Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific stability requirements for Ro-Ro Passenger Ships, andthe 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(COM(2002) 158 final — 2002/0074 (COD) — 2002/0075 (COD))
Date: 2002-12-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, carriage of passengers, maritime safety, maritime transport, safety standard, transport safety

C 85/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific

stability requirements for Ro-Ro Passenger Ships’, and

— the ‘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’

(COM(2002) 158 final — 2002/0074 (COD) — 2002/0075 (COD)) (1)

(2003/C 85/05)

On 14 May 2002 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 October 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 395th plenary session (meeting of 11 December 2002) the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes to one and one abstention.

1. Background

— 98/179/EC: Regulation on the safe management of ro-ro

ferries (4);

1.1.
The Commission presented on 25 March 2002 a
document concerning the safety of passenger ships in the
community,
including a set of initiatives: a proposal for a
Directive on specific stability requirement for ro-ro passenger
ships; a proposal for amending Council Directive 98/18/EC of
17 March 1998, on safety rules and standards for passenger
ships and a Commission’s Communication on the liability
regime for maritime passengers.

1.2. Measures already in place since the 1990’s include:

— 98/18/EC: Directive on safety rules and standards for

passenger ships (2);

— 98/41/EC: Directive on the registration of passengers (3);

— 1999/35/EC: Directive on mandatory safety services for

ro-ro ferries and high speed craft (5).

1.3.
The new safety package for passenger ships aims at
reducing the risk of horrific maritime tragedies such as the
Estonia 1994 and the Express Samina 2000.

The objective of the proposal for a Directive on specific
1.4.
stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships is to apply the
Stockholm Agreement (SA) stability requirements to all ro-ro
passenger ships,
irrespective of flag, operating on regular
scheduled international voyages in the EU. Such a measure
aims at laying down a uniform level of stability requirements
throughout the community and increase the level of surviva-
bility of damaged ro-ro passenger ships so providing for a
higher level of safety for EU citizens travelling as passengers
and seafarers.

( 1) This document also includes a Communication from the Com-
mission on the enhanced safety of passenger ships in the
Community which the EESC has taken into account in its opinion
in view of its importance.

( 2) Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules
and standards for passenger ships (OJ L 144, 15.5.1998, p. 1) —
ESC Opinion: OJ C 212, 22.7.1996, p. 21.

( 3) 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 Community (OJ L 188,
2.7.1998, p. 35) — ESC Opinion: OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 111.

the Member States of

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 179/98 of 23 January 1998
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 on the safety
management of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries (ro-ro ferries) (OJ
L 19, 24.1.1998, p. 35.

(5) 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, 1.6.1999, p. 1)
— ESC Opinion: C-407, 28.12.1998, p. 106.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/21

1.4.1.
The new stability requirements shall apply to all new
ro-ro passenger ships built after 1 October 2004. For a ship
that was built prior to that date, the proposals establish a
phasing-in period that expires on 1 October 2010. The
standards of the SA are currently applied by seven Member
States party to the SA, namely, Germany, Denmark, Finland,
Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Nor-
way is also part to the SA.

1.5.
The objective of the proposal for the amendment of
Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger
ships aims to strengthen the safety of all passenger ships
operating domestically, by introducing increased stability
requirements for ro-ro ships and new safety guidelines for
passengers with reduced mobility. The proposal also includes
some amendments to Directive 98/18/EC in order to update
and improve its implementation, amongst them a harmonised
procedure for Member States for notification of the location
of sea areas under their jurisdiction.

1.5.1. While the new stability requirements apply to all
new ro-ro passenger ships built after 1 October 2004 for ships
built prior to that date, the proposal establishes the 1 October
2010 for the deadline for compliance with the SA. Ships that
do not comply with the requirements on that date should be
phased out when they reach the age of 30 years, in any event
no later than 1 January 2015 providing they comply with
SOLAS 90 standards.

The communication presents views on how the liability
1.6.
for damages caused to passengers should be improved. The
proposals call for compulsory insurance for carriers and strict
liability up to EUR 250 000 per passenger and, if the carrier is
at fault, unlimited liability should apply. A decision of the
Diplomatic Conference on revision of the Athens Convention
is awaited.
In addition the communication addresses the
provision for safety and access to disabled passengers.

2. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on specific stability requirements
for Ro-Ro Passenger Ships

ance with the provisions of Regulation 14 of IMO SOLAS 95,
is essential
in order to ensure adequate safety rules and
standards with respect to the carriage of passengers to and
from community ports.

2.1.2.
The EESC shares the concern of the Commission and
the Secretary General of the IMO over the increased size of
both ro-ro passenger vessels and other passenger vessels. The
EESC has concern over the extrapolation of the rules of
construction and the consequential operational safety of such
vessels. Notwithstanding these reservations the proposals of
the Commission represent a significant step in improving the
safety rules and standards with respect to the carriage of
passengers to and from community ports on ro-ro passenger
ships.

2.1.3.
Despite the limitations of the SA, the EESC generally
welcomes these proposals. It is disappointing that is has taken
some time for universal application of the SA to all Member
States. Notwithstanding this qualification i.e. the limitation of
the SA, the EESC strongly supports the Commission’s pro-
posals for the extension to all Member States so as to ensure
the safety of EU citizens, travelling as passengers on ro-ro
passenger ferries and seafarers.

2.1.4.
The EESC recognises that these proposals will not
prevent such accidents from happening but will hopefully
mitigate the consequences and the subsequent tragic loss of
life in the circumstances identified.

2.1.5.
The cost of upgrading should not be prohibitive and,
in most cases, is not necessary. Where upgrading is required
this provides the opportunity for the introduction of new
tonnage that is invariably linked to the application of SOLAS
90 so improving the level of safety. Furthermore uniformity of
application provides for fair competition amongst operators
in Member States in addition to providing an improved level
of safety to all EU citizens travelling as passengers and seafarers
regardless of the route of operation.

2.1. General comments

2.1.1.
The EESC recognises that it is important to have
international agreement through the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO). To some extent
this is met by the
in the absence of a
provisions of SOLAS 90. However,
satisfactory international safety regime, a community wide
regional measure, as proposed by the Commission in accord-

2.1.6. While taking note of the Commission’s observation
that wave heights in the Mediterranean are comparable to
those in the Baltic Sea and wave heights in the Eastern
Atlantic (the Atlantic Coast of France, Spain and Portugal) are
comparable to the North Sea and Channel areas, it is not the
wave height in itself that is significant, it is also the relative
extent of the damage to the vessel and the ingress of water
from whatever cause and the remaining freeboard that is the
determinate factor in the time and survivability of such vessels.
This was identified in a Joint North-West European Research
Project entitled ‘Safety of Passenger/Ro-Ro Vessels by Det
Norske Veritas Doc. No: REP-T00-001, Date: 1997.5.7’.

C 85/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

2.2.

Specific Comments

3. 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 Stan-
dards for Passenger Ships

In relation to the dates for implementing the SA in
2.2.1.
southern Europe,
the EESC agrees with the Commission
proposals with respect to the phasing in schedule. This is
approximately the same as that given to Member States in
Northern Europe. While recognising that ferry routes connect
Member States to North African countries this should not be
an excuse for delayed implementation given the recognition
for universal standards of safety in relation to the potential risk.
The intended date of 2010 is therefore entirely appropriate.

2.2.2.
Article 1 — Calls for the introduction of a uniform
level of stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships in
Europe in order to improve the survivability of this type of
vessel in case of collision damage and provide for a higher
level of safety for passenger and crew. The EESC supports this
aim and therefore the wording should be retained.

2.2.3.
Article 2a — The Commission is requested to re-
examine the definition of ‘ro-ro passenger ship’ to provide for
a stricter wording meeting both the requirements of the
Stockholm Agreement and the SOLAS Convention.

2.2.4.
Article 5.3 — The proposals for a new Internet based
procedure for notification and publication of sea areas giving
more integrity and transparency to the system is to be
welcomed.

2.2.5.
Article 9.1 — In the event of a ro-ro passenger ship
being chartered in at short notice for a particular route the
requirement to notify the competent authority of the host
later than three months is somewhat
state or states not
onerous and impractical. It is suggested this be reduced to one
month. In the event of unforeseen circumstances, i.e. technical
reasons, a replacement ro-ro passenger ship should be provided
rapidly to ensure continuity of service and the necessary social
the Stockholm Agreement,
provision. As in Article 4 of
provision should also be made to allow individual journeys
to be exempted from the particular criteria under specific
circumstances.

