenger ships for this group of passengers. The importance
of all passengers, with or without reduced mobility, being guaranteed the same level
of safety is crucial.

Council Directives 1999/35/EC41 and 98/41/EC42 cover a rather limited area of safety
and accessibility for people with reduced mobility since they concern specific
services and assistance, and not necessarily general information about the ship and
safety arrangements.

The mechanism proposed is that guidelines are included in a new Annex III, which
shall apply to all ships and craft operating on domestic services. Because some
modifications to be retrofitted to existing ships may be unreasonable costly, the
guidelines shall apply to existing ships and crafts as far as reasonable and
practicable. Member States shall furthermore develop national action plans for how
the existing fleet of passenger vessels shall be upgraded to comply with the
guidelines in Annex III. These guidelines are in line with the International Maritime
Organisation’s Maritime Safety Committee Circular 735 (MSC/Circ.735) of 24 June
1996 entitled “Recommendation on the design and operation of passenger ships to
respond to elderly and disabled persons needs”.

In this process, it is crucial that Member States consult organisations representative
of persons with reduced mobility, to ensure that the measures taken are reasonable
and acceptable, and will offer a real solution to the current problems encountered on
board passenger ships.

The Member States are requested to communicate their national action plans on
existing ships and report to the Commission on implementation of the article as
regards new ships, new and existing high speed craft, as well as those existing ships
certified to carry more than 400 passengers.

It is furthermore proposed that Annexes II and III be amended through comitology
procedure in the light of experience, notably that gained by Member States in the
process of implementing this Directive.

41

42

Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe
operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services, OJ L 138 , 01.06.1999, p. 1.
Council Directive 98/41/EC of 18 June 1998 on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger
ships operating to or from ports of the Member States of the Community, OJ L 188, 02.07.1998, p. 35

63

4.7.

Modifications to the mandate of the Committee for adaptations (Article 1.4)

The Commission proposes to modify the mandate of the Committee as outlined in
Article 8 of Directive 98/18/EC, for the following purposes:

–

–

Article 8(a)(iii) is added to enable revision of the articles of the Directive
relating to the HSC Code as outlined in paragraph 4.5.

Article 8(c) is added to give the Committee the mandate to modify Annexes II
and III as outlined in paragraph 4.6.

64

2002/0075 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998, on safety rules and standards
for passenger ships

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article
80(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission43,

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee44,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions45,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty46,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for
passenger ships47 introduces a uniform level of safety of life and property on new and
existing passenger ships and high speed craft, when both categories of ships and craft
are engaged on domestic voyages, and lays down procedures for negotiation at
international level with a view to a harmonisation of the rules for passenger ships
engaged on international voyages.

The definition of sea areas is crucial to determine the application of Directive
98/18/EC to different classes of passenger ships. The Directive includes a procedure
for the publication of lists of sea areas that has proved difficult to implement. It is
therefore necessary to establish a functional and transparent procedure, enabling
effective monitoring of the implementation of the Directive.

(3) With a view to harmonising the level of safety applying to passenger ships across the
Community, the derogation given to Greece in relation to the timetable for the
application of the safety requirements should be deleted.

43

44

45

46

47

OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ L 144, 15.5.1998, p. 1

65

(4)

(5)

(6)

Directive [yyyy/xx/EC on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships48]
introduces strengthened stability requirements for ro-ro passenger vessels operating on
international services to and from Community ports, and this enhanced measure
should also apply to such vessels operating on domestic services under the same sea
conditions. Failure to apply such stability requirements should be ground for phasing
out ro-ro passenger ships after certain years of operation.

It is necessary to take account of changes that have been made to relevant international
instruments, such as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) conventions,
protocols, codes and resolutions, and to do so in a flexible and rapid manner.

By virtue of Directive 98/18/EC, the International Code for Safety of High Speed
Craft contained in IMO Maritime Safety Committee Resolution MSC 36 (63) of
20 May 1994 applies to all high speed craft operating on domestic services. The IMO
has adopted a new high speed craft code, the International Code for Safety of High
Speed Craft, 2000 (2000 HSC Code), contained in IMO Maritime Sa fety Committee
Resolution MSC 97(73) of 5 December 2000, applying to all high speed craft
constructed on or after 1 July 2002. It is important to ensure that Directive 98/18/EC
can be updated in a flexible manner to apply such developments at the international
level, also to high speed craft operating on domestic services.

(7)

It is important to have regard to the level of safety and access guaranteed to persons
with reduced mobility when travelling on passenger ships and high speed craft on
domestic services in the Member States.

(8)

Directive 98/18/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 98/18/EC is hereby amended as follows:

1)

In Article 2 the following point is added:

“(w)

2)

“2.

(a)

“persons with reduced mobility” means all people who have a difficulty when using
public transport, such as disabled people (including people with sensory and
impairments, and wheelchair users), people with limb impairments,
intellectual
people of small stature, people with heavy luggage, elderly people, pregnant women,
people with shopping trolleys, and people with children(including children seated in
push chairs)."

Article 4, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

Each Member State shall:

establish and promptly update a list of sea areas under its jurisdiction, delimiting the
zones for the all-year-round and, where appropriate, restricted periodical operation of
the classes of ships, using the criteria for classes set out in paragraph 1;

48

OJ L , , p. .

66

(b)

(c)

publish the list in a public database available on the Internet site of the competent
maritime authority;

notify to the Commission the location of such information, and when modifications
are made to the list.”

3)

Articles 6a and 6b are inserted :

“Article 6a

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Stability requirements and phasing-out of ro-ro passenger ships

All ro-ro passenger ships of Classes A, B, and C, the keel of which is laid or which
are at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 October 2004 shall comply with
the specific stability requirements set out in Directive [yyyy/xx/EC].

All ro-ro passenger ships of Classes A and B, the keel of which is laid or which are at
a similar stage of construction before 1 October 2004 shall comply with the specific
stability requirements set out in Directive [yyyy/xx/EC] by 1 October 2010, unless
they are phased out on that date or on a later date on which they reach the age of 30
years but in any case not later than 1 January 2015.

All ro-ro passenger ships of Classes C and D, the keel of which is laid or which are at
a similar stage of construction before 1 October 2004 shall comply with the
provisions of paragraph II-1/B/8 of Annex I by 1 October 2010, unless they are
phased out on that date or on a later date on which they reach the age of 30 years but
in any case not later than 1 January 2015."

“Article 6b

Safety requirements for persons with reduced mobility

Member States shall take appropriate measures, based on the guidelines in Annex III
to enable persons with reduced mobility to have safe access to all passenger ships of
Classes A, B, C and D and to all high speed passenger craft, the keel of which is laid
or which are at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 October 2004.

Member States shall co-operate with and consult organisations representing persons
with reduced mobility on the implementation of the guidelines included in Annex III.

For the purpose of modification of passenger ships of Classes A, B C and D and high
speed craft, the keel of which is laid or which are at a similar stage of construction
before 1 October 2004, Member States shall apply the guidelines in Annex III as far
as reasonable and practicable in economic terms.

Member States shall draw up a national action plan on how the guidelines shall be
applied to such ships and craft. They shall communicate that plan to the Commission.

Member States shall report to the Commission on the implementation of this Article
as regards all passenger ships referred to in paragraph 1, passenger ships referred to
in paragraph 3 certified to carry more than 400 passengers and all high speed crafts,
before 1 October 2007."

67

4)

Article 8, is amended as follows:

(a) in point (a) the following subpoint is inserted:

“and

(iii)

the provisions relating to the High Speed Craft Code, and subsequent amendments
thereto, referred to in Articles 4 (3), 6 (4), 10 (3) and 11 (3).”

(b) the following point (c) is added:

"(c) Annexes II and III may be amended to improve the technical specifications, in
the light of experience."

5)

Annex III is added, as set out in the Annex.

Point (g) of Article 6 (3) of Directive 98/18/EC is deleted with effect from 1 January 2005.

Article2

Article 3

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 January 2004 at the latest. They shall forthwith
inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive
or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member
States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

Article 5

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

68

ANNEX
"Annex III : Guidelines for safety requirements for passenger ships and high speed craft
for persons with reduced mobility

1.

Access to the ship

(as referred to in Article 6b)

The ships should be constructed and equipped in such a way that a person with
reduced mobility can embark and disembark easily and safely, either unassisted or by
means of ramps, elevators or lifts. Directions to such access should be posted at the
other accesses to the ship and at other appropriate locations throughout the ship.

2.