3.1.

Stability — General and Specific Comments

3.1.1.
amend Council Directive 98/18/EC.

The EESC in general welcomes the proposals to

3.1.2.
reasons for abolishing the present derogation for Greece.

The EESC notes and approves the Commission’s

3.1.3.
The proposals concerning High Speed Craft (HSC)
and the adoption of the new IMO HSC Code are noted. While
the new Code applies to new vessels whose hulls were laid, or
at a similar stage of construction, on or after 1 July 2002, the
vulnerability of existing HSC must be recognised. This is
particularly so in the event of bottom racking damage to both
hulls where there is no double bottom protection.

3.1.4.
The difficulties associated with application to existing
ro-ro passenger ships of Class A, B, C and D is recognised,
however, the dangers to passengers remain. The proposals,
while acceptable, should be considered the minimum in the
circumstances.

3.1.5.
The EESC welcomes the proposals with respect
specific stability requirements for new ro-ro passenger ships
of Class 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.

3.1.6.
The EESC welcomes the proposals with respect to
the implementation date for specific stability requirements for
existing ro-ro passenger ships of Class A, B, C and D, the keel
of which is laid or which are at a similar stage of construction
before 1 October 2004, of 1 October 2010. The provision for
extension to 2015 is noted. This reflects a lack of urgency and
an emphasis upon economic considerations above those of
safety of EU citizens and seafarers.

2.2.6.
Appendix, Model Test method, paragraphs 2.1 and
2.2.5.2 (editorial) refer to the Safety at Sea Convention. This
should refer to the Safety of Life at Sea and reference to
(SOLAS 90) in 2.1 should refer to (SOLAS).

3.1.7.
Age in itself should not be the criteria for consider-
ation in the phasing out of a ship; it should be the stability
requirements and the ability of the vessel to meet the necessary
safety standards. However, more rigorous inspections need to
be carried out, as a ship gets older.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/23

3.1.8.
Having regard to the designation of Class ‘C’ and ‘D’,
the specification makes reference to a significant wave height
of 2,5 metres and 1,5 metres respectively. This occurring in
not more than 10 % over a one year period for all of the year
or over a specific restricted period of the year for operational
exclusivity in such period, however, the risk of greater wave
heights remains. In particular it must be noted that class ‘C’
designation refers to the significant wave height exceeding
2,5 metres in not more than 10 % over a one year period for
all of the year round operation or of a specific restrictive
period for year of operation exclusively and, in this regard, the
percentage of the time in which it exceeds 1,5 metres may be
considerably more. Such vessels may operate 15 miles from a
place of refuge and 5 miles from a line of the coast where
shipwrecked persons can land. These criteria have no direct
bearing upon the vulnerability of such vessels since damage to
such vessels and the ingress water would prevent them from
reaching a place of safety or timely assistance responding to
any distress. Likewise, the criteria with respect to class ‘D’
vessels, that may operate 6 miles from a place of refuge and
no more than 3 miles from the line of the coast where
shipwrecked persons can land, reinforces the argument for
improved stability requirements regardless of size and oper-
ational area.
In line with its wish for improved stability
requirements the EESC notes with regret that the Council
of Ministers has already progressed towards a compromise
solution with the deletion of Article 6a (3).

3.2.

Passengers with Reduced Mobility — General and Specific
Comments

The EESC welcomes the proposals with respect to
3.2.1.
making passenger vessels operating on domestic services safe
and accessible for People with Reduced Mobility (PRM) and
welcomes the proposals as outlined. In some respects the issue
of PRM has already been recognised with respect to passenger
ships and ro-ro passenger ships with carriers seeking to attract
an aging population with increased disposable income.

3.2.2.
It is, entirely sensible within the provisions of an
integrated transport system to ensure that arrangements exist
for PRM with respect to ro-ro passenger ships. However, a
sensible distinction needs to be made between new and
existing ships. A consultation exercise as set out in Article 6b.2
should be carried out by Member States not only with
organisations representing PRM but also with other organis-
ations representing port operators, shipowners and employee
representatives.

4. Liability of Carriers of Passengers by Sea — General

and Specific Comments

4.1.
The EESC acknowledges that the regime concerning
the liability of carriers with respect to passengers carried by
sea is long overdue for revision and updating. Present levels of
compensation have been eroded by inflation. The 1990
Protocol to the Athens Convention increased the limit to
175 000 SDR (EUR 250 000), which corresponds to the limit
laid down for passenger ships in the 1996 Protocol to the
Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims
(LLMC). However, neither of these Protocols has entered into
force internationally.