Signs

Signs provided on a ship to aid passengers should be accessible and easy to read for
persons with reduced mobility, and be positioned at key points.

3.

Means to communicate messages

The operator should have the means onboard the vessel to visually and verbally
provide announcements, such as regarding delays, schedule changes and on-board
services, to persons with different forms of reduced mobility.

4.

Alarm

Alarm/call buttons shall be available and accessible to passengers with reduced
mobility.

5.

Additional requirements ensuring mobility inside the ship

Handrails, corridors and passageways, doorways and doors shall accommodate the
movement of a person in a wheelchair. Elevators, vehicle decks, passenger lounges,
accommodation and washrooms shall be designed in order to be accessible in a
reasonable and proportionate manner to persons with reduced mobility."

69

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM

THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES( SMEs)

TITLE OF PROPOSAL

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council
Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998, on safety rules and standards for passenger ships.

DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER

COM(2002)158 final, 2002/0075(COD)

THE PROPOSAL

1.

Taking account of
necessary in this area and what are its main aims?

the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community legislation

The main aim of the proposal is to amend an existing Directive,
in order to
strengthen and simplify certain aspects of the Directive. Since the proposal is to
revise an existing Directive, a Directive is the only possible form of Community
measure.

THE IMPACT ON BUSINESS

2.

Who will be affected by the proposal?

– which sectors of business

Shipping companies, operating domestic passenger ship services in the Member
States.

– which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and medium-sized

firms)

A variety of sizes of companies will be affected, from companies owning one ship
only to owners with much larger fleets.

–

are there particular geographical areas of
businesses are found

the Community where these

In all EU Member States, apart from those that are landlocked. However, in principle
all Member States are affected in their role as flag states, although some Member
States have a more developed ferry service due to their geography.

3.

What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?

Those sectors of business would have to undertake the necessary steps to comply
with the national requirements on adapting existing ships to the specific stability

70

requirements laid down in Article 6a and to the Guidelines on safety requirements for
passengers with reduced mobility in Annex III. It should however be noted that many
business operators have already taken measures to this end.

4.

What economic effects is the proposal likely to have?

– on employment

No economic effects on employment are foreseen.

– on investment and the creation of new businesses

Investment may be foreseen in relation to complying with the specific stability
requirements in accordance with Article 6a. The phasing-in timetable for existing
ships, provided for in the Directive, will give sufficient
time to the shipping
companies to upgrade their ships. Furthermore extra flexibility is introduced by the
proposed phasing out scheme, which is based on the age of the ship and will run up
to 2015. Some investment may also be foreseen in relation to the Guidelines on
safety requirements for passengers with reduced mobility in Annex III, but it should
be noted that some business operators have already taken measures to this end.

– on the competitiveness of businesses

The proposal is likely to have a beneficial impact on the competitive position of the
business, since it will harmonise the stability standards applied to ro-ro passenger
vessels trading in the EU creating a global market which will make possible the
operation of these ships to all EU trades where the same wave height conditions are
met. It will also have a positive economic effect on the competitiveness of business
of those companies complying fully with the Guidelines on safety requirements for
passengers with reduced mobility in Annex III, since they can attract a larger
consumer group.

5.

Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of small
and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements etc)?

The proposal contains a specific requirement in relation to unreasonable costs that
can create an unreasonable economic burden in relation to existing ships complying
with the Guidelines on safety requirements for passengers with reduced mobility in
Annex III.

CONSULTATION

6.

List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline
their main views.

Organisations invited and present at the consultation meeting were:

–

–

–

The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)

Committee of EU Shipbuilders Associations (CESA)

European Community Shipowners Association (ECSA)

71

–

–

–

–

European Disability Forum (EDF)

European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF)

International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)

International Council on Shipping (ICS)

Outline of their main view:

No comments were made by stakeholders regarding ending the derogation for
Greece.

The idea of gradually developing specific rules for improved safety and accessibility
for passengers with reduced mobility was unanimously positively received among
the stake-holders present.

The measure to apply the High Speed Craft Code 2000 to high speed craft operating
on domestic services was welcomed by all stake-holders.

The proposal for a new procedure on the publication of the lists of sea areas(Article
4.2), received no objections from stakeholders.

Stakeholders were divided on the need for the introduction of additional stability
requirements for ro-ro ferries.

72