4.2.
The EESC notes that there is no uniformity with respect
to the liability of carriers of passengers by sea either at
international or European levels. It must be recognised that
some Member States, as a result of public and media pressure,
have amended their national legislation to ensure that adequate
compensation levels exist, particularly in the event of death.

The EESC acknowledges that the Diplomatic Confer-
4.3.
ence convened in London for the ‘Consideration of a Draft
Protocol of 2002 to amend the Athens Convention relating to
the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974’
seeks to achieve a global regime. While accepting that an
is
international standard is the most desirable option,
necessary to ensure that uniformity applies across all EU
Member States with respect to a satisfactory level and the type
of compensation. It is, therefore, entirely reasonable that an
adequate passenger liability regime should be established as an
integral part of community legal framework for passenger
ships.

it

The EESC, having regard to the negotiations in the
4.4.
IMO, acknowledges that the proposals of the Commission are
broadly in line with the same principles as those proposed in
the IMO to complement the Athens Convention, namely:

— introduction of strict liability for all risks related to the

operation of the ship;

— fault-based liability for risks not directly related to the

operation of the ship;

— introduction of compulsory liability insurance;

— introduction of claims directly against the insurer;

— liability limited to an amount per passenger, indepen-

dently of the size of the vessel.

Given the proposals in the IMO the Commission will therefore
need to make sure that ferry transport does not suffer any
competitive disadvantage.

C 85/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

4.5.
The EESC recognises the difficulty in distinguishing
between marine related and non-marine related claims. How-
ever, the Commission’s proposals in line with the present draft
text of the new Protocol to the Athens Convention considers
that a distinction should be made between the two categories
of claim. Damage that is caused by the operation of a ship,
where the possibility for the passengers to control the events
is typically limited, should be subject to a strict liability regime.
A negligence based liability system may suffice for non-marine
related claims such as personal
injury damage incurred on
board.

4.6. While most passenger ships are financially protected
through entering into one of the mutual Protection and
Indemnity (P&I) Clubs, it is essential to ensure that there is a
compulsory element as is the case with respect to oil pollution.

4.7.
The provision with respect to claimants being able to
make claims directly against an insurer is to be welcomed. Due
to the particular nature of shipping, it is often difficult to trace
an owner or it may not be possible for a carrier to meet their
financial obligations in some circumstances. This is particularly
so in the case of ‘one ship companies’; when such a ship is
lost, all assets of the company may be lost.

Since some national routes may in some instances be
4.8.
longer and more hazardous than comparable international
ones it is entirely sensible to ensure that the provisions of the
Athens Convention with its Protocol are extended to national
carriage as well as to international voyages.

fail to receive universal acclaim. For that reason and the
necessity to ensure adequate compensation in the event of
death and personal injury of passengers, a community-wide
regime, as proposed by the Commission, is well justified in
order to provide the necessary guarantees to passengers.

5. Conclusions

The EESC, while accepting the desirability of an
5.1.
international agreement
through the IMO, welcomes the
proposals to extend the provisions of the Stockholm Agree-
ment to all Member States. While this is acknowledged as a
significant step,
the
the limitations of
Stockholm Agreement are recognised.

the provisions of

5.2.
The EESC welcomes the proposals to amend Council
Directive 98/18/EC. It notes however, with regret, that the
Council of Ministers has already progressed towards a compro-
mise solution with the deletion of Article 6a (3).

5.3.
The EESC having regard to the IMO Diplomatic
Conference convened in London for the ‘Consideration of a
Draft Protocol of 2002 to amend the Athens Convention
relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea
1974’ acknowledges that the proposals of the Commission are
broadly in line with the same principles. While accepting the
desirability for an international agreement the EESC sees
considerable benefit in uniformity across all Member States.

4.9. While it is hoped that the outcome of the diplomatic
conference adopting the Athens Protocol would go some way
with respect to addressing deficiencies internationally it may

5.4.
The EESC welcomes the proposals with respect to
making passenger vessels operating on domestic services safe
and accessible for People with Reduced Mobility (PRM).

Brussels, 11 December 2002.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH