Commission staff working document accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws - Impact Assessment concerning the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway {COM(2008) 816 final} {SEC(2008) 2951}
Date: 2008-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, consumer protection, maritime transport, transport law, transport regulations

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2950 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities 
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws 

Impact Assessment  
concerning the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway 

{COM(2008) 816 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2951} 

ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 5 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 5 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 9 

The importance of the maritime sector for EU passengers .......................................... 9 

Some features of the maritime passenger market ........................................................ 9 

The specific problems for PRMs passengers ............................................................. 16 

The problems of the protection of the rights of passengers when travelling by ship. 17 

The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 18 

2.6.  Who is affected and how? .......................................................................................... 20 

2.7. 

2.8. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

How will the problem evolve? ................................................................................... 21 

Does the EU have the right to act?............................................................................. 22 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 26 

General objective ....................................................................................................... 26 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 29 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 31 

“Business as usual” (Option 1) .................................................................................. 33 

Community legislative action to improve the rights for persons when travelling by 
boat (Option 2) ........................................................................................................... 33 

EU coordination and exchange of best practices to be developed to enhance national 
legislations (Option 3)................................................................................................ 38 

4.4. 

Voluntary agreements (Option 4)............................................................................... 38 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 39 

Option 1: Business as usual........................................................................................ 39 

Option 2: Community legislative action .................................................................... 40 

Option 3: EU coordination and exchange of best practices to enhance national 
legislations.................................................................................................................. 55 

Option 4: Voluntary agreements ................................................................................ 56 

Administrative costs................................................................................................... 58 

Small and medium-sized enterprises.......................................................................... 59 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
5.7. 

Assumptions on PSOs routes ..................................................................................... 61 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 63 

Rights of Persons with Reduced Mobility ................................................................. 63 

Quality of service and assistance in case of cancellation and delays......................... 67 

Information provided to passengers before and during their trip............................... 68 

Enforcement, monitoring and complaint management .............................................. 69 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 70 

Core monitoring indicators ........................................................................................ 70 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 71 

Annex 1 Summary of the public consultation launched in 2006 on PRM issues .................... 72 

Annex 2 Figures and tables ...................................................................................................... 75 

Annex 3 Public service obligations and contracts in Members States..................................... 92 

Annex 4 Handling the missing data in critical events ............................................................ 101 

Annex 5 Reasonable accessibility and Reasonable accommodation ..................................... 103 

Annex 6 Passenger rights in all modes of transport – correlation table (main provisions).... 104 

Annex 7 Overview of the national legal framework for the maritime passenger transport 

sector ........................................................................................................................ 108 

Annex 8 Policy option 2 : list of measures to be taken for accessibility in ports .................. 112 

Annex 9 Minimum information Requirements ...................................................................... 113 

Annex 10 IMO STCW95 Code.............................................................................................. 115 

Annex 11 Calculation of the administrative cost for the Member States' authorities ............ 117 

Annexe 12 Monitoring and evaluating system process.......................................................... 118 

Annexe 13 The influence of PRM measures on ticket fares: the UK experience .................. 119 

Annex 14 Bibliography and documentation used for this IA................................................. 121 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact assessment concerning the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland 
waterway 

Lead DG: TREN 

Other involved services: DG EMPL, ENTR, MARKT, SANCO, SJ, SEC GEN. 

Agenda planning or WP reference: 2006/TREN/017 // 2007/TREN/050 

In  its  White  Paper  “European  transport  policy  for  2010:  time  to  decide”  the  European 
Commission envisaged the establishment of passengers’ rights in all modes of transport. The 
need  for  action  in  this  respect  was  further  highlighted  in  the  Communication  of  2005  on 
strengthening  passenger  rights  within  the  European  Union  in  which  the  Commission 
presented a policy approach on how to extend passenger protection measures to all modes of 
transport. Passengers need a common set of principles that apply to all modes of transport, so 
that  they  can  be  more  easily  aware  of  their  rights  if  something  goes  wrong  with  their  trip, 
regardless of the mode of transport. 

Since  then,  two  Regulations  on  aviation  have  entered  into  force,  a  Regulation  on  rail 
transport has been adopted, and there is one draft proposal on international bus and coach 
transport covering all principles in passengers' rights. 

The maritime transport sector needs to increase its competitiveness; passengers travelling by 
ship require less fuel and cause less damage to the environment than when travelling by road 
or  air.  The  maritime  sector  could  raise  its  quality  standards  and  offer  better  protection  of 
passenger rights, in line with the priority that the Amsterdam Treaty gave to the protection of 
consumers. 

This  impact  assessment  has  been  conducted  with  a  view  to  examining  the  situation  with 
regard  to  the  protection  of  passenger  rights  in  the  maritime  sector  and  the  necessity  for 
establishing a legislation that grants passengers general rights. It focuses on the main areas 
of concern highlighted by the Commission in its policy documents: the rights of persons with 
reduced mobility (hereinafter referred as to PRMs); the quality of service; the assistance to 
passengers  when  travel  is  interrupted  in  the  event  of  delay  or  cancellation;  the  right  to 
information; and non discrimination issues. 

In order to tackle these issues, four options have been envisaged: in the first option, no action 
is undertaken at EU level, and the current situation is perpetuated. The second option relies 
on Community legislative intervention to establish improved rights of persons, including those 
with reduced mobility, when travelling by boat. The third option sets up an EU coordination 
and exchange of best practices to enhance national legislation under the same principles. In 
the  fourth  option,  agreements  would  be  adopted  by  ship  operators  to  improve  passenger 
rights, on a voluntary basis.  

The  conclusions  of  the  impact  assessment  study  are  that,  of  the  four  options  assessed,  EU 
legislative  action  is  the  option  that  can  achieve  all  the  objectives  in  favour  of  persons 
travelling by ship in terms of accessibility in ports, assistance in ports and on ships of PRMs; 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
quality  service;  assistance  when  travel  is  interrupted;  non  discrimination;  information 
obligations; and enforcement, at an affordable cost to the industry and to the Member States. 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing  

The reference of this proposal in Agenda Planning is 2006/TREN/017 // 2007/TREN/050 

This impact assessment examines the situation with regard to the protection of the passenger 
rights in the maritime sector. It focuses on: 

–  Rights of PRMs 

–  Quality of service 

–  Assistance to passengers when travel is interrupted by a delay or a cancellation 

–  Right to information and non discrimination issues 

There is already a Commission proposal for a Regulation on liability of carriers of passengers 
by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents (conciliation procedure scheduled for 
December 2008). 

In assessing the impacts, consideration has been given to the list of possible kinds of impact 
identified  in  the  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines.  However,  as  also  recommended  in  the 
Guidelines,  the  impact  assessment  has  taken  into  account  the  principle  of  proportionate 
analysis and has focused on the most significant forms of impact and their distributive effects. 
Whenever possible, quantified estimates have been provided. 

For  the  issues  concerning  PRMs  DG  TREN  officially  constituted  a  Steering  Group  on  20 
February 2007 by contacting the DGs that expressed interest in the “Preparatory study in view 
of  an  impact  assessment  study  on  a  Commission  proposal  on  the  rights  of  passengers  with 
reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  sea  and  inland  waterway”.  The  DGs  in  question  were 
EMPL, ENTR, MARKT, SANCO, SJ and SEC GEN. 

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise  

1.2.1.  The general study 

In  2005-2006,  DG  TREN  commissioned  an  independent  study  on  the  “Analysis  and 
assessment of the level of protection of passenger rights in the EU maritime transport sector” 
1.  This  study  examined  the  current  level  of  protection  of  passengers  rights  confronted  with 
disruptions. It also covered the protection of the rights of persons with reduced mobility. 

The  overall  conclusions  of  the  general  study  are  that  protection  of  passengers  is  not  fully 
satisfactory due to, among others, the lack of uniformity in terms of the extent and depth of 
protection of the rights of passengers; absence of a framework providing for immediate and 

1 

TiS.pt.  Analysis  and  assessment  of  the  level  of  protection  of  passenger  rights  in  the  EU  maritime 
transport sector. Lisbon, October 2006. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
predefined  solutions  in  the  cases  of  cancellations  and  delays;  and  lack  of  information  to 
passengers regarding their rights in case of a critical event.  

Moreover,  regarding  PRMs,  it  was  concluded  that  the  protection  of  PRM  rights  differs 
significantly  between  Member  States  and  that  there  is  room  for  improving  the  situation; 
particular  improvements  can  be  made  with  regard  to  accessibility  in  ports  and  ships,  non-
discrimination and provision of assistance.  

1.2.2.  The public consultation 

A public consultation was launched in 2006 by the European Commission. The aims of this 
consultation were twofold: first, the protection of the rights of passengers, in particular in the 
event  of  interruption,  delay  or  cancellation  of  a  journey  by  sea;  second,  the  protection  of 
rights of PRMs during a journey by sea. 

The results of this consultation were published on DG TREN’s website on 6 December 2006, 
and  were  supplemented  by  the  conclusions  of  the  meeting  on  18  January  2007  between 
stakeholders and DG TREN.  

There was virtual unanimity of all respondents concerning the need for a common minimum 
level of protection for passengers' rights throughout the EU, irrespective of the transport mode 
or whether a journey takes place wholly within a single Member state or crosses an internal or 
external  frontier.  It  was  emphasised  that  maritime  passengers  are  often  among  the  most 
vulnerable members of society, who are not accustomed or do not have the means to lodge a 
complaint or to stand up for their rights. 

Unlike in the air transport sector, where companies keep a record of all events encountered by 
passengers,  very  few  data  are  available  on  denied  boarding2,  long  delays,  or  refusal  to  sell 
tickets to PRMs in maritime transport. However, perceptions among the different contributors 
to the consultation as to the dimension of the problem vary significantly, and this is mainly 
due to the lack of agreed common definitions of the previously mentioned "critical events". 

A more detailed summary can be found in Annex 1.  

1.2.3.  PricewaterhouseCooper’s preparatory study 

A  preparatory  study  prior  to  this  impact  assessment  was  also  commissioned  from 
PricewaterhouseCoopers  Advisory  s.r.l  (PwC).  PwC  was  requested  to  assess  the  economic, 
social and environmental impacts of four policy options determined by DG TREN: no action, 
EU  legislative  action,  national  legislation  and  sector-specific  voluntary  agreements.  The 
conclusions of the preparatory study for the impact assessment have been taken into account 
in the following sections, which set out the key stage of the impact assessment analysis. 

2 

Even  though  the  very  few  data  available,  denied  boarding  for  overbooking  does  not  seem  to  be 
significant in the context of passenger transport by boat; therefore it would not be considered as part of 
the issues analysed in this IA. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2.4.  Assessment of Contract Conditions and Preferential Tariff Schemes 

The Commission contracted the consultancy, Steer Davies Gleave, to undertake a review of 
preferential  tariff  schemes,  air  carrier  Conditions  of  Carriage,  and  maritime  operator 
Conditions of Carriage.  

With regards to the maritime sector, this study review the Conditions of Carriage of maritime 
operators serving EU ports to evaluate what rights are provided to passengers in the event of 
delays and cancellations, what liability provisions were made, and what provisions are made 
for passengers with reduced mobility. It also identifies where maritime operator Conditions of 
Carriage contained terms which appeared likely to infringe the principles set out in the Unfair 
Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC). 

1.2.5. 

Impact Assessment Board opinion 

The  draft  Impact  Assessment  report  was  submitted  to  the  Impact  Assessment  Board 
(hereinafter IAB) on 15 September 2008. The IAB held a hearing on the subject on 8 October 
2008 which was followed by the submission of its detailed opinion on 13 October 2008.  

In drafting this final report, the recommendations in the written opinion of the IAB were taken 
into  account.  In  particular,  the  IAB  asked  for  a  clearer  justification  on:  the  scope  of  the 
initiative  regarding  the  sectors  covered  by  public  service  obligation;  the  extent  to  which 
passengers are already covered at national level by the rights which this initiative proposes to 
grant. The Board also recommended including a more developed analysis of alternative sub-
options  and  providing  more  information  on  the  likely  overall  costs  of  the  initiative  with  a 
more  accurate  assessment  of  the  impact  on  SMEs.  The  IAB  also  recommended  including 
some  further  explanations  of  why  Member  States'  action  alone  would  be  insufficient  to 
achieve  the  objectives  for  domestic  routes  and  cruises,  and  why  companies  do  not  have 
sufficient incentives to improve the situation of passengers. 

The  author  DG  followed  these  recommendations  by  substantially  redrafting  the  relevant 
chapters on the problem definition, policy options and analysis of impacts. 

Some features of the maritime market have been introduced in order to have a clear overview 
of  the  sector  and  to  better  understand  its  complexity.  The  problem  of  compilation  and 
handling of the missing data has also been addressed. An overview of the routes covered by 
public  service  obligations  has  been  introduced  as  well  as  some  clarification  on  the  baseline 
about the scope regarding these routes. The issue of whether or not to exclude PSOs has been 
analysed in a new sub-section of section 5 

An analysis of different sub-option for a compensation scheme, as the Board suggested, has 
been  included.  A  more  detailed  overview  of  the  different  existing  legislation  in  Member 
States and of the situation of passenger rights in all modes of transport has been introduced. 

As required by the IAB, the author DG has contacted, , DG ENTR regarding the impacts on 
SMEs and DG EMPL on the links with the proposed Council Directive on implementing the 
principle  of  equal  treatment.  Subsequently,  this  IA  was  revised  to  include  not  only  the 
comments  in  the  final  opinion  of  the  IA  Board  but  also  comments  from  the  IA  quality 
checklist. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Following the submission of a revised version on 17 October, which took the request from the 
IAB  fully  into  account,  the  IAB  issued  further  opinion  on  24  October  2008.  This  opinion 
welcomed the improvements that had been made, but requested some further adjustments.  

First, the description of the baseline still needed to be improved in order to clarify the extent 
to  which  passengers  are  already  covered  at  national  level  by  the  rights  which  this  initiative 
proposes  to  grant.  Secondly,  additional  sub-options  were  requested,  in  particular  to 
distinguish  between  different  modes  of  transport.  Thirdly,  the  proportionality  of  EU  actions 
needed to be better described.  

Subsequently, the Impact Assessment Report was again substantially revised in order to take 
account of the IAB's comments and suggestions.  

A description of the maritime market segments has been introduced in order to present a clear 
picture  of  how  the  maritime  sector  is  organised  (see  new  Box  2).  Rather  than  looking  at  a 
mixed  classification  consisting  of  cruise,  inland  waterway  and  cross  border,  the  maritime 
sector can be better analysed from three different perspectives: a geographical segmentation 
of  the  maritime  transport  of  passengers  differentiates  between  maritime  and  inland 
waterways;  a  second  kind  of  distinction  based  on  the  characteristics  of  the  boats  can  be 
made between ferry (including ro-ro and high speed ships) and cruises; a third segmentation 
can be drawn based on the nature of the routes, between domestic traffic and cross border 
routes (including both intra community and international routes). However, it must be noted 
that  the  statistics  on  the  sector  do  not  necessarily  reflect  these  three  types  of  segmentation. 
Box  2  provides  indicative  estimates  for  each  segment.  Moreover,  Table  19  in  annex  2  has 
been amended to clarify the potential number of PRMs that will use a (cruise) ship for trips of 
four nights or more for tourism purposes. 

As to regards accessibility, it has been made clear that the list of measures analysed has been 
drawn  up  in  order  to  estimate  potential  costs.  This  list  is  illustrative  in  nature,  since  the 
proposed initiative will not contain any detailed measures to be implemented.  

In section 2.8, which concerns the EU right to act, the reasoning behind EU actions has been 
described  while  taking  into  account  the  proportionality  of  those  actions.  It  includes  a  sub-
option assessing the advantages/disadvantages of a "cross-border only" legislative option.  

Finally, some clarification of the general existing regulatory framework has been introduced 
and the overall costs of the measures to the passengers have been set out in detail. 

Following the submission of a revised version on 4 November, fully taking into account the 
request  of  the  IAB,  the  IAB  issued  yet  another  opinion  on  10  November  2008.  While 
welcoming the substantial improvements that had been made, some minor further adjustments 
were  requested,  such  as  the  introduction  of  sub-options  for  the  accessibility  in  ports, 
assistance provided by PRMs and for information needs and a caveat in the table presenting 
the scenarios on the possible range of the number of passengers benefiting from the proposal. 

Therefore, the Impact Assessment Report was finally revised to take into account of the last 
IAB's comments and suggestions.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

The importance of the maritime sector for EU passengers 

Twenty  two  of  the  27  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  are  coastal  countries.  Four 
Member  States  are  islands  (United  Kingdom,  Ireland,  Malta  and  Cyprus)  and  eight  others 
(Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) have archipelagos or 
large islands with big populations. The sea borders between some Member States are in close 
proximity to each other, making it easy to use maritime transport. In the archipelagos and the 
outlying and  outermost  regions of the European Union, where intensive maritime passenger 
traffic  is  essential  for  their  integration  in  the  social  and  economic  fabric  of  the  European 
Union,  there  is  often  no  alternative  to  maritime  transport,  at  least  at  a  similar  price,  for 
passengers  wanting  to  travel  within  the  EU.  For  these  passengers,  any  journey  by  coach  or 
train or with their own car often means having to cross the sea first, even for journeys of less 
than 100 km. 

Over  the  last  thirty  years,  there  has  been  a  boom  in  mobility  in  Europe.  For  millions  of 
citizens,  travel  has  become  a  reality,  indeed  a  right.  In  1970,  each  EU  citizen  travelled  17 
kilometres every day; this figure is now 34 kilometres and is still growing. This phenomenon 
is due to a number of factors, but above all to economic growth, the completion of the internal 
market, lower travel costs and progress towards a “European area without internal frontiers”3. 

As  a  direct  result  of  this  boom  and  its  maritime  dimension,  398  million  people  passed 
through  ports  of  the  European  Union  in  20064,  which  means  around  199  million  maritime 
passengers a year. There are, roughly speaking, 288 operators on the European ferry and 
RoRo  (Roll-on,  Roll  off)  markets5,  and  there  are  approximately  800  passenger  ports  in 
Europe. The importance of maritime passenger transport is evenly spread throughout Europe, 
with  a  similar  number  of  major  routes6  in  each  of  the  three  coastal  zones  of  the  European 
Union (Baltic Sea, North Sea and Mediterranean Sea).  

2.2. 

Some features of the maritime passenger market 

Preliminary remarks: the data issue 

Some remarks, valid for the entire report, have to be made on key figures and data concerning 
maritime sector. 

The  sector  is  not  used  to  release  any  kind  business-related  information  such  as  number  of 
employees,  revenue  or  profit.  This  feature  was  confirmed  during  the  public  consultation 
carried out by the Commission, and it is corroborated by private specialised publications as 
well7. As a matter of fact, figures are lacking concerning simple data such as the number of 

3 
4 

5 

6 
7 

Article 2 of the European Union Treaty.  
Source:  Eurostat,  Statistics  in  focus  "Maritime  transport  of  goods  and  passengers  1997-2006".  This 
figure incorporates the traditional double counting at ports and represents a 2,8% increase compare to 
2005. 
Source:  DG  TREN  analysis  of  ShipPax  data  and  data  from  the  European  Community  Shipowners 
Association (ECSA). The exact number of ship operators working in Europe is not officially available. 
Routes with more than 1 000 000 passengers per year.  
See Shippax: "The Yearbook for passenger and ro-ro shipping: Statistics and Outlook '06 ", page 15 
and the statistics. This conclusion is also illustrated for the striking lack of data regarding most of the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
passengers/year  (hereinafter  pax/year)  for  many  routes,  or  even  the  exact  number  of  routes 
served by a company. The same lack of data also affects ports. Leaving aside the largest ports, 
for many ports it is not clear how many companies use them and how many pax/year transit 
through  them.  Data  are  either  not  available,  or  only  partially  available,  or  have  not  been 
updated since 1995. An explanation for this total lack of data on passengers could be that the 
maritime  sector,  in  spite  of  the  large  number  of  passengers  (around  400  millions  of 
passengers) carried annually by boat in the EU, has always identified itself more closely with 
freight  transport  than  with  passenger  transport,  since  the  economic  importance  of  the 
passenger  transport  for  the  large  majority  of  maritime  carriers  is  much  smaller  than  the 
revenues  they  earn  from  the  freight.  The  lack of  interest  shown  by  Member  States  over  the 
years into the specific situation of maritime passengers has contributed to the current lack of 
data.  

In this context, lists and figures in this IA have to be treated with caution, since they originate 
from the different statistical sources that are available. Some of them have been produced by 
Commission  services  in  order  to  be  compared  and  measured  for  the  purpose  of  this  report. 
Nevertheless, these figures are sound enough to provide some analysis and conclusions. 

Moreover when it comes to passenger protection, there is a total lack of factual information, 
since neither companies nor port authorities have ever compiled statistics or figures on delays, 
cancellations,  refusal  of  carriage,  overbooking  and  number  of  passengers  affected  by  those 
events. 

Passengers 

Figures  on  the  number  of  maritime  pax/year  in  Europe  oscillate  between  364  millions 
(according  to  the  Institute  of  Shipping  Analysis,  hereinafter  SAI),  398  millions  (Eurostat), 
and  511  millions  (ShipPax  information,  hereinafter  ShipPax).  ShipPax  and  SAI  figures  are 
likely to include data from non-EU European countries and their data differ significantly. It 
seems  therefore  wiser  to  stick  to  the  Eurostat  figure.  It  must  be  taken  into  account  that  all 
these  figures  reflect  passenger  movements  and  therefore  a  double-counting  is  a  possibility 
(roughly speaking, the figures have to be divided by 2 to get the actual number of passengers). 

Eurostat  does  not  break  down  figures  by  coastal  zones.  However,  the  percentages  of  traffic 
broken down by zones coming from the other two sources are very similar, and provide some 
useful  indicative  information  on  the  distribution  of  passengers  by  zones.  It  can  be  assumed 
that 40% of maritime passengers travel in the Baltic Sea; 25% in the North Sea and 35% in 
the Mediterranean Sea8. 

Data since 1997 show a global decline in the number of passengers. This drop in passengers is 
noticeable in almost half of the 20 biggest ports and on some of the more important routes.  

Ports 

There are about 800 passenger ports in the European Union. Those ports and the routes which 
link them are usually divided in three coastal zones:  

routes included in the report of SAI "the institute of Shipping Analysis" on European Ro-ro and Ferry 
lines published in 2006, see for instance pages 15 to 21. 
See Table 1 Annex 2 for distribution of passengers by zones 

8 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
•  Baltic  Sea,  which  covers  nine  countries,  namely  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland, 

Sweden, Finland; and partially Germany, Denmark and Norway (east coast); 

•  North  Sea  which  covers  11  countries,  namely  United  Kingdom,  Ireland,  Netherlands, 
Belgium,  Icelandic,  partially  Germany,  Denmark,  Norway  (west  coast),  partially  France, 
Spain, Portugal (north and west coast, plus Azores)9 

•  Mediterranean  Sea  which  covers  10  countries  namely  Cyprus,  Malta,  Greece,  Croatia, 
Slovenia, Italy, and partially France, Spain (including the Canary Islands), and the routes 
in the Black Sea for Bulgaria and Romania 

No comprehensive list of passenger ports in Europe has ever been compiled, and no attempt 
has been made to compile at least partial lists of ports organised by number of pax, number of 
routes or number of companies. Ideally, four categories of ports could be established, taking 
into account the number of pax/year:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Ports with less than 100.000 pax/year 

Ports with 100.000 to 500.000 pax/year 

Ports with 500.000 to 1.000.000 pax/year 

Ports with more than 1.000.000. pax/year 

Tables  2  and  3  in  annex  2,  show  a  list  of  passenger  ports  in  Europe  by  their  major  type  of 
traffic by zones, and the EU's top 40 passenger ports, respectively. 

Routes 

There  are  no  public  or  private  statistics  or  data  on  the  number  of  maritime  domestic  routes 
versus  intra-community  or  international  routes  or  how  the  total  number  of  passengers  is 
spread  between  domestic/cross  border  passengers.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  routes 
covered by cruise ships have never been compiled by the sector or by any public source.  

For the purpose of this impact assessment, DG TREN carried out an internal search of data, 
which shows that broadly speaking, around 60% of the routes seem to be domestic. The same 
internal survey shows that - broadly speaking and for the purpose of this impact assessment-, 
a  similar  percentage  of  the  domestic  routes  are  subject  to  a  Public  Service  Contract  that 
imposes, inter alia, social tariffs, frequencies or the number of places offered.  

In spite of the completion of the internal market, one feature of maritime passenger transport 
is  the  lack  of  competition  among  maritime  lines  on  the  overwhelming  majority  of  routes. 
Roughly  speaking,  around  182  routes  can  be  counted  in  the  Baltic  Sea  for  all  kinds  of 
passenger  traffic  (domestic,  intra-community  and  extra-community),  including  Norway. 
Competition is found on only 11 of these 182 routes (6%). As for the number of passengers, 
only  16  routes  represent  more  than  1.000.000  pax/year  (8.8%),  if  we  exclude  Norway 
domestic  routes.  If  we  include  them,  approximately  23  routes  are  transporting  more  than 
1.000.000 pax/year (12.6%). 

9 

There some studies that split this area into two: 1) Nordic and 2) Atlantic. For the sake of clarity and 
compiling data, where mentioned "Atlantic" must be understood part of the one so called Nord Sea. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For  the  roughly  200  routes  which  sail  the  North  Sea,  and  for  all  types  of  traffic  taken 
together,  competition  is  found  on  eight  routes  (4%).  As  for  the  number  of  passengers, 
approximately 19 routes count more than 1.000.000 pax/year (9.5%).  

In the Mediterranean Sea, on a total of approximately 390 routes10, around 70 are covered 
by two or more companies (18%). As for the number of passengers, only 17 routes carry more 
than 1.000.000 pax/year (4.3%).  

A break down of routes by number of passengers, including the number of routes subject to 
competition, is attempted in Annex 2, table 4.  

Routes  could  be  broken  down  into  short  distance  crossings,  which  takes  less  than  6  hours; 
medium  distance  crossings,  which  takes  between  6  and  12  hours;  long  distance  crossings, 
which  are  typically  more  than  12  hours  and  frequently  used  for  night  time  crossings. 
However, no attempt seems to have been made to classify maritime routes in terms of their 
duration. Since the duration of most routes is not mentioned, such a classification is not dealt 
with this report.  

It is also worth mentioning that, under Regulation 3577/199211, Member States have imposed 
public service obligations (PSOs) on certain maritime routes. Regulation 3577/1992 sets strict 
limits on what Member States can impose on a PSO. Under Article 4.2 of the Regulation, "In 
imposing  public  service  obligations,  Member  States  shall  be  limited  to  requirements 
concerning  ports  to  be  served,  regularity,  continuity,  frequency,  capacity  to  provide  the 
service, rates to be charged and manning of the vessel". In other terms, Only Public Service 
Contracts  (PSCs),  under  Article  2.3  of  the  Regulation  may  impose  on  operators  certain 
standards  of  quality,  which  could  include,  in  some  cases,  certain  obligations  regarding  the 
accessibility  for  PRM.  At  this  stage,  it  is  very  difficult  to  quantify  the  number  of  routes 
subject to PSC because some of them may have expired, some others are about to expire and 
still others may have had extended expiry dates; but whatever the case, the maximum duration 
for a PSC is six years.  

It  is  worth  calling  to  mind  that  the  market  segment  covered  by  PSOs  and  PSC  is  only 
domestic  in  nature.  Despite  the  lack  of  data  and  the  expiry  date  of  the  PSO,  it  can  be 
estimated that in 2005 approximately 321 domestic routes12 are subject to PSOs. This would 
amount  to  more  or  less  36%  of  the  total  market  (both  the  maritime  and  inland  waterway 
segments), out of around 60% of all domestic maritime passenger transport routes in the EU). 
They  would  include  most  of  the  smallest  routes  where  the  profit  margins  of  the  companies 
involved  may  be  quite  small.  However,  those  routes  do  not  account  for  60%  of  overall 
domestic passenger movements, because usually they are minor routes with small passenger 
numbers.  Since  it  is  only  the  PSC,  and  not  the  PSO,  that  can  set  quality  standards,  the 
percentage of routes with might have some passenger rights within these quality standards is 

10 

11 

12 

Including Croatian domestic routes: 37 (Croatian international routes are all with Italy and Slovenia, so 
they  are  counted  as  international  routes  from  EU  members);  Bulgarian  international  traffic:  2  routes; 
Rumania international traffic: 1 route. 
Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3577/92  of  7  December  1992  applying  the  principle  of  freedom  to 
provide  services  to  maritime  transport  within  Member  States  (maritime  cabotage).  OJ  L  364, 
12.12.1992, pp. 7–10. 
See Annex 3 for a detail overview of PSO routes. Source: “Etude en vue de la réalisation du cinquième 
rapport  de  la  Commission  sur  la  mise  en  œuvre  du  règlement  3577/92  (cabotage  Maritime)” 
TREN/CC/01-2005/S07.62844. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
lower, between 26% to 30% of the total market. For the purpose of this impact assessment, 
we have selected an intermediate figure of 28%. 

Given the lack of evidence on the implementation of PSOs in Member States, Section 5 will 
analyse a range of assumptions regarding PSOs routes. 

Box 1  Services of General Interest 

Services  of  general  interest  should  be  organised  and  regulated  as  closely  as  possible  to  the 
citizens and the principle of subsidiarity must be strictly respected. The Commission respects 
the  essential  role  of  the  Members  States  and  of  regional  and  local  authorities  in  the  area  of 
services of general interest. This role is reflected in the Community's policies on services of 
general  interest,  which  are  based  on  various  degrees  of  action  and  the  use  of  a  range  of 
instruments in line with the principle of subsidiarity. 

However,  the  provision  and  organisation  of  these  services  is  subject  to  the  rules  of  the  EC 
Treaty on the internal market and competition, since their activities are economic in nature. In 
the  case  of  large  network  industries  having  a  clear  European-wide  dimension,  such  as 
telecommunications, electricity, gas, transport and postal services, the services are regulated 
by a specific EU legislative framework. 

The maritime sector is an example of how a full liberalisation process can be compatible with 
the maintenance of PSOs. Member States have the right to impose a PSO when they consider 
that  a  route  is  vital  for  the  economic  development  of  a  region  or  an  island.  The  standards 
imposed under the public service obligation may concern prices, the number of places offered, 
frequencies, etc., where a similar level of service would not be provided if maritime transport 
operators were solely considering their commercial interest. 

In the field of maritime cabotage, PSOs may be imposed or public service contracts (PSCs) 
may  be  concluded  for  the  services  listed  in  Article  4  of  Regulation  3577/92.  For  those 
services,  PSOs  and  PSCs  as  well  as  their  compensation  must  fulfil  the  conditions  of  that 
provision and conform to the Treaty rules and procedures governing State aid, as interpreted 
by the Court of Justice. 

The  Commission  accepts  that  if  a  transport  service  is  necessary  to  meet  imperative  public 
transport needs, PSOs may be imposed or PSCs may be concluded, on the condition that any 
compensation is subject to the above-mentioned Treaty rules and procedures. The duration of 
public service contracts should be limited to a reasonable and not excessively period-normally 
in  the  order  of  six  years-  since  contracts  for  significantly  longer  periods  could  entail  the 
danger of creating a (private) monopoly. 

Operators 

No source is able to determine exactly how many operators work in Europe. A general figure 
of  31813  companies  is  liable  to  double-count  operators  that  cover  both  domestic  routes  (94 
operators)  and  international  routes  (224  operators);  a  comprehensive  list  of  Community 
operators does not appear to have been compiled yet.  

13 

Source: SAI (the Institute of Shipping Analysis) 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Ferry operators. Ferries are used commercially to cross waters on a regular liner service with 
passengers, and the feature that distinguishes them from other vessels is their ability to carry 
cars and commercial vehicles. If a ship is only carrying freight and no passengers or at least 
not  more  than  12  passengers,  the  ship  is  not  regarded  as  a  ferry.  Taking  this  into  account, 
there are about 240 ferry operators in total; most of them are international ferry operators that 
operate intra Community services14. 

As has already been mentioned, nearly 300 operators are working on the European Ferry and 
RoRo-markets. They own a total of more than 1,700 ships with a total capacity of 1.2 million 
passengers. They carried a total of 364 million passengers in 2005. 

Cruise operators. The cruise industry15 is a part of the maritime sector that possesses specific 
features.  Firstly,  this  sector  could  be  considered  to  some  extent  as  a  luxury  segment,  where 
ships include a complete hotel infrastructure, the product is an "all-inclusive" vacation and the 
passengers  tend  to  be  in  the  middle  age  group  (an  average  of  54,8  years  old  for  UK 
passengers).  Secondly,  only  three  EU  countries  are  represented  among  the  12  top  ranking 
cruise shipping companies in 2008 namely Germany, Cyprus and the United Kingdom. These 
EU  countries  only  own  32  of  the  284  ships,  and  they are also  the  oldest ships (26 years  on 
average) compared to the remainder of the 12 top ranking cruise shipping companies (17.8)16. 
In 2005 the cruise industry carried approximately 34 million passengers in intra-Community 
traffic. 

In contrast to the steady decrease in the number of passengers for the ferry and RoRo sector, 
the  cruise  industry  has  been  experiencing  a  steady  increase  over  the  last  few  years.  The 
Mediterranean  cruise  market  has  forecast  an  increase  of  11.85%  in  passenger  numbers  in 
2008 compared to 2007. Dover's Cruise is expecting to increase the number of passengers by 
up to 10% in 2008. 

Box 2 Overview of passenger maritime transport market segments 

Given the available statistics for the sector and taking into account that this might go beyond 
other traditional classifications for other sectors of the economy, the maritime market, might 
be divided into market segments in three ways: (1) the type of traffic: sea vs inland waterways 
and  (2)  the  characteristics  of  the  vessels:  ferries  vs  cruises;  and  (3)  the  nature  of  the  route: 
domestic vs cross border (which includes intra-Community and international routes) 

(1) Segmentation between Sea and Inland waterway: 

Sea Traffic: passenger transport service by boat is mainly considered as sea traffic. Almost 
all of the traffic (ferries and cruises) falls into this category. 

Sea traffic covers +/-99% of the total of the passenger transport market by boat. 

14 
15 

16 

See Annex 2 Table 5 for maritime ferry operators by main type of activity and main area of operation. 
For the sake of clarity when referring to a cruise in this report, it stands for a ship regularly used for 
cruising  activities  exceeding one day  (overnight), not  in ordinary  passenger  transport between  port A 
and port B, but with passengers normally returning to the port of embarkation. ShipPax Statistics and 
Outlook 2006, page 48 
Shipping Statistics and market review. Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics. Volume 52, n 8, 
2008, page 12. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Inland  Waterway:  Inland  waterways  are  mainly  used  for  cargo  services.  They  can  be 
considered,  on  very  rare  occasions,  as  passenger  transport  services.  The  passenger  services 
included are usually either urban services (e.g. Venice, other lake services, boats linking the 
two  shores  of  the  Douro  in  Lisbon)  under  a  public  service  contract;  or  cruise  services  (e.g. 
cruises on the Rhine and the Danube). It constitutes a minor market segment, which accounts 
for +/- 1% of the total passenger transport market by boat. 

(2) Segmentation between ferries (only transport, including ferry, ro-ro and high speed 
ships), and cruise (combined transport and tourism, on cruise ships):  

Ferry:  covers  all  kind  of  routes.  The  market  share  of  ferries  is  +/-  92%  of  total  passenger 
transport market by boat. 

Cruise.  The  cruise  objective  is  twofold:  to  deliver  a  transport  service  and  leisure  related 
activities  at  the  same  time.  For  cruise  passengers  both  the  voyage  itself  and  the  ship's 
amenities are part of the package. Some ships fulfill the standards of 5-star hotels, with sun 
decks,  dining  rooms,  lounges,  fitness  facilities,  swimming  pools,  casinos  and  other 
entertainment facilities. Cruise ships normally operate on routes that return passengers to their 
originating port. 

The market share of cruise is +/- 8% of total market for passenger transport by boat. 

(3)  Segmentation  between  domestic  routes  and  cross  border  routes  (including  intra-
Community and international routes): 

Domestic routes: Domestic routes tend to be smaller in terms of passenger numbers than the 
intra-Community and the international routes. Broadly speaking and within the parameters of 
this exercise, the number of domestic routes amounts to around 60% of the total number of 
routes. 

Intra-Community routes: these tend to be commercial routes which are ranked among the 
most important in terms of number of passengers,  size of ports and  size of operators. Intra-
Community routes are thought cover around 30% of the total.  

International  routes  between  Member  States  and  their  international  neighbours  (i.e.  the 
Maghreb countries, Russia, Turkey, Croatia, Albania, etc.). By far the majority of the cruise 
segment is cross border, since cruises tend to cover - in at least one segment of their trip - an 
intra-community or an international port. International routes make up between 5% and 10% 
of  the  market.  However,  their  percentage  of  the  market  is  likely  to  increase  in  the  coming 
years,  taking  into  account  the  boom  in  the  cruise  sector,  where  the  growth  rate,  based  on  a 
conservative estimate, is likely to be around 10% per year. 

Main conclusions from the analysis of impacts 

By far the majority of the maritime market covers transport by sea (first segment) and 
is served by ferries (the means of transport) and it covers a majority (60%) of domestic 
routes.  Inland  waterways  account  for  a  very  minor  part  of  the  market.  The  cruise 
segment  of  the  market  overlaps  with  tourism.  Therefore,  the  impact  analysis  will  also 
look at the impact on the tourism sectors (see section 5.2).  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
2.3. 

The specific problems for PRMs passengers 

A large majority of the citizens of the European Union (79%) believe that being disabled is a 
disadvantage  in  their  country.  In  line  with  such  a  broadly  shared  public  perception  and  the 
support  for  the  plight  of  the  disabled,  who  often  encounter  discrimination,  there  is  a  clear 
consensus in all the Member States (91%) that more should be done, and more money should 
be spent, on improving accessibility17. In transport services, the rights of disabled persons and 
persons with reduced mobility cannot be limited to the accessibility of means of transport, as 
they also encompass non-discrimination, seamless assistance, and provision of information.18 

The  issue  of  discrimination  against  PRMs  in  maritime  transport  has  been  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  Commission  by  a  number  of  persons  with  reduced  mobility  and  consumer 
associations,  who  consider,  along  with  Member  States  and  national  authorities,  that  the 
assistance  given  by  shipping  companies  and  ports  to  PRMs,  including  access  to  ports  and 
ships, is partly or wholly insufficient. 

The current level of protection for PRMs is not easy to assess due to the limited information 
available on the subject but the following topics are identified as key elements for improving 
PRMs  rights  protection:  accessibility  of  ports,  assistance  provided,  and  suitability  of 
information. 

2.3.1.  The current level of accessibility in ports 

Port  authorities  and  terminal  operators  were  requested  by  the  Commission  to  provide 
information  about  accessibility  in  their  ports19.  The  results  provide  indications  as  to  which 
solutions  should  be  adopted  and  which  areas  should  be  improved  in  order  to  facilitate  full 
access for PRMs in ports. 

Wheelchair users can access terminals, berths and terminal buildings from the port entrance 
and  berths  from  terminals  at  about  80%  of  the  ports  and  terminals  surveyed.  Aids  to  help 
visually impaired people to access berths and vessels, i.e. tactile paving surfaces, are provided 
by 20% of the ports and terminals surveyed. Low-level counters, which help PRMs when they 
need information from desks, are fairly uncommon: 10 terminals out of the 49 provide these 
facilities.  Port  operators  were  asked  to  provide  information  on  the  availability  of  aids  for 
hearing-impaired  persons:  one  terminal  out  of  the  49  offers  this  particular  facility.  Finally, 
only  35 of the  terminals  provide accessible toilets, and many terminals offer  more than one 
toilet (see figure 2 in annex 2).  

In conclusion, even if persons with reduced mobility have access to the ports surveyed, most 
ports do not offer the specific solutions they need. 

17 
18 

19 

Eurobarometer survey: Discrimination in the EU, January 2007, Question 6. 
COM/2005/0604 final */ - "Situation of disabled people in the enlarged European Union: the European 
Action Plan 2006-2007, p. 3. 
49 completed questionnaires were returned by 31 ports. The sample can be considered representative, 
since  responses  were  collected from  ports of  all  sizes  and from  all  geographical  areas.  The ports  that 
submitted a response handle a total of about 39 million passengers. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3.2.  The current level and quality of assistance provided to PRMs 

Assistance  to  PRMs  appears  to  be  very  well  covered  in  the  UK,  France  and  Ireland,  as  is 
physical accessibility for persons with reduced mobility (see Table 11 in Annex 2). However, 
assistance to PRMs throughout the entire trip is provided by only a few UK-based operators. 

2.3.3.  The current suitability of information for the needs of PRMs 

Information  specifically  for  PRMs  is  uncommon  in  Europe  (only  1  operator  out  of  the  43 
interviewed - see table 9 in Annex 2). A clear exception is the UK and possibly also Ireland, 
where  there  is  extensive  and  systematic  provision  of  information  for  PRMs.  Information  is 
provided  by  maritime  transport  operators  in  Braille  in  a  few  cases  in  Ireland,  the  Nordic 
countries and the UK (2 operators). 

2.4. 

The  problems  of  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  passengers  when  travelling  by 
ship 

2.4.1.  Quality of service and travel interruptions: delays and cancellations 

The problem of the effective protection of the rights of passengers in the event of interruption, 
delay or cancellation involving journeys by sea or inland waterway concerns the various types 
of  maritime  transport,  namely:  national  traffic  –including  inland  waterways  traffic-,  intra-
Community traffic, international traffic and cruise ship traffic. 

When a journey is suddenly interrupted for several hours or when a trip is suddenly cancelled, 
for  whatever  reasons,  passengers  find  themselves  in  a  stressful,  unexpected  and  difficult 
situation. Often far from home, and usually confined within the limits of a port or a ship, they 
do not have the means, immediately and on the spot, to lessen the inconveniences caused by a 
situation for which they are not responsible and over which they have no influence.  

Maritime passengers are often captive passengers, who depend on their trip by ship to access 
other  means  of  transport.  This  is  clearly  the  case  for,  among  others,  populations  living  in 
small and medium-sized islands all around Europe, with no airports and no fixed links with 
the  continent.  Maritime  transport,  as  with  bus  and  coach  transport,  tends  to  be  a  mode  of 
transport chosen by those in society with lower incomes, for instance, persons or families who 
cannot afford travelling by plane and renting a car at their arrival point. They are then bound 
to  take  a  ship,  whatever  the  conditions  the  carrier  may  impose  on  them.  Those  citizens  on 
lower incomes are usually not accustomed or do not have the means to lodge a complaint or to 
stand up for their rights20.  

It  must  be  noted  that,  despite  the  opening  up  of  the  internal  market,  European  maritime 
passenger transport sector is currently not a sector where there is strong internal competition. 
Even when inaccuracies and gaps in the available data are taken into account, no competition 
is found in around 80% of the routes in the Baltic Sea and North Sea/Channel/Atlantic Ocean, 
and competition is present in no more than a quarter of the routes in the Mediterranean Sea21. 
Experience shows that simply relying on the market to produce solutions may not work in all 
circumstances,  and  this  appears  evident  in  this  field,  where  there  is  little  incentive  for 
companies to improve their standards, at least on those many routes with no competition and 

20 
21 

See Figure 1 in Annex 2 for percentage of complaints registered. 
Analysis of data from different databases as ShipPax statistics and outlook (2006) and Eurostat.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
where the majority of their passengers do not have the physical or the economical means to 
travel by any other mode of transport.  

Unlike  the  case  of  air  transport,  denied  boarding  does  not  appear  to  be  a  problem  for 
passengers in maritime transport. In air transport, "denied boarding" is defined as a refusal to 
carry  passengers  on  a  flight,  although  they  have  presented  themselves  for  boarding,  except 
where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety 
or  security,  or  inadequate  travel  documentation22.  Denied  boarding  in  air  transport  occurs 
frequently  because  tickets  are  systematically  booked  in  advance.  The  marginal  cost  of  one 
empty seat on a particular flight is high, and airlines therefore have an interest in practising 
overbooking – which in a number of cases leads to denied boarding. 

In  maritime  transport,  transport  of  passengers  is  often  combined  with  cars,  buses  or  freight 
(ro-ro  ferries),  which  limits  the  cost  of  a  lost  passenger,  and  cancels  out  the  incentive  to 
overbook  and  therefore  denied  boarding.  For  smaller  passenger  boats,  tickets  are  purchased 
just  before  boarding,  on  a  "first  come  first  serve"  basis,  which  makes  denied  boarding 
impossible.  

2.4.2. 

Information to passengers 

Companies have chosen the contents of the information they provide, just as they have chosen 
the  solutions  offered  to  their  passengers  when their  travel  is  suddenly  interrupted,  based  on 
their goodwill and their customer policy23. In most cases where information is provided, it is 
on an ad hoc basis, at the individual request of passengers, and on the spot. As a result, when 
a critical event occurs, passengers feel confused in the absence of standardised information, 
they  do  not  know  what  they  can  expect  from  the  company,  and  they  may  even  be  unaware 
that  the  company  has  offered  alternative  solutions  to  other  passengers  in  the  same 
circumstances24.  

2.4.3.  Enforcement and Redress  

On the large majority of maritime routes where no competition at all has been developed, it is 
clear  that the opening up of the market  has  not raised quality standards and services as  had 
been  expected,  including  better  enforcement  of  passenger  rights  and  user-friendly  means  of 
settling  disputes  and  means  of  redress  to  be  used  by  all  companies.  The  lack  of  common 
procedures isolates the passenger, who has to cope with different procedures and deadlines, 
depending on the company, when he needs to express his dissatisfaction. 

2.5. 

The underlying drivers of the problem 

Lack  of  uniformity  regarding  the  extent  and  depth  of  passenger  rights  protection.  Every 
country  has  some  regulations  regarding  passenger  rights,  and  some  countries  even  have 
special  provisions  for  PRMs  passengers.  But  there  are  important  differences  between  them, 

22 

23 

24 

Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  February  2004 
establishing  common  rules  on  compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – article 2. 
See Table 8 in Annex 2, on Information provided to passengers in general; and Table 9 on information 
provided to PRMs in particular. 
See Table 6 in Annex 2, on Information provided to passengers in case of critical events. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
not only concerning the level of detail and issues covered, but also the kind of law applicable 
and the authorities in charge of producing, enforcing, monitoring and revising regulations. 

Lack  of  a  common  framework  regarding  immediate  and  predefined  solutions  in  cases  of 
cancellation  and  delays.  For  passengers  in  general,  there  is  currently  no  international  or 
Community  legislation that  determines automatic and immediate solutions when a travel by 
ship is interrupted by a critical event. At national level, in the absence of specific regulation, 
these issues are dealt with by the general legislation on consumer protection. Apart from the 
Athens Convention of 1974 relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 
and the Protocol of 2002 to the Convention, and the Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 
1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours25, little has been done in the past 
to  protect  the  rights  of  passengers  travelling  by  ship.  Ship  passenger  carriers  have  never 
tackled  the  issue  of  standardising  passenger  rights  or  quality  standards  among  themselves 
through their European and international organisations. 

As  a  result,  there  are  currently  no  common  rules  or  common  practices  on  how  to  inform, 
assist,  re-route or,  in  certain  specific cases, possibly compensate ship  passengers when they 
find themselves stranded due to a critical event. Some companies have decided to develop a 
policy on these issues to offer their passengers some rights when a critical event occurs, but 
the  companies  that  have  developed  a  policy  on  those  issues  have  done  so  in  very  different 
ways and manners.  

In addition, there is a de facto problem: namely, a lack data; it is difficult to retrieve data on 
aspects such as the number of critical events registered26. There may be two main reasons for 
this: a lack of harmonised concepts and terminologies (e.g. companies have different ways of 
defining delays); and no requirement to control and monitor. Despite this incompleteness of 
the  data,  a  methodology  has  been  devised  to  produce  sound  and  accurate  estimates  of  the 
parameters of interest, Annex 3 explains in detail how this missing data have been handled. 

Lack of information to passengers in general and to PRM passengers in particular, regarding 
their  rights  in  case  of  a  critical  event.  Diversity  amongst  countries  is  even  greater  when  it 
comes to the amount and quality of information provided to passengers about their rights in 
such  cases.  The  situations  with  regard  to  availability  of  information  differ  widely,  ranging 
from  none  at  all  to  detailed  information  in  Braille.  Even  ports  and  operators  in  the  same 
country seem to act independently and to be guided by motives other than legislation.  

Potential discrimination against PRMs. this phenomenon arises from the fact that, in maritime 
transport, market forces alone do not enable their actual needs of PRMs to be met. From the 
shipping companies’ point of view, such a market failure is part of a vicious circle in which, 
the actual demand for travel from PRMs is not considered large enough to drive the necessary 
adaptations  in  ports  or  aboard  ships.  The  resulting  lack  of  dedicated  facilities  in  maritime 
transport discourages persons with reduced mobility from making reservations on boats and 
thus  confirms  the  argument  of  the  shipping  companies  —  and  also  the  vicious  circle  of 
exclusion of PRMs from maritime transport. 

25 
26 

JO L 158 of 23 June 1990 
See footnote 23 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  this  context,  partial  regulatory  action  has  been  taken  at  EU  level:  Directive  2003/2427, 
Article 6b, concerning safety requirements on passenger ships, is of great importance in terms 
of  securing  access  to  maritime  transport  for  PRMs,  and  follows  the  rules  defined  by  the 
International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO,  1996).  However,  it  only  deals  with  accessibility 
aboard  new  ships  performing  domestic  trips,  and  does  not  cover  accessibility  in  ports, 
assistance, information and non-discrimination.  

Meanwhile, a number of Member States have demonstrated a real commitment on this matter 
and  have  adopted  legislation  to  develop  sets  of  rights  for  PRMs  when  travelling  by  sea28. 
These  rules  are  mainly  administered  by  a  public  authority  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  cover 
access  by  PRMs  to  maritime  transport.  It  is  unclear,  however,  whether  and  to  what  degree 
these regulations in practice give persons with reduced mobility the right to demand access to 
maritime  transport  and  assistance  where  necessary.  In  any  event,  such  regulations  vary  in 
scope and content, resulting in widely disparate rules applying to international routes, which 
is particularly problematic for PRMs when travelling cross-border by sea. Such a disparity in 
the rules also represents a potential difficulty for maritime carriers operating cross-border. 

To sum up, the current lack of a common set of principles on the protection of the rights of 
passengers  travelling  by  ship  in  the  European  Union  confuses  and  isolates  passengers,  who 
are never sure - from one company to another; from one country to another; and even from the 
departure port to the arrival port if they connect two different countries - of their rights in each 
situation, or to whom they can refer in the event of problems. Market opening should go hand 
in hand with increased well-being for consumers. It is in the interest of both companies and 
citizens that this situation is redressed. 

2.6.  Who is affected and how? 

The  number  of  passengers  using  maritime  transport  is  increasing  (up  2.5%  from  2005  to 
2006), due to the opening up of maritime transport markets which has led to a wider range of 
tourist  destinations  on  offer,  at  ever  lower  prices.  The  annual  total  number  of  maritime 
passengers for the countries considered was estimated in 2006 at 199 million, of which close 
to 60% in national traffic and 35% in intra-Community traffic. The remaining traffic is split 
between international and cruise travels. 

The total number of PRMs was around 136.2 million persons in the EU-27 in 200529.Of these 
136.2 million, it has been estimated that 70% have the actual economic and physical ability to 
travel  (95.3  million).  Around  200  million  passengers  out  of  the  total  EU  population  (500 

27 

28 

29 

Directive  2003/24/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  April  2003  amending 
Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships — OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, 
pp. 18–21. 
I.e.  Greece;  Ireland;  the  UK;  Malta;  The  Netherlands.  There  are  anti-discrimination  laws  in  some 
countries such as Sweden, the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. 
Eurostat  provides  an  estimation  of  disabled  people.  People  affected  by  some  form  of  disability  are 
estimated  at  around  10%  of  total  population  (49  million  people  in  2007).  However,  this  notion  is 
restricted as PRM may concern other types of disabilities. For this reason, PwC has analysed data from 
Eurostat and One-Stop-Shop for Accessible Tourism in Europe (OSSATE): “Accessibility Market and 
Stakeholder Analysis” (20 October 2005). According to the OSSATE report, the PRM population in the 
EU-25 in 2003 was 27.7% of the total population. This includes the total disabled population and the 
elderly population. Temporarily impaired people who require higher levels of accessibility for a short 
period of time (such as people with a broken leg) are not included in this statistical account. Therefore, 
the actual demand for accessibility in Europe is probably higher.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
million) use transport by boat, which amounts to about 40% of the total EU population. For 
the purpose of this impact assessment, it has been assumed that the same percentage would 
allow us to calculate roughly the number of PRMs passengers in the EU. It means that at this 
stage, in a conservative scenario, 38.1 millions of PRMs passengers are affected by the lack of 
passenger rights. It is important to notice that in the transport sector all the statistics and data 
available  are  measured  in  terms  of  passengers,  not  persons.  Therefore,  38.1  million  of 
passengers does not mean 38.1 millions of the PRM population, since the same person may 
make several trips a year. The same principle applies, logically, to the figures relating to non-
PRM  passengers.  Effective  access  to  transport  is  often  necessary  for  active  participation  in 
economic and social life and its absence may seriously compromise the integration of many 
citizens with reduced mobility (see COM/2005/0604 final). 

2.7. 

How will the problem evolve? 

As far as minimum protection of rights of passenger travelling by ship is concerned, inaction 
on the part of the Commission and those involved, i.e. simply maintaining the current "status 
quo", is likely to make the present situation worse. Maritime passenger companies now face 
competition  not  only  from  new  market  entrants,  but  also  from  low-cost  airlines,  and  high-
speed railways (such as the Eurostar, which links Paris and Brussels with London), as well as 
from  infrastructure  such  as  the  Øresund  bridge  between  Denmark  and  Sweden,  which 
provides  a  fixed  motorway  link  between  the  coasts  of  these  two  Member  States.  Those 
competitors  in  most  cases  also  have  an  influence  on  many  maritime  routes,  (e.g.  Channel 
Tunnel and several maritime routes through the Channel). Competition between maritime and 
other  modes  of  transport  has  been  very  successful  wherever  it  has  been  made  possible,  and 
has led to a decrease in the number of maritime passengers to the benefit of other modes of 
transport on all routes concerned. The only exception to this rule is the cruise sector, where 
the number of passengers seems to have increased lasting recent years.  

As more and more routes are subject to competition with other modes of transport for which a 
minimum  set  of  rights  is  already  established  and  as  the  European  population  ages  and  the 
number  of  passengers  with  reduced  mobility  increases,  more  and  more  potential  passengers 
may decide to forego trips by ship, reducing the number of actual passengers and making the 
sector  more  and  more  fragile.  To  highlight  just  some  examples,  between  1997  and  2004 
Dover  and  Calais  lost  around  30%  of  their  passenger  (due  to  competition  with  the  Channel 
Tunnel  and  low  cost  airline  companies),  and  passenger  volumes  for  France  and  the  United 
Kingdom fell by 18% and 10% respectively between 1997 and 2004 . Helsingborg in Sweden 
and Helsingor in Denmark have lost around 11% of their passengers (following the opening 
of  the  Oresund  fixed  link).  Belgium's  passenger  volume  fell  by  60%  between  1997  and 
200430; passenger traffic has dropped 18% on all the routes between Greece and Italy since 
200131. Passengers' confidence in other modes of transport, based on rights already approved 
at  Community  level,  is  likely  to  lead  to  mistrust  of  maritime  transport  if  it  refuses  to  give 
passengers  this  minimum  of  uniformity,  clarity  and  effectiveness  concerning  their  rights. 
Wherever passengers are faced with a choice between modes of transport covering a similar 
route, they will continue to "vote with their feet" by opting for the mode of transport which 
gives them better protection.  

30 
31 

See footnote 4.  
Source: ShipPax Statistics and Outlook 2006, p.28. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Ferry companies cannot compete on speed with low-cost airlines, high-speed train services or 
new road transport opportunities provided by bridges and fixed links. Maritime lines need to 
raise their quality standards if they are to remain competitive. Better protection of passenger 
rights when their trip is interrupted, better provision of information and a clearer, quicker and 
more  efficient  system  of  handling  complaints  will  certainly  help  companies  to  boost  their 
quality standards and to remain competitive. 

Regarding PRMs, it should be noted that there is a strong correlation between disability and 
increasing  age.  In  2002,  nearly  30%  of  people  in  the  55-64  age  groups  reported  a  long-
standing  health  problem  or  disability  (see  COM/2005/0604  final).  The  ageing  of  the 
population, a process that has been well documented32, will inevitably mean that the number 
of such persons will increase and their needs will become ever greater. 

The  ageing  of  the  European  population  has  a  direct  influence  on  the  number  of  disabled 
persons and people with reduced mobility. As a result of this process, accessibility issues will 
gradually assume greater importance in passengers’ decision to choose a particular mode of 
transport.  If  nothing  is  done,  those  groups  of  the  population  (i.e.  potential  passengers)  will 
stop  travelling  by  sea  because  of  uncertainty  about  the  companies'  attitudes  regarding  their 
rights or the kind of assistance and information they may receive.  

Consequently,  there  would  be  a  worsening  of  the  negative  effects  linked  to  the  loss  of 
competitiveness  of  maritime  passenger  transport,  such  as  adverse  environmental  effects; 
negative  social  consequences  (translated  into  job  losses  on  board  and  ashore,  and  a  lack  of 
integration of the elderly and the disabled), not to mention unhealthy economic consequences 
for already sensitive coastal areas (the decline of certain ports and certain companies). 

2.8. 

Does the EU have the right to act? 

EU consumer policy is at the heart of the next phase of the internal market, as set out in the 
Commission’s  communication  to  the  Spring  European  Council  on  the  Single  Market 
Review33.  The  liberalisation  of  a  market  is  complete  only  when  consumers,  and  not  just 
companies,  can  enjoy  the  maximum  benefits.  As  the  common  market  in  maritime  transport 
has  been  achieved,  the  protection  of  maritime  passengers’  rights  within  this  European 
common market must be put in place accordingly. This European dimension has already been 
acknowledged and acted upon at Community level by the European legislator in both the air 
and  rail  modes  of  transport34.  Moreover,  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  the  rights  of 
passengers travelling by bus and coach is currently in Inter-service Consultation.  

Box 3 Passenger rights in different modes of transport 

Air  Passenger  Rights.  Air  transport  is  the  mode  of  transport  that  has  the  most  developed 
protection  of  passenger  rights  at  EU  level.  This  was  the  first  sector  in  which  the  European 
Commission's  passenger  rights  protection  policy,  envisaged  since  its  White  Paper  of  2001, 
was  implemented.  Air  passenger  rights  legislation  has  also,  paved  the  way  for  a  single  and 
coherent EU policy for the other modes of transport. From the first Regulation on air carrier 

32 
33 

34 

See EUR 25 OECD extrapolations in Figure 3 in Annex 2.  
European  Commission,  A  Single  Market  for  Citizens  —  interim  report  to  the  2007  Spring  European 
Council, Brussels. COM (2007) 60, 21.2.2007. 
Regulations  (EC)  No  261/2004,  OJ  L46,  and  (EC)  No  1107/2006,  OJ  L204,  regarding  air  transport; 
regarding rail transport, see Regulation 1371/2007. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
liability  in  the  event  of  accidents  in  199735  until  the  most  recent  one,  which  covers  PRMs 
rights when travelling by air in 2006 (in force since July 2008)36, all the issues identified by 
the Commission in its policy documents have been covered. Regulation 261/200437 on rules 
on  compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied  boarding  and  of 
cancellation  covers:  quality  of  service,  right  to  passengers'  information,  automatic  and 
immediate solutions when travel is interrupted and introduction of complaint procedures and 
enforcement bodies as mechanisms to settle disputes out of court. 

Rail Passenger Rights. Regulation 1371/200738 (due to enter into force on December 2009) 
provides  a  set  of  rights  for  all  railway  users  throughout  the  European  Union.  These  rights 
consist of rules on liability in case of accidents; basic information and quality standards; the 
principles of non-discrimination and conditions for assistance to disabled persons or persons 
with  reduced  mobility;  measures  in  the  event  of  delay  (ad  hoc  assistance,  re-routing  or  full 
reimbursement,  compensation  of  a  part  the  ticket  price  paid)  and  effective  enforcement.  In 
addition to the exemptions that Member States may apply to their regional and urban services, 
this  Regulation  will  eventually  apply  to  all  rail  services  throughout  the  EU.  Railway 
undertakings  will  be  obliged  to  participate  in  the  creation  of  a  computer  information  and 
reservation system in order to allow better information and sales facilities throughout the EU 
railway network. The European Railways Agency has started work on this project, in order to 
have  the  system  available  in  time  for  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Rail  Passenger  Rights 
Regulation. The Regulation's rules on assistance for persons with reduced mobility are being 
supplemented  by  conditions  for  the  accessibility  of  stations  and  trains.  A  Technical 
Specification  for  Interoperability  (TSI)  relating  to  persons  with  reduced  mobility,  recently 
adopted by the Commission (Commission Decision 2008/164/EC of 21 December 2007), sets 
out  harmonised  minimum  levels  of  accessibility  for  rolling  stock  and  infrastructure  to  be 
achieved during coming years. 

Bus  and  coach  passenger  rights.  In  accordance  with  the  principles  established  by  the 
Commission and following the example of legislation for the air and rail sector, the proposal 
for a Regulation on bus and coach passengers provides a set of passenger rights for all users 
throughout  the  European  Union.  The  aim  of  the  proposal  is  to  establish  the  rights  of  coach 
and bus passengers in order to improve the attractiveness of and confidence in coach and bus 
transport as well as to achieve a level playing field between carriers from different Member 
States and between other modes of transport. The proposal lays down provisions on: liability 
in  the  event  of  death  or  injury  of  passengers  and  loss  of  or  damage  to  their  luggage;  non-
discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  or  place  of  residence  with  regard  to  transport 
conditions offered to passengers by bus or coach undertakings; assistance for disabled persons 
and persons with reduced mobility; obligations of bus and coach undertakings in the event of 

35 

36 

37 

38 

Regulation(EC) No2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents OJ L 285, 
17.10.1997, p.1; as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of 13 May 2002, OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 
2. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2006 
concerning  the  rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  air, 
Text with EEA relevance. (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006 p.1) 
Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  February  2004 
establishing  common  rules  on  compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text 
with EEA relevance) – (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1–8) 
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on 
rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14–41) 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
cancellation  or  delay  of  a  journey;  information  obligations;  handling  of  complaints  and; 
general rules on enforcement. Even though this proposal deals with bus and coach services, 
the domestic urban, suburban and short distance regional bus services are normally covered 
by public service contracts which take into account to a large extent the rights of passengers 
and quality of service. Thus, national legislation defines the obligations of bus operators and 
the corresponding rights of passengers. Member States may exclude these services from the 
scope of the Regulation provided that the level of passenger rights enshrined in such contracts 
is comparable to that laid down in the present Regulation. Nevertheless, where bus and coach 
services are concerned, the national laws of Member States offer a range of different solutions 
for  passengers  and  a  variable  level  of  protection  in  terms  of  liability  of  operators  and 
assistance provided to disabled persons. 

For a full and detailed overview of EU legislation and of the level of protection for passenger 
rights  in  the  different  modes  of  transport,  refer  to  the  correlation  table  of  existing  and 
proposed EU legislation on passengers' rights in the different modes of transport in Annex 4. 

Discrepancies between Member States in the protection  of  maritime passengers' rights  were 
highlighted in the contributions received in the public consultation conducted by DG TREN 
in 2006. These contributions clearly show that the protection varies from country to country 
depending  on  the  level  of  rights  established  by  national  legislation,  best  practices  and 
voluntary commitments by operators. Although the Commission did not receive contributions 
depicting  the  situation  in  every  Member  State,  it  was  assumed  that  differing  levels  of 
protection of passengers' rights were the general rule. 

Maritime passengers are in a weak negotiating position compared to carriers. They are subject 
to conditions of carriage and to business practices determined by ship carriers, but have little 
alternative other than to accept them, even if they are dissatisfied. Passengers depend heavily 
on  the  efficiency  and  goodwill  of  carriers  when  things  go  wrong,  due  to  the  difficulty  of 
finding  alternative  carriers  or  the  sheer  impracticality  in  most  cases  of  reaching  their 
destination  using  other  forms  of  transport  as  well  as  the  greater  economic  interest  of  the 
carriers by ferry in the freight they transport. They do not know what they can expect from the 
company,  and  they  may  even  be  unaware  that  the  company  has  offered  some  solutions  to 
other passengers in the same circumstances.  

In  addition  passengers  need  a  common  set  of  principles  that  is  applicable  to  all  modes  of 
transport, so that they can be aware of what to expect as a minimum, regardless of the mode 
of transport they are using, or whether a journey takes place wholly within a single Member 
State or whether it crosses an intra-EU or external frontier. It would be unacceptable for EU 
citizens to "fall through the gaps" between the different national legislations, with their rights 
depending on the countries of origin and destination, just because they have chosen a travel 
by sea instead of by air or rail .  

There  is  surely  no  justifiable  reason  why  a  passenger  embarking  in  a  ship  in  Rome  and 
disembarking  in  Corsica  enjoys  (or  does  not  enjoy)  different  (or  no)  rights  as  opposed  to  a 
passenger  who  is  travelling  from  Rome  to  Sardinia  even  if  these  journeys  cover  almost  the 
same distance. Similarly, an Irish company which operates the Cork-Dublin-Liverpool route 
would  have  to  apply  Irish  rules  on  the  Cork-Dublin  route  and  UK  rules  on  the  Dublin-
Liverpool route, which is -at best- costly and possibly not feasible when it comes to different 
accessibility and assistance rules for PRMs. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
It could be presumed that due to the specific features of the cruise sector, passengers would be 
less affected by a disruption in terms of delays that might arise before, during and after their 
travel. However, a cruise package includes all scheduled ports of scale. Cruise passengers are 
interested in experiencing the destination to the fullest and want to actively explore the places 
at  which  they  reasonably  expect  to  stop.  Critical  events,  especially  cancellations  may  occur 
when the organiser, for instance, fails to cover one of the legs of a scheduled route and do not 
stop at one or more of the scheduled ports of scale, or when a long delay is made up by an 
intolerable reduction of the amount of time on land during scales. Even if the general quality 
standards  of  service  could  be  higher,  the  rights  of  cruise  passengers  when  subject  to  this 
specific  kind  of  critical  events  are  not  currently  included  in  the  quality  standards  of  cruise 
operators.  Passengers  might  find  themselves  confronted  with  different  situations  and 
legislations depending on the country in which the port of disembarkation is situated.  

Secondly,  regarding  the  non-discriminatory  contract  conditions,  Community  action  aims  to 
prevent discriminatory practices, including on the basis  of nationality or residence. There is 
nothing  in  the  specific  features  of  the  cruise  segment  that  can justify  an  exclusion  from  the 
scope of the Regulation. 

In the specific case of PRM, it the cruise line may possible decides during the trip to change 
one  of  the  legs  of  the  trip  and  replace  it  by  a  stop  in  another  port  that  is  not  accessible  to 
PRM. Besides, the aim of Community action is to prevent refusal of carriage on the grounds 
of reduced mobility. The Commission is aware that cruises currently tend to justify refusal of 
carriage to PRM for unspecified safety reasons. The aim of the Community Regulation is to 
ensure that PRM are accepted onboard on a non-discriminatory basis. There is nothing in the 
specific  features  of  the  cruise  segment  to  justify  an  exclusion  from  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation. 

The ferries and ports on the Dover-Calais route are well equipped with respect to accessibility 
for PRMs; this is historically driven by UK law which is also applied 'de facto' in the port of 
Calais.  The  situation  would  become  really  difficult  for  these  companies  involved  if  France 
adopted different standards with which they would have to comply. 

Passenger  carriers  and  port  managers  have  never  developed  any  harmonised  best  practices 
concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  travelling  by  ship.  The  Commission  announced  its 
intention as long ago as 2001 to improve maritime passengers' rights in the European Union, 
and  it  reiterated  this  intention  in  2005.  However,  none  of  those  announcements  have 
encouraged  either  national  governments  or  the  industry  to  try  to  improve  their  standards  of 
protection by themselves. 

Nevertheless,  while  the  protection  of  passengers’  rights  should  be  harmonised  as  far  as 
possible  across  all  modes  of  public  transport,  the  obligations  on  carriers  should  not  be 
disproportionate  to  the  nature  and  features  of  the  journey,  whatever  the  mode  or  modes 
transport. 

Taking the above into account, Articles 71(1) and 80(2) of the EC Treaty give the European 
Community the legal basis to act on this matter. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General objective 

The general objectives of establishing the rights of passengers are underpinned by the general 
objectives  of  the  EU  in  terms  of  ensuring  the  movement  of  persons  within  the  European 
Union,  a high level  of  customer  protection, better social and economic  cohesion,  and  social 
inclusion of different social groups. 

3.1.1. 

Single market 

In the context of the Lisbon Strategy, it is desirable to boost the competitiveness of passenger 
transport  by  ship,  which  requires  less  fuel  and  causes  less  damage  to  the  environment  than 
travel by road or air. Encouraging the relevant sectors to raise their quality standards and to 
offer  better  protection  of  passengers'  rights  will  increase  the  competitiveness  of  companies 
involved in passenger transport by ship and of the sector as a whole.  

The proposal would allow passengers to enjoy improved protection so as to benefit fully from 
the  Single  Market.  Within  the  Internal  Market,  passengers  should  not  only  benefit  from  the 
wide range of services, but also enjoy adequate protection of their economic interests as users. 
This proposal ensures that citizens, including those with reduced mobility, can make full use 
of the benefits of the single market and have the confidence to use them. In this respect, the 
establishment  of  maritime  passengers'  rights  will  complement  the  progress  achieved  in  the 
transport sector within the framework of the European Single Market. 

3.1.2.  Common Transport Policy 

Article  3(1)  (f)  of  the  EC  Treaty  stipulates  that  the  Community  should  strive  to  achieve  its 
objectives by means of a common policy in the sphere of transport. The rights of passengers 
in other modes of transport, including air and rail, have become an integral part of this policy. 

3.1.3.  Cohesion 

Under the terms of Article 3 (1) (k), of the Treaty, the Community has a duty to strengthen 
economic  and  social  cohesion  within  the  EU.  Ship  transport,  like  bus  and  coach  transport, 
tends  to  be  a  mode  of  transport  chosen  by  those  in  society  on  lower  incomes,  persons  or 
families who cannot afford, for instance, travelling by plane and renting a car at their point of 
arrival. Maritime passengers in general belong to social groups that are vulnerable in terms of 
income and age, but also because of disability or reduced mobility. Reinforced protection may 
therefore help to improve social cohesion.  

3.1.4.  Consumer protection  

Effective  consumer  rights  are  essential  to  ensuring  that  the  liberalisation  of  the  market 
successfully delivers real  choices,  confidence and  maximum  benefits  to  the  consumers.  The 
EC  Treaty  provides  in  Article  3(1)  (t)  that  the  Community  should  contribute  to  the 
strengthening of consumer protection. In this respect, the establishment of passenger rights in 
maritime transport meets this objective. Establishment and further strengthening of the rights 
of passengers is in line with the high priority given by the Amsterdam Treaty to the protection 
of consumers. In its Communication "EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007-2013: empowering 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
consumers,  enhancing  their  welfare,  effectively  protecting  their  identified  objectives  and 
priorities"39 the Commission states that one of the priorities is to put consumers at the heart of 
other EU policies. The Communication notes that progress has been made in the integration 
of consumer  interests, inter  alia,  in air  transport. The aim for the future is to build on these 
achievements in order to make integration of consumer interests more systematic. Therefore, 
the Commission is extending the passenger rights developed in the air sector to other modes 
of transport, in particular in relation to passengers with reduced mobility.  

3.1.5. 

Social inclusion 

With regard to combating social exclusion, the Lisbon European Council agreed on the need 
to  define  policies  for  combating  social  exclusion  based  on  an  open  method  of  coordination 
(OMC), combining common objectives, national action plans and a programme presented by 
the Commission to encourage co-operation in this field. In March 2006, the European Council 
adopted a new framework for the social protection and social inclusion process. The proposal 
regarding the rights of passengers in maritime services is consistent with the objectives of the 
OMC,  as  it  establishes  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  and  assistance  in  respect  of 
disabled persons.  

The  inclusion  of  people  with  disabilities  builds  on  the  citizen’s  concept  of  disability  as 
reflected  in  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights40  and  on  the  values  inherent  in  the  UN 
Convention  on  the  protection  and  promotion  of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  persons  with 
disabilities. 

Furthermore,  it  remains  in  conformity  with  Article  13  of  the  EC  Treaty  which  enables  the 
Community to combat discrimination in areas of Community competence.  

Box 4 PRMs and their conformity with Art 13 EC Treaty 

This proposal, which aims to improve the rights of persons with reduced mobility and persons 
with disabilities in the maritime sector, and their inclusion in society, builds on the concept of 
disability as reflected in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and on the values inherent in 
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

Furthermore, the proposal is in conformity with Article 13 of the EC Treaty which enables the 
Community to combat discrimination in areas of Community competence, and with a recent 
proposal  for  a  Directive  under  Art  13  TEC  (COM  (2008)  426  final)  whose  objective  is  to 
implement  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  religion,  belief, 
disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation.  This  conformity  can  be  assessed  on  the  basis  of  the 
legality and the content of the measures. 

From a legal point of view, Article 4 §3 of the draft directive provides that it shall be without 
prejudice to the provisions of Community law or national rules covering the accessibility of 
particular  goods  or  services,  which  means  that  other  Community  texts  on  the  same  subject 
take  precedence.  This  applies  in  particular  to  Regulation  1107/2006  for  accessibility  in  air 

39 
40 

COM(2007)99 final 
Article  26:  “The  Union  recognises  and  respects  the  right  of  persons  with  disabilities  to  benefit  from 
measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in 
the life of the community”. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
transport, to the provisions of Regulation 1371/2007 related to accessibility in railways, and 
to the provisions of a possible Community text related to accessibility in maritime transport. 

Regarding  the  content  of  the  measures  at  stake,  Article  4(1)  and  (2)  of  the  draft  directive 
establishes  the  principle  that  in  order  to  comply  with  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  in 
relation to persons with disabilities, effective and non discriminatory access must be provided, 
as long as such measures do not impose a disproportionate burden, nor require fundamental 
alteration  of  the  social  protection,  social  advantages,  health  care,  education,  or  goods  and 
services in question or require the provision of alternatives thereto. In addition, in particular 
cases,  reasonable  accommodation  should  be  provided  unless  this  would  impose  a 
disproportionate  burden.  The  obligation  to  provide  effective  non-discriminatory  access  and 
reasonable  accommodation  applies  to  the  entire  material  scope  of  the  proposed  Directive, 
In  assessing 
including  access 
disproportionate burden, account shall be taken, in particular, of the size and resources of the 
organisation,  its  nature,  the  estimated  cost,  the  life  cycle  of  the  goods  and  services,  and  the 
possible benefits of increased access for persons with disabilities. These issues are addressed 
in this impact assessment, which in its methodology fully complies with the proportionality 
test of Article 4.  

to  goods  and  services,  which 

transport. 

includes 

Concerning  the  proportionality  of  the  burden  to  be  imposed,  not  all  carriers  have  the  same 
capacity,  and  the  measures  proposed  for  accessibility  should  contain  a  set  of  principles 
without entering into the specific and detailed technicalities of their provision. The latter may 
vary  depending  on  the  capacity  of  the  carrier,  the  related  infrastructure  and  the  manner  in 
which these general obligations are to be provided in practice. 

The  measures  considered  take  into  account  the  issue  of  fundamental  alteration,  as  they 
consider  that  the  nature  of  the  transport  service  provided  should  not  be  changed  to 
accommodate  person  with  disabilities.  To  give  a  practical  extreme  example:  if  a  carrier 
operates  only  small  sailing  boats,  it  would  fundamentally  alter  the  nature  of  the  boat  to 
transform it into a motor boat. Similarly, if physically there is no space available onboard to 
place a person in an electrical wheelchair, there is no need for the carrier to change this boat 
for a bigger one. This latter example would relate to the issue of "alternatives thereto". 

Therefore,  binding  obligations  on  carriers  and  the  rights  of  persons  with  reduced  mobility 
would have to be drafted in the proposed legislative measure in terms of principles but leaving 
enough flexibility in their implementation to respect the proportionality principle. 

Moreover, the proposal for a directive to protect persons with disabilities (inter alia) in access 
to  goods  and  services  includes  equal  and  effective  access  to  transport  for  persons  with 
disabilities but does not spell out how this could be achieved, as that would be going beyond 
the  possibilities  offered  by  that  legal  basis.  The  maritime  proposal  is  therefore  fully  in  line 
with  the  objectives  and  goals  of  draft  directive  as  its  aim  is  likewise  to  eliminate 
discrimination in accessing this type of transport, but it will also provide legal certainty as to 
how this can be achieved by establishing a set of uniform requirements across Member States. 

The  concepts  of  reasonable  accessibility  and  reasonable  accommodation  are  developed  in 
Annex 5 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Specific objectives 

In  order  to  address  the  problems  faced  by  passengers,  the  Commission  has  already  taken  a 
number of policy initiatives. In the White Paper “European transport policy for 2010: time to 
decide”  the  European  Commission  envisaged  the  extension  of  the  Community's  passenger 
protection measures to other modes of transport, including rail and maritime navigation.  

In  the  Commission's  Communication  "Strengthening  passenger  rights  within  the  European 
Union"41, the Commission presented a policy approach on how to extend passenger protection 
measures to modes of transport other than air transport. The Commission identified the rights 
that needed to be strengthened by the Community action regardless of the means of transport 
used: a) rights of persons with reduced mobility, b) automatic and immediate solutions when 
travel is interrupted, c) liability in the event of death or injury of passengers, d) treatment of 
complaints and means of redress, and e) passenger information.  

Taking  into  account  what  has  just  been  mentioned  above  and  with  regard  to  maritime 
transport, the specific objectives include in particular: 

•  Asserting  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  and  assistance  to  disabled  persons 

and persons with reduced mobility. 

•  Asserting the principle of assistance in the event of travel cancellations and delays 

•  Ensuring  a  level  of  quality  standards  of  services  and  defining  information 

obligations  

•  Setting  up  a  procedure  for  handling  complaints  and  ensuring  appropriate 

enforcement of applicable legislation. 

It has to be noted that asserting the principle of liability of operators in the event of death or 
injury of passengers is not to be dealt with in the context of this IA. This point is not included 
in the proposal , since it is linked with the Protocol to the Athens Convention42 and has been 
included in the Commission proposal for a Regulation on the liability of carriers of passengers 
by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents (COM (2005) 592 final). 

These specific objectives must aim for full equality of opportunity as the overall objective of 
the  European  Union’s  long-term  strategy.  The  achievement  of  all  these  specific  objectives 
will  ensure  better  social  inclusion  and  will  encourage  more  passengers  to  use  maritime 
transport. 

The experience of  air transport shows that in allowing PRMs  to  travel, a number of  criteria 
must  be  fulfilled  by  operators  in  charge  of  ensuring  accessibility,  assistance,  non-
discriminatory treatment and information. In particular, in order to guarantee the comfort and 
dignity  of  PRM's,  assistance  must  be  seamless  and  therefore  composed  of  a  number  of 
elements,  from  the  beginning  of  the  trip  to  the  end.  It  is  not  possible  to  consider  them 
otherwise  than  as  a  "package"  of  operational  objectives  if  the  specific  objective  (seamless 
assistance in ports and aboard ships) is to be achieved. 

41 
42 

COM (2005) 46 final 
Athens  Convention  relation  to  the  Carriage  of  Passengers  and  their  Luggage  by  Sea,  1974,  and  its 
Protocol of 2002. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Specific objectives for PRMs 
Full accessibility in ports and ships 

Seamless assistance in ports  

Seamless assistance in ships 

Non-discriminatory treatment 

Objectives for all passengers 
Cancellation and delays 

Operational Objectives for PRMs 

(1) To allow full access to existing ports. 

(1) To put in place arrangements at ports to enable PRMs to perform all 
necessary actions at each step of the journey, namely: 

a) communicate their arrival at a port and their request for assistance, 
b) move from a entry point to the check-in counter, if any, 
c) check in and register baggage, if needed, 
d) proceed from the check-in counter (if any) to the ship, with completion 
of emigration, customs and security procedures, 
e)  board  the  ship,  with  the  provision  of  lifts,  wheelchairs  or  other 
assistance, as appropriate, 
f) proceed from the ship door to their seats/area, 
g) store and retrieve baggage on the ship, 
h) proceed from their seats to the ship door, 
i)  disembark  from  the  ship,  with  the  provision  of  lifts,  wheelchairs  or 
other assistance, as appropriate, 
j)  retrieve  baggage  (if  needed),  with  completion  of  immigration  and 
customs procedures, 
k) proceed from the baggage hall to a designated point of exit, 
l) go to the toilet facilities if necessary. 
(2)  To  ensure  that,  where  a  disabled  person  or  person  with  reduced 
mobility is assisted by an accompanying person, this person is, on request, 
allowed  to  provide  the  necessary  assistance  at  the  port  and  with 
embarking and disembarking. 
(3)  To  ensure  handling  of  all  necessary  mobility  equipment,  including 
equipment such as electric wheelchairs. 
(4)  To  ensure  temporary  replacement  of  damaged  or  lost  mobility 
equipment, albeit not necessarily on a like-for-like basis. 
(5)  To  ensure  ground  handling  of  recognised  assistance  dogs,  where 
relevant. 
(1) To ensure carriage of recognised assistance dogs in the ship, subject to 
national regulations. 
(2)  In  addition  to  medical  equipment,  to  ensure  transport  of  up  to  two 
pieces of mobility equipment per disabled person or person with reduced 
mobility, including electric wheelchairs. 
(3)  To  ensure  that  all  reasonable  efforts  are  made  to  arrange  seating  to 
meet  the  needs  of  individuals  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility  on 
request and subject to safety requirements and availability. 
(4) To ensure assistance in getting to toilet facilities, if relevant. 
(5)  To  ensure  that,  where  a  disabled  person  or  person  with  reduced 
mobility  is  assisted  by  an  accompanying  person,  the  shipping  company 
makes all reasonable efforts to give this person a seat next to the disabled 
person or person with reduced mobility. 
(1)  Disabled  persons  and  PRMs should  be accepted for  carriage  and not 
refused  transport  on  the  grounds  of  their  disability  or  lack  of  mobility, 
except  for  reasons  that  are  justified  on  the  grounds  of  safety  and  are 
prescribed by law. 
(2) In the interests of social inclusion, disabled persons and PRMs should 
receive the assistance mentioned above without additional charge. 
(3) Assistance should be financed in such a way as to spread the burden 
equitably among all passengers using a port and to avoid disincentives to 
the carriage of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. 

Operational objectives for all passengers 

(1) Assistance: meals, refreshments, accommodation 
(2) Return service to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity 
(3) Continuation or re-routing to the final destination (under comparable 
transport conditions) 
(4) The obligation of maritime operators to provide assistance 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
Establishment of basic quality 
standards, monitoring and 
information 

Effective  enforcement,  monitoring, 
and  complaint  management  with 
out-of-court procedures 

(5) possibility of establishing a compensation scheme 
(1) Establishment of quality standards at the EU level 
(2) Monitoring of compliance with quality standards  
(3) Defining the set of information that should be available to passengers 
before and during the trip. 
(4)  Improvement  of  access  to  information  on  conditions  of  carriage  and 
fares 
(1) Compliance with the above rights should be supervised and enforced, 
and an appropriate body — or bodies — should be designated to carry out 
enforcement  tasks.  This  supervision  should  not  affect  the  rights  of 
passengers to seek legal redress from courts under national law. 
(2) Passengers who consider that their rights have been infringed should 
be able to bring the matter to the operator concerned. If they cannot obtain 
satisfaction  in  this  way,  they  should  be  free  to  make  a  complaint  to  the 
above-mentioned body or bodies. 
(3)  Penalties  applicable  to  infringements  of  these  rights  should  be  laid 
down  and  applied.  The  penalties,  which  could  include  ordering  the 
payment  of  compensation  to  the  person  concerned,  should  be  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive. 
(4)  Such  enforcement  should  be  undertaken  at  the  most  efficient  and 
appropriate level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Preliminary remark: the existing regulatory framework 

The  existing  legal  framework  governing  the  maritime  transport  sector  is  divided  into  the 
following  categories:  international  conventions;  European  legislation  (and  subsequent 
implementation in national law); national legislation; and voluntary agreements43. 

a) International Conventions and EU legislation 

In general terms, both the International and European legislation in place is mainly focused on 
safety issues.  

At international level, the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their 
luggage by sea, establishes a regime of liability for damage suffered by passengers and their 
luggage carried on a seagoing vessel. The 2002 Protocol to the Athens Convention introduces 
compulsory insurance to cover passengers on ships, and raises the limits of liability. 

At European level44, Directive 2003/25 lays down uniform stability requirements for Ro-Ro 
passenger  ships.  Directive  2003/24  includes  specific  requirements  for  PRMs,  in  particular 
concerning access to the ship, signs, means to communicate messages, alarms and additional 
requirements, designed to ensure mobility on board ship. 

The  main  reference  to  critical  events  appears  in  the  package  tour  Directive45;  however  this 
does not allow a fully harmonised situation to be achieved at EU level: transposition by the 
Member States has led to different solutions and, in practice, unequal treatment of passengers 
involved in the same type of event depending on the applicable national law. It also has to be 

43 

44 
45 

For  a  detailed  description  of  the  legal  framework  governing  the  rights  of  passengers  in  maritime 
transport, see Annex II of TiS.pt, 2006. 
See Annex 2, Table 7 
Directive 90/314/EEC: Package travel, package holidays and package tours regulations. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
noted that the above mentioned Directive provides for specific measures in the tourist sector 
and  in  the  area  of  consumer  protection.  It  does  not  aim,  stricto  sensu,  to  protect  passenger 
rights in the case of travel disruption as EU legislation already does for the air or rail sector. 

b) National Legislation 

In relation to national law, in the overwhelming majority of Member States the only law that 
could be applied to the transport sector is general law or consumer law establishing minimum 
rights; whereas in some countries, there are some regulations specifying the rights of maritime 
passenger  users  only  in  cases  of  critical  events.  Between  these  two  types,  there  are  the 
countries  with  a  moderate  level  of  protection:  although  there  is  no  specific  regulation 
regarding passenger rights in the case of critical events, there are rules concerning maritime 
passenger  transport  which  include  the  carrier’s  liability  in  the  event  of  passenger  death  or 
injury. 

In some countries, there are also specific regulations concerning PRMs' rights in the transport 
sector and the maritime sector in particular46. These rules are mainly administered by a public 
authority and, to a certain extent, cover access by PRMs to maritime transport. It is uncertain 
to  what  degree  these  regulations  give  the  PRMs  the  right  in  practice  to  demand  access  to 
maritime transport and assistance if necessary. 

Annex  6  provides  a  detailed  overview  of  the  different  legislations  in  Member  States  and  a 
framework to categorise the existing legal regimes. The conclusion from this overview shows 
clearly that none of the 27 Member States offers the passengers of any of the segments of the 
market (see box 2) the kind of automatic immediate rights on the spot that are sought by the 
Community action addressed. 

As  to  critical  events  (delays  and  cancellations),  the  provisions  of  the  national  laws  listed  in 
Annex  6  fall  outside  the  scope  of  the  Commission's  proposal  (which  deals  with  assistance, 
rerouting, and fixed-amount compensation due without any fault, but exonerated in the case of 
extraordinary circumstances) and refer to civil law:  

- in the event of delay and cancellation the passenger has the right to demand termination of 
the contract, and the only compensation to be given is the return of any fare the passenger has 
paid, this being the only right provided for the national law of most countries (e.g. Spain, UK, 
Poland and Greece). Alternatively, in other countries (e.g. Spain and Poland), in the event of 
interruption,  passengers  are  entitled  to  terminate  the  contract  and  to  be  reimbursed  for  that 
part of the ticket price corresponding to the part of journey the carrier did not accomplished . 
In some countries the carrier is obliged to finish the journey and passengers are only entitled 
to  terminate  the  contract  if  he  has  not  fulfilled  his  obligation  within  reasonable  time  (e.g. 
Nordic  countries).  These  three  types  of  remedies  are  classic  civil  law  solutions  under 
contractual liability and they are outside the scope of the Community action being evaluated 
here. 

-  Even  when  passengers  are  entitled  to  some  other  form  of  compensation,  the  amount  will 
equal  the  economic  loss  (if  any)  caused  by  the  critical  event.  Generally,  in  this  case  the 
passenger's  right  to  compensation  depends  on  the  carrier's  or  master's  fault  or  neglect  (e.g. 
Spain  and  Nordic  countries).  In  cases  of  refused  carriage  or  denied  boarding  without 

46 

See footnote 27 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reasonable ground to do so, the carrier is liable for the economic loss suffered by passengers 
who  are  entitled  to  compensation  if  the  carrier  has  acted  negligently  (Nordic  countries). 
Again,  these  solutions  have  nothing  to  do  with  assistance,  rerouting,  and  fixed-amount 
compensation  (the  latter  being  due  even  if  without  fault,  but  exonerated  in  the  case  of 
extraordinary  circumstances)  but  rather  with  damages,  which  involve  civil  law  (tort  or 
contract law). 

c) Voluntary agreements 

Almost all countries refer to voluntary agreements as a common practice: however, there are 
very few voluntary agreements in the maritime sector. Out of a survey of operators, only three 
quality  charters  and  five  service  guarantees  have  been  identified  (See  Section  5.4  for  more 
details) 

The  existence  of  dedicated  national  legislation  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  in  the 
maritime  sector  does  not  actually  guarantee  that  specific  rights  are  actually  in  place.  This 
results  from  two  main  factors:  on  the  one  hand,  such  pieces  of  legislation  do  not  always 
provide detailed and precise guidance. On the other hand operators could take advantage of 
unclear definitions. For instance in the Nordic countries, Portugal, Greece and Spain, national 
law  provides  that  a  passenger  is  entitled  to  financial  compensation  under  certain  conditions 
and  has  the  right  to  cancel  the  contract  in  the  case  of  a  delay,  but  the  delay  is  either  not 
quantified  or  has  to  be  one  or  more  days.  In  Greece  and  in  Nordic  countries,  too,  the 
passenger  is  entitled  to  cancel  the  contract  in  the  event  of  a  “prolonged”  or  “considerable” 
delay,  but  no  definition  is  given  as  to  what  might  be  considered  as  a  prolonged  or 
considerable delay. 

4.1. 

“Business as usual” (Option 1)  

No action whatsoever is taken at EU level and the current situation described above continues 
under the existing national and international legislations, with the detrimental effects that can 
be seen on operators providing cross-border services or services in several Member States. 

The  level  of  passenger  rights  in  the  maritime  sector  across  Europe  is  mixed  (see  Annex  6) 
notably because of the discrepancies between national legislations when they exist and the use 
of PSO contracts for most of the regional ferry services. It is therefore difficult to assess the 
extent to which these rights are actually being implemented and enforced (See Section 2.2). 
Any attempt to reflect these factors of uncertainty in the baseline would have been speculative 
and  would  have  seriously  threatened  the  quality  of  the  results.  For  the  same  reason  the 
baseline scenario has also assumed that PSOs are part of the market (this assumption will be 
discussed further in Section 5.7) 

4.2. 

Community legislative action to improve the rights for persons when travelling 
by boat (Option 2) 

Regulatory  action  at  EU  level,  that  is  directly  binding  and  immediately  applicable,  is 
envisaged. Such a Regulation would apply not only to international routes involving at least 
one EU port, but also to any domestic service within an individual Member State. This type of 
EU act would: 

•  Establish rights regarding PRMs: accessibility in ports, assistance in ports and in 

ships and information requirements. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
•  Establish  rights  for  passengers  when  travel  is  interrupted  in  the  event  of 

cancellation or delays (assistance and compensation) 

•  Establish  the  standards  for  provision  of  information  about  maritime  passenger 

rights to the general public and especially to travellers, including PRMs. 

•  Provide for complaint handling and the monitoring and enforcement of the rights 

of passengers.  

4.2.1.  Rights of persons with reduced mobility 

4.2.1.1.  Accessibility requirement in ports 

Such  a  regulatory  act  would  have  to  impose  a  general  accessibility  principle  for  PRMs. 
However, it would not necessarily have to establish an exhaustive list of obligations in terms 
of the installations and equipment that ports should provide in order to ensure accessibility47. 
Member  States  must  ensure  that  appropriate  measures  are  taken  where  practicable  and 
reasonable in economic terms. A non-exhaustive list of such measures can be found in Annex 
8. In this context, it should be mentioned that the measures listed in Annex 8 are illustrative , 
since  the  scenario  contemplating  Community  legislation  does  not  explicitly  include  any 
obligation for Member states to adapt their infrastructure (either public or private) to become 
accessible for PRMs. The aim of the proposal is to allow PRMs to use transport by boat just 
like  any  other  passengers.  Even  if  in  theory,  Member  States  could  ensure  this  obligation  of 
non-discrimination  simply  by  means  of  more  detailed  assistance  for  PRMs,  in  practice 
Member  states  will  prefer  to  adapt  their  infrastructure  so  as  to  allows  PRM  to  embark  and 
disembark with the assistance tailored to their needs. 

A  sub-option  could  have  been  that  of  including  accessibility  obligatory  measures  in  the 
Community option that is, to separately analyse all or some of the measures of Annex 8 in the 
Community proposal in terms of costs. As it is not feasible to decide which of those measures 
are already in place in EU ports and for the sake of simplicity, this sub-option has not been 
further analysed.  

Therefore,  only  a  general  accessibility  obligation  imposed  upon  ports  would  still  have  an 
impact in terms of cost, which will be assessed in this report.  

In  order  to  ensure  that  such  measures  are  actually  put  into  effect,  the  regulatory  act  could 
require  the  Member  States  to  report  to  the  Commission  on  all  the  investment  needed  in 
infrastructures and facilities to guarantee adequate accessibility in each national port. 

4.2.1.2.  Assistance requirements in ports  

The  regulatory  act  would  impose  an  obligation  to  provide  assistance  in  ports  without 
additional charge, in order to allow PRMs to use the transport service for which they have a 
reservation,  provided  that  they  notify  their  need  for  such  assistance  to  the  entity  concerned 
some  time  (e.g.  at  least  48  hours)  before  the  time  of  departure  of  the  service.  If  such  a 
notification is not made in time, it is reasonable for the obligation to be limited to making all 
reasonable efforts to provide the assistance needed.  

47 

Basic  rules  for  accessibility  requirements  in  maritime  transport  can be  taken  over  and adapted by  the 
sector from DPTAC and IMO Guidelines. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  ship  operator  concerned  will  be  responsible  for  making  sure  that  the  assistance  is 
provided  free  of  additional  charge.  The  operator  may  provide  such  assistance  itself  or  by 
contracting one or more other parties48 to provide the assistance. 

Moreover,  the  staff  of  all  parties  that  may  render  services  to  passengers  should  receive 
specific disability awareness training in order to be able to assist PRMs if needed. 

4.2.1.3.  Assistance requirements in ships 

The  regulatory  act  would  require  ship  operators  to  provide  assistance  to  PRMs  without 
additional  charge  on  condition  that  these  persons  notify  their  special  needs  in  advance.  The 
assistance would cover both boarding and disembarking.  

Ship operators would also be responsible for providing specific disability awareness training 
to their staff so that they are able to assist PRMs. 

For the cruise sector, the cost of assistance would be nil; cruises already have hotel facilities 
the cost of which is included in the price of the ticket 

4.2.2.  Assistance, re-routing and compensation, in case of cancellation and delays 

4.2.2.1.  Assistance and re-routing 

On  this  matter,  the  objective  of  the  regulatory  act  is  to  lay  down  minimum  rules  on  the 
following  points  if  any  event  interrupts  a  journey:  assistance  and  return  service  to  the  first 
point of departure at the earliest opportunity. 

Although certain carriers are already considering offering such solutions on a voluntary basis, 
the regulatory act would make these solutions available under the same conditions throughout 
the Community. A competent authority would be required to monitor and enforce those rights 
and obligations. 

As  with  air  transport,  maritime  passengers  should  be  guaranteed  an  adequate  level  of 
protection. Depending on the circumstances, assistance will be required for any inconvenience 
caused to passengers due to the interruption, cancellation or delay of their journey. 

It  is  also  envisaged  to  provide  for  return  services  and  re-routing  so  that  the  companies 
concerned have an actual obligation to put an end to the predicament in which the passengers 
finds  themselves,  as  a  result  of  their  own  action,  inaction  or  unforeseen  external 
circumstances. 

4.2.2.2.  Compensation scheme 

Taking into account the measures envisaged for other modes of transport, the compensation 
scheme  in  the  maritime  sector  would  be  based  on  three  alternative  scenarios  arising  from 
existing  legislation:  (1)  the  compensation  scheme  under  the  air  transport  sector,  (2)  the 
scheme under the rail transport sector; and (3) the scheme of the bus and coach sector.  

48 

Other parties could for instance include: the port authority, other ship operators, the passenger terminal 
operator, the tour operator or specialised providers. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(1)  Regulation  261/200449  establishes  common  rules  on  the  award  of  compensation  to 
passengers  in  the  event  of  denied  boarding  and  cancellation  of  flights.  This  Regulation,  in 
force  since  February  2005,  establishes  a  compensation  scheme  in  two  cases:  Firstly  in  the 
cases  of  denied  boarding;  and,  secondly  where  flights  are  cancelled.  The  amount  of 
compensation is based on two principles: the distance in kilometres between the departure and 
arrival points; and secondly, whether the flight is within the Community or not50. 

The Air Regulation does not  provide  for any compensation in event of delay in such cases, 
but only assistance. 

(2)  Regulation  1371/200751  on  rail  passengers'  rights  and  obligations  provides  for  a  delay 
compensation scheme from the railway undertaking if the passenger is facing a delay between 
the places of departure and destination stated on the ticket for which the ticket has not been 
reimbursed.  The  minimum  amount  of  compensation  envisaged  for  delays  is  based  on  the 
length of the delay and is a percentage of the ticket price52. 

(3) As regards the coach and bus sector, a proposal for legislation on passengers' rights has 
been already submitted. It includes a compensation scheme based on the duration of the trip 
and the length of the delay. The approach is less complex than the sectors where Community 
action has previously been taken. The amount of the compensation is based on a percentage of 
the ticket price53. 

For the maritime sector, and taking into account what has been described above, the proposal 
will  envisage  a  more  realistic  and  less  complex  approach  than  the  one  established  for  air 
passengers. The experience of the air sector has shown that passengers are more interested in 
receiving assistance on the spot (meals, refreshments, accommodation, etc.) and information 
(cause  of  the  interruption,  expected  waiting  time,  alternative  routes,  etc.)  than  in  receiving 
financial  compensation.  Immediate  and  automatic  financial  compensation  is  not  a  priority, 
given that, in the case of a specific prejudice, an air transport passenger will in any case have 
to  initiate  a  procedure  before  the  national  civil  courts  in  order  to  obtain  damages  under  the 
Montreal Convention. The existing legal framework  in  maritime transport is  very similar to 
that  of  the  air  transport  prior  to  the  adoption  of  Regulation  261/2004,  and  in  any  event  the 
same  approach  will  have  to  be  taken  under  the  Athens  Convention  in  the  case  of  a  specific 
prejudice. 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  February  2004 
establishing  common  rules  on  compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1-7 
The  different  amounts  of  cancellation  as  stated  in  the  Regulation  are  as  follows:  a)  EUR  250  for  all 
flights  of  1500  kilometres  or  less;  (b)  EUR  400  for  all  intra-Community  flights  of  more  than  1500 
kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; (c) EUR 600 for all flights not 
falling under (a) or (b).  
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on 
rail passengers’ rights and obligations OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14–41  
The compensation amounts to a 25 % of the ticket price for a delay of 60 to 119 minutes; or to a 50 % 
of the ticket price for a delay of 120 minutes or more. 
Concerning  compensation,  Bus  and  coach  proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishes  that  where  the 
scheduled  duration  of  a  trip  exceeds  three  hours,  for delays  at  departure  of  more  than  two  hours,  the 
passengers  concerned  shall  at  least  have  the  right  "to  compensation  amounting  to  50  %  of  the  ticket 
price  if  a  bus  and/or  coach  undertaking  fails  to  provide  alternative  services  or  information  referred 
above" 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
When  defining  a  compensation  scheme,  the  maritime  proposal  envisaged  will  also  have  to 
take into account, the nature of the rail and bus and coach sector. The same principles used in 
these sectors will be used as a basis for the compensation scheme in the maritime sector. 

Compensation  under  the  maritime  proposal  would  be  granted  in  the  case  of  a  delay  or 
cancellation  between  the  places  of  departure  and  destination  of  the  trip.  The  amount  of  the 
compensation would be related to the duration of the delay and based on a percentage of the 
ticket price.  

Denied boarding will not be subject to this compensation scheme, because, as it has already 
been  mentioned  elsewhere  in  this  Impact  Assessment,  it  is  not  a  practice  in  maritime 
passenger transport. 

Finally,  measures  guaranteeing  SMEs  competitiveness  and  mitigating  economic  impacts  on 
SMEs will be taken into account. 

4.2.3. 

Information obligations for ports, shipping companies and travel agencies 

It  is  important  that  more  extensive  information  is  provided  to  the  passengers;  information 
provision  should  not  be  limited  to  passenger  rights  in  the  case  of  a  critical  event  but  might 
include general information about the trip and the provider.  

The  objective  should  be  to  establish  minimum  rules  on  information  for  passengers  before, 
during  and  after  the  journey.  In  addition  when  a  critical  event  occurs,  the  operator  should 
notify the passengers -voluntarily and as soon as possible -of the situation and the alternatives 
available to them. That information should be provided in a clear and understandable manner 
to all passengers concerned. 

Special provisions are required for PRMs passengers; general information about the assistance 
available to PRMs on a particular route should be made known to the general public and to 
potential passengers, and should be made available in accessible formats. 

Accessible information is crucial for passengers who are blind, partially sighted, deaf, deaf-
blind  or  hard  of  hearing,  or  who  have  an  intellectual  or  psychosocial  disability.  Where 
information  is  provided  on  tickets,  it  should  be  available,  upon  request,  in  alternative 
accessible formats. 

All parties rendering passenger services should provide the required information in a suitable 
format. Depending on the situation, this obligation could therefore apply to the port authority, 
the shipping company or the passenger terminal operator or the tour operator. 

Annex  9  outlines  the  minimum  information  requirements  that  may  be  used  as  a  basis  for 
information obligations. 

4.2.4.  Enforcement, monitoring, and complaint management 

The regulatory act would oblige each Member State to designate a body responsible for the 
enforcement  and  application  of  the  new  rules  to  ensure  that  the  rights  of  passengers  are 
respected.  Member  States  should  also  set  up  a  monitoring  system  to  report  on  complaint 
management,  detect  bottlenecks,  and  indicate  corrective  actions  and  they  should  establish 
penalties that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive in the event of infringements of the 
new rules, to ensure that they are implemented. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
Furthermore,  the  designated  body  should  also  investigate  complaints  from  passengers  and 
ensure that their rights are fully respected when infringements are found. Passengers should 
be  granted  the  right  to  complain  about  possible  infringements,  wherever  they  occur,  to  the 
body in the Member State where they reside, with the possibility of forwarding the complaint 
to the competent national body, if necessary.54 

4.3. 

EU  coordination  and  exchange  of  best  practices  to  be  developed  to  enhance 
national legislation (Option 3) 

In  this  scenario,  the  EU  regulator  might  confine  itself  to  promoting  a  common  "soft-law" 
framework  among  the  Member  States.  This  soft-law  framework  would  be  based  upon  best 
practices  and  would  constitute  a  benchmark  for  the  development  of  national  legislation  to 
enforce the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway. 

The EU’s objectives  may  be  achieved by ensuring that Member States, consumers  and ship 
operators are better informed. This type of policy instrument would include information and 
publicity  campaigns,  training,  guidelines  and  disclosure  requirements.  This  instrument  has 
some  important  advantages.  Not  only  it  is  cost-effective  in  many  cases;  it  is  also  easily 
adaptable to changing situations in the different Member States. 

4.4. 

Voluntary agreements (Option 4) 

Such voluntary agreements would be developed and adopted by ship operators to improve the 
situation of persons when travelling by sea and inland waterway, in line with the principle of 
the exchange of best practice. 

Under this option, it is considered that voluntary agreements could be sufficient to achieve the 
objectives. This type of agreement would be concluded by the parties concerned through an 
EU recommendation, while leaving to the EU institutions the possibility of intervening if the 
agreement should prove to be insufficient or inefficient. 

Self-regulation  can  cover  a  large  number  of practices,  common  rules,  codes  of  conduct  and 
voluntary agreements by which economic actors, social players, NGOs and organised groups 
undertake  to  voluntarily  regulate  and  organise  their  activities.  The  ability  to  use  self-
regulation  depends  to  a  large  extent  on  the  existence  of  relevant  bodies  and  processes  to 
support  self-regulation,  including  the  building  of  consensus  among  market  players  on  the 
contents  of  such  rules  and  the  monitoring  of  their  enforcement.  Self-regulation  may  deliver 
greater speed, responsiveness and flexibility, as it can be drawn up and amended more quickly 
than legislation. This may therefore be preferable in markets that are changing rapidly. Self-
regulation needs to be an open and transparent process, as it may provide an opportunity for 
collusion between competitors.  

In this scenario, the operators involved in  the  transport service  -following consultation with 
representatives  of  stakeholders  and  the  authorities  concerned-  should  develop  a  code  of 
conduct (“Passenger Service Commitment”). This code of conduct should contain non-legally 
binding  commitments  to  deliver  specific  services  to  passengers.  Signatory  operators  would 
develop  their  own  code  of  conduct,  incorporating  the  agreed  rules,  defining  care  and 
assistance  procedures,  establishing  staff-training  programmes  and  introducing  charges  to 

54 

See  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  of  27.10.2004  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities 
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws — OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, pp. 1–11. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implement  the  commitments.  In  this  context,  consumers  may  expect  to  be  adequately 
informed by signatory operators on all these issues when planning their travel arrangements. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

Preliminary remark 

The  analysis  of  the  main  impacts  for  the  measures  envisaged  has  been  conducted  using  a 
quantitative  approach  where  data  were  available  and  a  qualitative  approach  for  measures 
whose  impacts  were  small  or  where  no  data  were  available.  As  has  been  highlighted  in  the 
Impact  Assessment  EC  guidelines,  even  when  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  well-founded 
estimation  of  costs,  the  process  of  identifying  impacts  should  help  in  understanding  and 
explaining the consequences of the various proposals. 

The  costs  envisaged  for  PRMs  should  be  the  most  relevant  costs  in  economic  terms  for  the 
parties involved; these have been exhaustively measured in the PwC study.  

5.1. 

Option 1: Business as usual  

5.1.1.  Economic impact  

The  first  economic 
impact  of  Option  1”business  as  usual”  on  operators,  ports, 
administrations, and local authorities inside and outside the EU, is that they bear no additional 
cost. This is not likely to change over time.  

The second impact on operators, ports, administrations, and local authorities is an opportunity 
cost:  because  there  will  be  no  additional  traffic.  Without  measures  in  favour  of  passengers 
travelling by boat, their number is not likely to increase. On the contrary, the overall number 
of maritime passengers is actually likely to decrease. 

The  third  impact  is  the  cost  incurred  due  to  the  discrepancies  between  Member  State 
legislations. The magnitude of such a cost is difficult to assess. 

5.1.2. 

Social impact  

Passengers'  confidence  in  other  modes  of  transport,  based  on  rights  already  approved  at 
Community  level,  would  turn  into  mistrust  of  maritime  transport  if  it  refuses  to  give 
passengers  this  minimum  of  uniformity,  clarity  and  effectiveness  concerning  their  rights. 
PRMs  will  carry  on  not  using  this  mode  of  transport,  and  the  market  failure  to  integrate 
disabled  and  elderly  people  will  increase  as  the  European  population  gets  older.  Negative 
consequences could end up in job losses on board and ashore, and in a lack of integration of 
the elderly and the disabled. 

5.1.3.  Environmental impact 

This  dissatisfaction  of  passengers  with  this  mode  of  transport  could  also  have  an 
environmental impact, since maritime transport is generally less polluting than other modes of 
transport in the EU. In international maritime transport, the increase in the emission of toxic 
products over the past decade has been significant. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
Moreover, the Thematic Strategy on air pollution shows that emissions of SO2 and NOx from 
the  maritime  sector  are  likely  to  exceed  total  emissions  from  land-based  sources  by  202055. 
This  finding  must  be  qualified  for  the  purpose  of  the  current  assessment:  these  figures 
incorporate  massive  non-EU  freight  fleets  whose  flags  impose  very  low  environmental 
standards.  Moreover,  the  environmental  impact  broken  down  by  transport  mode  in  terms  of 
average  external  costs  per  ton-km  transported  shows  that  freight  transport  by  ship  is  eight 
times less polluting than transport by air, which is often the only alternative transport solution 
(see Table 12 in Annex 2). Unfortunately, the external costs of maritime passenger transport 
have not been estimated. However, it seems somewhat rash to transfer this ratio to passenger 
transport,  since  maritime  freight  maximises  economies  of  scale,  which  is  not  the  case  for 
passenger  ships,  where  size  varies  significantly.  A  conservative  ratio  of  4:1  seems  more 
appropriate. 

Since  it  is  unlikely  that  new  ships  will  be  put  in  service,  the  environmental  impact  of  this 
option is neutral.  

5.2. 

Option 2: Community legislative action 

This option is divided in two sub options: a) Community legislative action covering only the 
intra-Community  and  international  routes  ("cross  border  only"  option);  and  b)  Community 
legislative action covering cross border and domestic routes. 

Under sub-option a) (cross border only) if no further specification is made, it is assumed that 
the ports and the operators which only serve domestic traffic would simply be excluded from 
the costs analysed below.  

The  different  kind  of  costs  listed  below  applies  fully  to  option  b)  Community  legislative 
action  on  cross  border  and  domestic  routes,  since  these  costs  will  be  the  same  for  the  ports 
and  ship  operators,  regardless  of  the  destination  of  the  passengers.  It  must  be  noted 
throughout  this  section  5.2  that  ultimately  the  costs  listed  below  will  be  spread  across  all 
passengers, either through an increase in port tariffs, or an increase in the ticket price. 

5.2.1.  Economic impact  

Full  implementation  of  the  measures  proposed  in  option  2  would  have  an  impact  on  the 
companies operating in the European market for the transport of passengers by sea or inland 
waterway. The main market players likely to be affected are the following: 

Port and terminal operators 

Ship operators 

–  port authorities 

–  ferry and fast ferry carriers 

– 

terminal operators 

–  cruise companies 

–  public  bodies  responsible  for  investment  in 

– 

inland waterway passenger transport providers 

port infrastructure 

This economic impact must be assessed for each point identified above in Chapter 4 "Policy 
options".  

55 

TERM 2007: indicators tracking transport and environment in the EU - en EEA Report No 1/2008. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.1.1.  Cost of measures as regard PRMs 

As  a  preliminary  remark,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  cost  of  the  measures  relating  to  PRMs 
under the Regulation would ultimately be borne by passengers. The costs should be financed 
in such a way to spread the burden equitably among all passengers by levying a charge that is 
added  to  the  basic  ticket  price,  to  avoid  disincentives  to  the  carriage  of  the  PRMs.  Since 
similar measures already approved for the other modes of transport are financed in the same 
way,  the  added  costs  to  the  maritime/inland  waterways  carriers  will  be  neutral  in  terms  of 
competition. 

Cost of accessibility requirements in ports 

It does not appear necessary to draw up an exhaustive list of obligations in terms of specific 
installations  and  equipment  that  ports  should  provide  to  ensure  accessibility  since  the 
Commission proposal will not include any explicit obligation to adapt infrastructures to make 
them accessible to PRMs. However, a general accessibility obligation imposed on ports would 
still have an impact in terms of cost, which will be assessed in this report. 

The cost of adapting the passenger terminal infrastructure of EU ports to the needs of PRMs is 
very  difficult  to  estimate  in  quantitative  terms,  as  it  depends  very  much  on  local 
circumstances.  However,  a  number  of  considerations  are  set  out  below  in  order  to  better 
understand all the aspects that have to be considered in evaluating the costs of implementing 
accessibility  in  EU  ports.  They  concern  (1)  the  costs  of  typical  accessibility  facilities  at 
terminals, (2) the cost for terminals that are to be built or undergo a major refurbishment and 
(3) the cost for terminals to be adapted. 

(1) What are the costs of typical accessibility facilities? 

The major costs to be considered relate to land accessibility to the terminal, to berths and to 
ships.  

Fixed foot-passenger bridges can be costly, but so can flexible gangways, although to a lesser 
extent. However, these kinds of facilities are needed only for embarkation and disembarkation 
on high ships such as cruise vessels.  

The  provision  of  mobile  ramps  to  board  and  disembark  from  small  vessels,  such  as  ‘fast 
units’,  is  the  responsibility  of  ship  operators.  This  issue  has  already  been  addressed  by 
Directive 2003/24/EC, and does not represent a cost to be examined for the purposes of this 
impact assessment. 

Over  short  distances,  ramps,  where  practicable,  usually  do  not  gives  rise  to  excessive 
additional costs. Lifts, however, tend to be rather expensive, not only in the cost of purchase 
but also in maintenance. The cost of lift access between two floors could be in the order of 
€450 000 (DG TREN, 1999). 

Apart  from  these  facilities,  equipment  to  assist  hearing-impaired  persons,  such  as  induction 
loops,  and  provision  for  visually  impaired  persons,  such  as  tactile  edges  and  markings, 
involve  a  relatively  minor  cost.  Facilities  to  be  provided  and  their  costs  vary  significantly, 
between €400 and €15000 per unit (see Table 13 in Annex 2). 

(2) What are the costs of terminals to be built or subject to a major refurbishment? 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
Whenever  a  terminal  is  subject  to  a  major  refurbishment,  or  is  being  built  as  new,  an 
acceptable  level  of  accessibility  can  be  achieved  at  minimal  cost.  As  mentioned  in  a  recent 
POLIS report56, the provision of accessibility is not expensive if it is taken into consideration 
from  the  first  stages  of  the  design.  In  turn,  it  can  be  expensive  to  remove  the  barriers  in 
existing  buildings.  According  to  existing  calculations  (Seeger,  2002),  the  costs  of  making  a 
building accessible from the outset are less than 1% of the total construction cost. 

(3) What are the costs of terminals to be adapted? 

In most situations, terminals are already built and are not planned to be subjected to a major 
refurbishment.  However,  two  types  of  costs  associated  with  adapting  terminals  have  to  be 
considered57: namely, initial costs and permanent costs. 

The initial costs are encountered once during the life of the passenger terminal building and 
infrastructures. Their costs always arise, regardless of whether it is an existing building or a 
new building that is being adapted. Only the quantities will vary.  

Permanent  costs  exist  throughout  the  lifetime  of  the  building  or  infrastructure,  and  are 
usually  estimated  as  annual  costs.  The  main  permanent  costs  are  operating  costs  and 
maintenance and replacement costs. 

Cost of assistance in ports and aboard ships 

The cost of assistance in ports. In most cases, training courses to enable carrier personnel to 
provide assistance in port to PRMs and sensory/cognitive-impaired persons may be the only 
cost to be borne by the ship operators. However, it should be noted that carriers are already 
required  under  “Assistance  aboard  ships”  to  provide  similar  training  courses  to  their 
personnel. Therefore, this type of cost should be considered only once, under that heading. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  if  port  authorities  and  terminal  operators  are  not  responsible  for 
assisting PRMs in ports, their personnel are likely to come into direct contact with them. It is 
therefore  reasonable  to  provide  training  courses  for  those  employees  to  give  them  the  skills 
they need in order to provide adequate and qualified assistance to PRMs, if so requested. 

Unfortunately, no detailed data are available on the distribution of personnel in ports and their 
duties. The proposed estimate relies on data gathered by means of a survey58. 

The estimate of the volume of personnel needing to attend training courses in order to provide 
proper  assistance  to  PRMs  is  based  on  a  selection  from  a  list  of  passenger  ports  (Eurostat 
data) ranked by passenger traffic59. This allows the number of personnel to be estimated for 
each category (see Table 15 in Annex 2). 

56 

57 
58 
59 

POLIS:  Deliverable  D1.2  “Universal  Building  Design  (UBD):  Classification  and  techno-economical 
approach”  (January  2006).  POLIS  is  a  project  funded  by  the  Commission  under  the  PRIORITY  8.1 
(Policy Oriented Research) programme. 
This section was taken primarily from POLIS: Deliverable D1.2. 
Cf. Annex I of PwC study. See Table 14 in Annex 2. 
Cf. Annex 2, “Market analysis” of PwC study. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Port operators were also asked to provide information on staff training practices. For countries 
that provided data60 that an employee spends on courses an average of four days per year and 
the average cost per employee for one day of training is €167. 

It has to be noted that training for port personnel will differ from training for ship personnel: 
it  is  not  necessary  to  provide  training  to  deal  with  the  physical  handling  of  PRMs  when 
travelling  at  sea  or  on  inland  waterways.  Training  courses  might  aim  not  only  to  make 
personnel more aware of the specific needs of PRMs, but also to improve communication and 
attitudinal skills in order to facilitate assistance as much as possible. 

Training  courses  should  primarily  be  aimed  at  personnel  who  have  direct  contact  with 
passengers.  The  estimated  cost  of  training  front-office  employees  is  about  €2.9m. 
Nevertheless,  back-office  personnel  might  also  need  to  attend  training  courses  to  raise 
awareness. Here, additional costs of about €1m are anticipated. Finally, it should be recalled 
that these costs relate only to the first year of the training requirement, as expenditure in the 
following  years  should  be  lower,  being  limited  to  newly  employed  personnel  and  refresher 
courses.  Refresher  courses  would  be  less  costly  than  the  initial  courses,  although  these  are 
likely to be needed every year.  

Therefore, based on the data and information above, the total training cost for the European 
Union  as  a  whole  can  be  estimated  by  multiplying  the  number  of  employees  (for  each 
category) by the estimated average daily cost of training (€167). (See Table 16 in Annex 2). 

The cost of assistance aboard ships. In maritime transport, adequate assistance is needed for 
passengers with disabilities. The number of employees (and therefore costs) is not expected to 
increase, since in most cases the assistance can be provided by the existing personnel on ships 
when they are free of other duties. Therefore, training courses may be appropriate for onboard 
personnel  to  enable  them  to  provide  assistance  and  cope  with  emergencies  in  the  case  of 
PRMs, although operator policies do not yet cover this issue. 

It is worth pointing out that properly trained personnel on board might help not only to make 
travel more comfortable for passengers, but also to reduce the risk of accidents on board and 
prevent unease or situations that could represent a danger for passengers. 

According to the STCW95 Code (see Annex 10)61, training in providing assistance to PRMs 
should address deck personnel, such as masters, officers or ratings and hotel personnel who 
may have direct contact with passengers. Unfortunately, no detailed data are available on the 
number of employees on ships in the EU. Therefore, the number of persons employed in the 
deck  and  hotel  areas  of  Italian  ships  has  been  used  as  a  proxy  to  estimate  the  number  of 
seafarers  on  board  ships  in  the  European  Economic  Area  (EEA)  who  should  be  trained  to 
provide assistance to PRMs. The data were obtained with the help of Confitarma62. 

60 
61 

62 

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, UK, Netherlands. 
The STCW95 Code specifies standards for training for seafarers also with regard to the specific needs 
of PRMs. See Annex 9 for details.  
Confitarma  is  the  Italian  shipowners  confederation.  It  represents  more  than  nine  tenths  of  the  Italian 
merchant fleet. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Data for the European Union as a whole have been estimated by applying the same criteria as 
those  used  in  the  Italian  case63.  It  is  assumed  that  the  cost  per  employee  for  attending  the 
assistance course would be approximately €150. 

The total cost of training personnel on board ships in the EEA is about €8.4m (see table 17 in 
annex  2).  These  figures  also  include:  countries,  like  Italy,  the  UK  and  Ireland,  that  already 
impose a training policy for national employees in order to guarantee adequate assistance to 
passengers with reduced mobility; and countries not belonging to the European Union, such 
as Norway and Iceland. 

AS  a  result,  the  total  cost  would  probably  be  lower  than  that  estimated  in  this  report. 
Nevertheless,  in  a  conservative  approach,  the  above  figure  can  be  considered  to  be  a  fair 
estimate of the training cost at European level. Moreover, this full cost would be borne only in 
the first year, since training courses during the following years would be confined to newly 
employed personnel and refresher courses. Refresher courses should be less costly than initial 
courses. 

Cost of information obligations 

Information obligations should cover the different stages in the transport service. In particular, 
PRMs require information on: accessibility to the port; accessibility from the port to the ship 
(embarking); assistance on board; assistance during disembarking; and post-travel assistance, 
where needed. 

Not all the actors in the industry can be considered to bear equal responsibility for the quality 
and accessibility of the information provided to PRMs. However, a reasonable distribution of 
information  responsibilities  is  given  in  the  following  chart.  For  the  sake  of  clarity,  carriers 
should also bear responsibility. 

Mapping of responsibilities for providing information 

Accessibility to
Accessibility to
the port
the port

Accessibility
Accessibility
from the port to
from the port to
the ship
the ship

Assistance on 
Assistance on 
board
board

Assistance
Assistance
during
during
disembarking
disembarking

Assistance
Assistance
post travel
post travel
(if needed)
(if needed)

t
t
r
r
o
o
P
P

s
s
r
r
o
o
t
t
a
a
r
r
e
e
p
p
O
O

l
l
e
e
v
v
a
a
r
r
T
T

y
y
c
c
n
n
e
e
g
g
A
A

Source: PwC 

Information should be made available not only before the journey, but also during all stages 
of  the  trip.  Information  should  be  provided  in  advance  about  accessibility  on  board  and  in 
ports,  and  about  assistance  on  departure  or  arrival.  Moreover,  cruise  trip  brochures  should 

63 

Cf. Annex II, “Market Analysis” in the PwC report. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
give  details  of  the  services  offered  to  disabled  persons  in  ports  of  call  to  allow  them  a 
minimum autonomy of movement64. 

Mapping of information by stage of trip 

Actors 

Information pre-
travel 

Information in 
ports/ships 

Information post-
travel 

Port Authorities and 
Terminal Operators  
Shipping Operators 
Travel Agencies 

Internet 
Brochures (special 
format) 
Advertising 
Tickets 
Mailing lists 

Brochures 
Assistance from 
personnel 
Tickets 

Internet 
Tickets 
Mailing lists 
Customer care 

Source: PwC 

The  shipping  operators  should  provide  in  the  first  instance  general  information  about  the 
shipping  service,  but  in  general  this  should  be  an  obligation  for  everyone  involved  in  the 
tourism sector, e.g. travel agencies, tour operators and port authorities. This information can 
be  provided  on  the  internet  or  by  any  other  means  normally  used  to  promote  the  shipping 
service  (e.g.  brochures,  tickets,  etc.).  It  will  involve  only  minor  costs  since  it  can  be 
incorporated within the other information material already provided by operators. This limited 
marginal  cost  (if  any)  might  be  borne  by  the  operators  without  any  impact  in  terms  of 
profitability  or  tariff  increases  for  passengers.  However,  providing  information  in  special 
formats,  like  Braille,  seems  to  be  more  costly.  According  to  TiS.pt  (2006)  the  unit  costs 
incurred by an operator for preparing information brochures in Braille lies at around € 2,246 
for an Index Basic Braille Embosser Printer and € 300 for a Braille Translator. 

More important could be the cost of guaranteeing adequate information on ships and in ports 
and  having  adequate  tools  for  properly  informing  passengers  during  travelling  or  waiting 
times in ports. This matter is regulated for shipping operators by Directive 2003/24. The costs 
of  facilities  to  be  provided  at  terminal  buildings  to  improve  information  accessibility  vary 
between 150 and 400€ per item (see Table 13 in Annex 2). 

Who should bear the cost of accessibility, assistance and information in ports? 

It is not easy to determine which actors should bear the investment costs necessary to ensure 
accessibility for PRMs, since the European framework for port governance and management 
is very complex.  

As claimed by ESPO65 and confirmed by the preparatory study conducted by PwC, terminals 
are not always physically linked and are mostly operated by different parties, sometimes the 
port authority itself. However, the majority of European ports are operated by various separate 
private companies, terminal operators or shipping lines. 

In addition, on some routes there is no port and therefore no port authority as such (e.g. small 
cruise services departing from beaches). It could therefore be envisaged that carriers should 
handle  the  organisation  of  assistance  and  bear  the  cost,  with  the  possibility  of  significant 
economies  of  scale  given  that  the  same  carrier  staff  would  be  providing  assistance  both 
aboard ships and in ports. 

64 

65 

Commission Staff Working Paper “Strengthening the protection of the rights of passengers travelling by 
sea or inland waterway in the European Union” — summary of contributions. 
ESPO (European Sea Ports Organisation) response to the European Commission consultation. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Accordingly,  the  most  obvious  solution  is  to  require  the  ship  operators  concerned  to  ensure 
that  assistance  is  provided  to  PRMs  in  ports66.  The  number  of  employees  (and  costs)  is  not 
expected to increase, since the assistance can be provided by the existing personnel on ships 
when the ship is moored in port. 

The financing of terminal-related infrastructure and superstructure67 in European seaports and 
charging  for  their  use  are  highly  sensitive  issues,  since  port  authorities  and  port  operators 
regard  them  as  means  of  enhancing  competitiveness.  Due  to  the  increasing  competition 
between  seaports  to  attract  both  vessel  operators  and  port-related  companies,  the  authorities 
run a very restrictive information policy68.  

The approaches to the financing and maintenance of port superstructure vary across Member 
States (see table 18 in annex 2). In most Member States, a public entity or the port authority is 
responsible  for  infrastructure  investment  and  maintenance.  In  some  other  countries, 
responsibility is shared by the public and private sectors. Finally, in a few Member States, it is 
wholly in the private sector. 

Furthermore, in some ports infrastructure investment is initially financed by the port authority 
and  paid  back  by  the  terminal  operator  through  a  lease  fee.  In  other  cases,  infrastructure 
investment is financed by the private terminal concessionaire and then refunded by the public 
authorities through a discount on concession fees. 

Such a complex architecture calls for a solution that needs to be workable and transferable to 
all the scenarios described above. Any legislative proposal should leave as much flexibility as 
possible  to  the  sector  to  meet  the  envisaged  objectives.  Leaving  the  responsibility  and 
therefore  the  cost  to  carriers,  with  the  possibility  to  subcontract,  appears  to  be  the  most 
practical solution. 

As to the impact of the proposed measures, a general remark has to be made: the economic 
importance of the cargo will still be considerable in comparison with the revenues expected 
from  the  transport  of  passengers.  Where  both  passengers  and  cargo  are  transported  on  the 
same  ship,  carriers  will  still  tend  to  have  more  incentives  to  comply  with  their  obligations 
regarding  freight  rather  than  passengers.  The  positive  difference  of  the  measures  envisaged 
will be on the passenger side: when and if the carrier has decided for instance to incur a long 
delay at port, he will have to provide assistance, and possibly rerouting and compensation to 
his passengers. This may not lead to possible changes in the incentives for certain carriers, but 
will  make  sure  that  the  passenger  does  not  bear  the  consequences  of  such  an  economic 
decision by the carrier. 

Finally  for  those  routes  subject  to  a  PSO,  the  extra  costs  of  the  proposed  measures  for 
operators  might  be  absorbed  by  Member  States  through  compensation  provided  under  the 
terms of the PSOs.  

66 

67 

68 

The  ship  operator  may  provide  such  assistance  itself.  Alternatively,  it  may  meet  its  responsibility  by 
contracting one or more other parties to provide the assistance. 
Port superstructure comprises: roads and rail tracks at the terminal; terminal paving/surface finishing; 
port/office buildings; mobile equipment; warehouses; cranes. 
Study  ordered  by  DGTREN  on  “Public  Financing  and  Charging  Practices  of  Seaports  in  the  EU”. 
Prepared by the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics, 2006. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.1.2.  Cost of the contemplated measures when travel is interrupted (cancellation & delays) 

As  already  indicated  at  the  beginning  of  this  IA,  there  are  few  data  available  regarding  the 
number of critical events69. Even the definition of this concept is not same for all operators. 
Despite this lack of data, a qualitative process was conducted to produce reliable estimates of 
the  parameters  of  interest  in  order  to  have  a  real  picture  of  the  situation  and  of  how  much 
these measures would cost70. 

Cost of the assistance and rerouting 

As  to  assistance,  the  cost  will  be  nil  in  a  number  of  cases;  accommodation  will  be  free  for 
cruises, since cabins are already available on board. The cost of refreshment and meals will be 
nil for cruises and ro-ro ferries which have such services aboard their ships.  

In  other  cases,  the  contemplated  measures  will  have  an  inbuilt  proportionality  principle  i.e. 
assistance must be provided within the limits of what is possible under local circumstances. 
This  is  particularly  crucial  for  smaller  companies  in  smaller  ports  where  sometimes  no 
facilities are available. Assistance should be available in such cases, but should be limited to 
what is available. For instance, potable water is to be considered as available in all cases, at a 
marginal cost almost zero. 

As to re-routing, the cost is difficult to assess since many different scenarios are covered. 

Therefore, the effects on revenue and profits are likely to be insignificant; equally, the impact 
on the competitiveness of Community companies should be slight, as all operators involved in 
the sector would be covered. 

The  economic  impact  of  the  application  of  the  new  measures  should  be  small.  Therefore, 
there  should  be  no  significant  effect  on  employment,  investment  or  the  creation  of  new 
business. Nevertheless, operators can expect an increase in staff and training costs, along with 
a possible slight increase in ticket price without any decrease in passenger demand. 

Some expenses are to be expected for all parties involved. Price could be affected in the long 
run, as operators will be forced to operate more carefully, increasing production costs and also 
to cover the risk of future penalties. 

Cost of the compensation scheme 

The  issue  of  financial  compensation  when  travel  is  interrupted  is  one  which  cannot  be 
assessed  in  quantitative  terms  owing  to  one  of  the  main  constraints  encountered  during  the 
process of making this IA, and which has already been mentioned: namely, the lack of data in 
the maritime passenger sector. 

However, the cost of paying compensation to passengers is unlikely to be excessive, although 
this  is  hard  to  predict.  As  has  been  explained  earlier  in  the  text,  the  phenomenon  of  denied 

69 

70 

TiS  study  2006:  Only  5  countries  out  of  17  provided  data  on  critical  events  (France,  UK,  Ireland, 
Poland and Estonia) 
As highlighted in the EC guidelines, even when it is not possible to make a well-founded estimation of 
costs, the process of identifying impacts should help to understand and explain the consequences of the 
different proposals. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
boarding  for  overbooking  does  not  appear  to  be  particularly  significant  in  the  context  of 
passenger transport by ship.  

Moreover, considering that the average cost of a ticket in the maritime sector is much lower 
than in the air sector (where the total price of measures has not given rise to an insuperable 
burden  for  the  actors  involved)  and  considering  that  the  suggested  compensation  would 
amount to a maximum of the total price paid for the ticket, compensation would not have a 
significant economic impact. 

The  situation  may  differ  slightly  when  it  comes  to  delays,  as  these  appear  to  be  a  very 
significant  issue  in  the  maritime  passenger  sector.  Nevertheless,  assuming  that  the 
compensation  would  not  exceed  of 50%  of  the  price  paid  for  the  ticket  and  considering  the 
average cost of a ticket, the economic impact of the application of the new measures is likely 
to be quite limited. Finally, the circumstances in which operators are excluded from liability 
in  the  case  of  delays  (e.g.  exemption  for  companies  from  providing  compensation  when 
extreme  weather  conditions  and  force  majeure  makes  it  impossible  to  provide  services 
contracted) and cancellations may effectively lessen the economic impact of this measure. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any significant effect on employment, investment or 
the creation of new business. 

Nevertheless,  operators  can  expect  an  increase  in  staff  and  training  costs,  along  with  a 
possible slight increase in ticket price without any decrease in passenger demand. 

5.2.1.3.  Cost of the obligation to provide information 

Some of the arguments are the same as those mentioned above in "Information obligations for 
ports, shipping companies and travel agencies" in the PRMs section. 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  obligation  to  provide  information  will  give  rise  to  any  particular 
additional  costs  for  the  operators.  The  obligation  could  be  covered  by  short  training 
programmes for counter staff whose skills need to be upgraded, and by the operator making 
available an internal circular at its customer contact points, and/or posting up a document on 
the ship that explains the rights of passengers under the new rules. 

Therefore there might be a slight increase in the costs of training and of printing information, 
and some moderate administrative costs related to information obligation. 

5.2.1.4.  Cost of complaint handling service and monitoring 

The  process  of  managing  the  settlement  of  disputes  is  not  expected  to  result  in  any  major 
additional economic burdens for the operators. The approach should provide for a review of 
internal procedures so as to guarantee that written feedback is provided quickly and efficiently 
to the traveller submitting the complaint.  

5.2.1.5.  Economic impact on passengers 

The  adoption  by  the  EU  of  all  the  measures  proposed  to  enforce  passenger  rights  would 
increase costs, leading either to a reduction in operating margins for ship operators or to an 
increase in passenger fares. The impact on ticket fares, if any, would depend on the additional 
direct or indirect costs that ship operators would have to face.  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
Direct  costs  would  mainly  be  expenditure  for  personnel  training  (as  regards  PRMs)  and  the 
provision  of  information.  However,  the  impact  of  these  costs  on  ship  operators’  margins  is 
expected to be almost insignificant. 

Indirect costs might arise primarily from increases in port tariffs, which would depend on the 
additional costs to be borne for improving accessibility in ports for PRMs. However, it should 
be noted that there is not always a direct correlation between investment costs and changes in 
port tariffs. Depending on the country or even the specific port, the costs of investment can be 
the responsibility of either the public or the private sector. When a private body is responsible, 
the  investment  is  often  refunded  via  a  discount  on  concession  fees.  Finally,  it  should  be 
recalled  that  a  number  of  EU  ports  do  not  require  major  adaptations  since  they  are  already 
accessible or partially accessible to PRMs. 

Another aspect to be considered is that improved accessibility would have a positive impact 
on  the  number  of  persons  travelling,  i.e.  both  PRMs  and  other  passengers  that  will  benefit 
from an improved service, and hence have a positive impact on ship operator revenues. 

All  these  considerations  mean  that  the  precise  positive  or  negative  effect  on  ticket  fares  is 
difficult  to  quantify,  but  it  seems  clear  that  any  impact  would  be  small  including  for  the 
measures benefiting the PRMs. This is confirmed by the experience of the United Kingdom 
where significant action has already been taken in recent years to enforce PRM rights without 
causing any significant increase in ticket fares (see annex 13). 

It  would  be  speculative  to  try  to  estimate  the  total cost  of  the  proposal. It  is  worth  noticing 
that, in any event, the aggregated costs will ultimately be borne not by the companies, but by 
the passenger (see point 5.2.1.1). However, such an estimate may be extrapolated from similar 
measures based on the same principles that have been put in place in the air transport sector, 
where  evaluations  made  by  airports  show  that  the  total  cost  of  measures  (accessibility, 
assistance  information)  is  around  60  cents  per  ticket  in  many  airports.  However,  smaller 
airports  have  to  manage  with  cheaper  costs. While  the  cost  of  these  measures  at  bigger  EU 
airports may be between 1.3 EUR and 0.91 EUR per passenger, smaller airports are normally 
cheaper  and  costs  can  range  from  0.30  to  0.50  EUR.  The  cheapest  airport  charge  that  it  is 
known is 0.22 EUR per passenger. These figures must be used with great care. However, in 
air transport, similar measures based on the same principles apply to all airports and airlines 
regardless of their size. Therefore, there is no "a priori" reason why it should be different in 
the maritime sector.  

These  figures  must  be  used  with  great  care,  since  the  measures  dealing  with  assistance  for 
PRMs  in  the  air  transport  have  only  entered  into  application  on  26  July  2008.  The 
Commission  only  started  receiving  data  on  airport  charges  on  irregular  basis  in  September 
2008  onwards.  These  figures  are  in  themselves  a  useful  indication  as  a  proxy,  but  have  no 
statistical  or  scientific  value,  and  therefore  cannot  be  used  as  a  basis  to  calculate  a  sound 
overall impact of the measures.  

5.2.1.6.  Economic impact on the tourism industry (mainly cruises) 

The  maritime  tourism  sector  mainly  consists  of  cruises,  a  segment  of  the  market  that 
represents roughly 8% of total maritime passenger traffic. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
The  measures  proposed  are  likely  to  involve  costs  to  ensure  accessibility  and  to  provide 
assistance  and  information  in  ports  and  aboard  ships  for  PRMs.  However,  such  costs  are 
unlikely to have a significant and lasting impact on ticket fares. 

On  average,  maritime  travel  represents  1.6%  of  all  trips  of  four  nights  or  more  made  by 
European tourists71. It could therefore be assumed that 1.6% of all trips of four nights or more 
made for tourism purposes in the EU use cruises as the means of transport. In this context, the 
potential  (not  additional)  demand  for  accessible  tourism  by  ship  can  thus  be  assumed  to 
amount to 0.6 million journeys per year (see table 19 in annex 2). Furthermore, persons with 
disabilities  usually  travel  accompanied.  On  average,  59%  of  European  families  have  a 
member  who  is  disabled  and  an  average  of  38%  of  the  European  population  have  a  friend 
with a disability72.  

If a multiplier effect of 0.5 is assumed73, meaning that half of the population with accessibility 
requirements will have at least one person travelling with them once a year, the total potential 
travel  market  is  0.9  million  (see  tables  19  and  20  in  annex  2)  .  Given  that  the  average 
expenditure  per  holiday  in  Europe  in  2005  was  €62074,  the  potential  additional  revenue 
amounts to €0.55m. 

Assuming that disabled people take, on average, more than one holiday per year, travel with 
other  family  members  or  friends,  and  would  travel  even  more  frequently  if  they  could  find 
more information and more accessible sites, a multiplier effect of around 2 can be posited75. 
In this case, the potential travel market would increase by up to 1.8 million (see tables 19 and 
20 in annex 2). 

Depending on the multiplier used, the estimated potential additional tourism revenues range 
between  €0.55m  and  €1.1m  (see  table  21  in  annex  2).  Potentially,  this  represents  a 
considerable market and will continue to grow due to the ageing of the population.  

The potential impact of the proposed measures on employment may be divided into direct and 
induced effects. The first category includes impacts on both port and shipping employment, 
while the second includes impacts on employment in the tourism industry. 

The measures proposed are likely to have a beneficial impact on the competitive position of 
businesses, since they would help to harmonise the legislation on passengers' rights, applying 
equally to ship operators and port and terminal operators from different Member States. This 
aspect would facilitate the creation of a single EU market in which passengers in general and 
PRMs  in  particular  would  be  guaranteed  an  equal  level  of  protection,  and  operators  would 
have to commit to the same level of service, without distinction as to the country of origin. 

The  outcome  would  be  a  positive  economic  effect  on  the  competitiveness  of  terminal 
operators and shipping companies complying with the new requirements for passengers with 
reduced mobility. 

71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Eurostat: “Statistics in focus — How Europeans go on holiday” (2006). 
Eurobarometer (2001), Attitudes of Europeans to Disability. 
This multiplier is consistent with the assumption made by Deloitte Touche “Tourism for All in Europe”. 
Eurostat: “Statistics in focus — Tourism in the Enlarged European Union” (2005). 
This  multiplier  is  consistent  with  the  assumption  made  by  OSSATE:  “Accessibility  Market  and 
Stakeholder Analysis” (20 October 2005). 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The scenario under sub option a) ("cross border only" option) would not give domestic ship 
operators and domestic only port operators the benefit of increased competitiveness.  

It is a fact that more and more small "domestic only" port operators in Europe are trying to 
attract cruise operators to their ports as a way of increasing direct and indirect revenues for 
the  port  and  its  economic  zone  of  influence.  The  boom  in  the  cruise  sector  justifies  this 
expectation from small ports, which will be able to offer a more personalised service to new 
operators.  However,  if  the  bigger  ports  or  the  small  ones  which  happen  to  already  cover  at 
least a cross border route adapt their terminals to the new Community legislation, they will be 
in a much better position to attract the new cruise lines to the detriment of the domestic ports.  

5.2.1.7.  Impact among Member states 

Coastal  countries  (such  as  the  UK)  which  have  adopted  and  actively  implemented  more 
advanced legislation for the protection  of  PRM  rights  would  bear the least costs, since they 
have already made the necessary investments. The provisions set out in this proposal establish 
general principles to be respected, not specific practical requirements on how ports should be 
modified,  which  kind  of  equipment  should  be  purchased  and  in  which  quantities  etc. 
Therefore,  the  existing  structures  in  these  more  advanced  countries  would  not  have  to  be 
modified, and it is not likely that additional investments would be needed. 

The costs will be higher for countries with little or no legislation currently in force, which to 
our knowledge means most of them. However, the flexibility given to companies and ports to 
adapt to the new principles to be respected will allow them to minimize their costs. 

The  scenario  under  sub  option  a)  ("cross  border  only"  option)  would  mean  that  Member 
States  apply  two  sets  of  measures,  the  Community  measure  for  the  ports  and  operators 
covering  cross  border  lines  and  another  (possibly  none)  for  "domestic  only"  ones.  The 
monitoring and enforcement of two different sets of measures will become very complex for 
Member States in a dynamic scenario where ports and maritime carriers evolve over time and 
can suddenly decide to launch a cross border service.  

5.2.2. 

Social impacts  

Passengers  travelling  by  sea  and  inland  waterways  will  benefit  if  the  quality  of  service  is 
improved.  They  will  also  have  the  benefit  of  assistance  if  they  experience  inconvenience 
during the journey. Moreover, PRMs will receive more assistance than is currently the case.  

In  general  terms,  it  can  be  recognised  that  there  will  be  significant  positive  effects  on 
customers,  mainly  as  a  result  of  better  information  on  rights  and  procedures,  but  also 
beneficial effects on social cohesion, in particular through better attention being paid to PRMs 
travellers.  The  single  market  will  certainly  be  advanced,  even  if  absolute  uniformity  is  not 
achieved.  

In  addition,  the  feeling  of  social  protection  is  also  expected  to  be  enhanced,  along  with  the 
protection of consumer interests.  

The  scenario  under  sub  option  a)  ("cross  border  only"  option)  would  mean  that  domestic 
passengers are the only type of passengers excluded from the minimum set of rights agreed 
for  the  other  modes  of  transport  and  for  cross  border  passengers  travelling  by  boat.  The 
feeling of a lack of social protection will be accentuated by the fact that these passengers will 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
become more and more aware, with the full application of rights in other modes of transport, 
of  the  existence  of  a  set  of  minimum  standards  for  all  kind  of  passengers  but  them.  This 
exclusion would not only affect passengers who are on the same boat but have embarked at 
different  ports,  but  it  would  also  affect  domestic  passengers  embarking  at  ports  with  both 
domestic and cross border routes, since they will be fully aware of the rights granted to the 
cross-border  passengers  sitting  next  to  them  at  the  port  terminal  and  of  the  fact  that  those 
rights that are denied to them.  

The  vast  majority  of  maritime  carriers  usually  combine  cargo  and  passenger  transport. 
Whenever this is the case, the economic importance of the cargo is huge in comparison with 
the  revenues  anticipated  from  the  transport  of  passengers.  Maritime  carriers  tend  to  give 
preference to solutions which allow them to sail with all the intended cargo onboard, even if it 
means = waiting for more than 20 hours at the port, since the economic losses (loss of revenue 
plus the compensation to be paid for not having fulfilled their freight contract) if they decide 
to  respect  punctuality  are  enormous,  whereas  currently  maritime  companies  face  no  extra 
costs for not honouring their contracts with passengers.  

Without  a  legal  obligation  on  companies  to  offer  passengers  care  and  information,  plus 
compensation in some cases to passengers, maritime companies will not have any incentive to 
change a behaviour which makes complete sense from an economic point of view. From the 
average citizen's point of view, however, it is impossible to understand why, under the remote 
subsidiarity  principle,  domestic  passengers  are  left  with  no  protection  confronted  with  the 
economic  choice  made  by  the  company,  whereas  the  cross  border  passengers  do  receive 
protection. 

It must be remembered that maritime passengers are often "captive" passengers, who depend 
on  their  journey  by  ship  to  reach  other  means  of  transport.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  a 
huge  number  of  maritime  passengers  choose  the  maritime  mode  of  transport  because  they 
need to travel with their car. Just imagine all those passengers with families that cannot afford 
the  price  of  five  train  or  bus  tickets  to  the  small  airport  from  where  the  low  cost  company 
flies; plus the five plane tickets which, even if low cost, inevitably include a lot of extra taxes, 
which  usually  doubles  the  price  of  the  ticket;  plus  the  five  train  tickets  from  the  secondary 
airport where the low cost company lands to their final destination, and the cost of renting a 
car  for  the  duration  of  their  trip.  For  all  these  passengers,  even  when  there  is  some 
competition between modes of transport (such as on routes where maritime transport has to 
complete with the low cost airlines or a nearby train station) there is de facto no competition 
between the low cost company and the boat. 

The  same  applies  to  cruise  companies,  which  without  a  legal  obligation  to  compensate 
passengers in the event that it does not cover one of the legs of the trip, will easily prime give 
precedence to the economic incentive to reduce their costs by not stopping in one port over 
the vaguer incentive of satisfying their clients. 

5.2.2.1.  Impact on accessibility for PRMs 

Under the proposed measures, PRMs would be able to enjoy the same opportunities as other 
passengers  in  maritime  transport.  Without  such  opportunities,  they  would  lose  not  only  the 
direct benefits of travel but also the indirect benefits of full inclusion in economic and social 
life: they would be unable to travel to work, visit family and friends and go on holiday like 
other citizens. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
The proposed measures would ensure that the journey is accessible from beginning to end and 
that disabled people are aware of this before departure. All groups of PRMs would benefit. 

The scenario under sub option a) (the "cross border only" option) would mean that PRMs who 
are domestic passengers will remain be the only kind of PRMs that remain excluded from the 
minimum set of rights agreed for the other modes of transport and for cross border passengers 
by boat. The main difference between passengers in general and PRMs is that the lack of right 
for passengers does not prevent them from travelling, whereas the absence of rights for PRM 
under a Community action will perpetuate their exclusion from maritime travel. 

5.2.2.2.  Additional employment in ports 

A  growing  number  of  passengers  travelling  by  ship  may  require  extra  staff  at  ports  and 
passenger  terminals76.  ,  Only  the  possible  additional  traffic  due  to  increased  numbers  of 
PRMs  travelling  as  tourists  has  been  considered  for  the  purpose  of  estimating  the  possible 
impact on employment. 

Based  on  the  index  for  the  estimated  number  of  personnel  needed  in  ports  for  every  1000 
passengers,  the  potential  number  of  additional  employees  to  be  hired  at  ports  would  total 
approximately 176.400 in the more conservative case (see Table 20 in annex 2). 

5.2.2.3.  Additional employment on ships 

For shipping services, the need for new employees is strictly related to the number of ships, 
which  in  turn  depends  on  their  capacity  and  on  the  relative  loading  factor  with  respect  to 
current traffic. According to the traffic figures (see table 20 annex 2), the predicted potential 
number  of  accessible  tourism  trips  represents,  at  most,  an  increase  of  0.85%  on  the  current 
traffic77. This percentage is not high enough to justify an increase in the number of vessels to 
serve the new demand. For a 0.67% increase in traffic (optimistic scenario), the capacity of a 
vessel would be wholly taken up only if it were currently operated with an average load factor 
of  96.3%,  which  is  unusual  on  the  EU  shipping  market.  However,  such  a  traffic  increase 
might  justify  the  introduction  of  additional  journeys  by  existing  ships  in  a  few  cases, 
depending on the specific market requirements of the particular period of the year. 

Three different scenarios are therefore possible: (1) the traffic increase can be handled by the 
existing fleet; (2) the traffic increase might allow an increase in the number of journeys; (3) 
the  new  traffic  demand  may  justify  additional  investment  in  fleet  and  crews  (including 
replacing ships with bigger vessels). 

For  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  the  most  likely  scenarios  are  (1)  and  (2),  for  which  the 
likely  employment  increase  would  be  very  limited.  Nonetheless,  it  is  still  very  difficult  to 

76 

77 

It should be noted that additional staff in ports are not required because assistance must be provided to 
PRMs, but because the number of passengers as a whole is expected to increase. This does not represent 
a threat to the industry, since the additional labour cost will be fully offset by the consequent increase in 
port and carrier revenues. 
It  is  estimated  that  the  total  potential  number  of  accessible  tourism  vacations  by  ship  is  at  most  1.8 
million, corresponding to 3.6 million passenger journeys. Moreover, it has been estimated that the total 
number  of  passenger  trips by  ship  in  the  EU  varies between  243 600 000  (Eurostat)  and 306 600 000 
(ShipPax). Finally it was calculated that potential accessible tourism traffic is expected to be between 
0.67%  and  0.85%  of  total  passenger  traffic  by  ship.  It  is  worth  recalling  that  these  figures  might  be 
overestimates, since many other barriers apart from those affecting ship transports still prevent potential 
customers from travelling. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
predict the effect of an increase of passenger traffic on shipping employment because, on the 
one hand, the assessment depends on the decisions of operators, who might decide that it is 
better to forgo part of the market, since the predicted marginal cost might be higher than the 
relative marginal revenue. On the other hand, the shipping market is capital-intensive, and an 
increase  in  fleet  numbers  and  the  attendant,  cost  of  employees  must  be  justified  by  the 
stability (or steady increase) of the market in order to optimise the return on investment. 

5.2.2.4.  Additional employment in the tourism sector 

The increase in passenger traffic might also increase the level of employment (and turnover) 
in the tourism industry.  

The relative impact on employment is calculated by taking into account the additional tourism 
revenues estimated in the Section of the economic impact on the tourism industry. In 2004 the 
average  turnover  per  person  employed  in  the  hotels  and  restaurants  sector  was  €44 60078. 
Table 21 in  Annex 2 presents  an estimate of the potential number of new  employees in  the 
tourism sector. 

Depending on the scenario considered the estimated number of additional employees needed 
in the tourism industry varies from almost 12 300 to more than 24 600 FTEs. 

5.2.3.  Environmental impact 

The  main  issue  here  is  the  potential  shift  between  modes  of  transport  due  to  the  improved 
quality of maritime transport services. This will depend on two main factors: 

•  increased tariffs, a factor that reduces demand; 

•  better  quality  of  services  for  passengers  in  general  and  PRMs  in  particular,  a 

factor that increases demand. 

A  significantly  better  quality  of  services  for  passengers  would  increase  the  demand  for 
maritime transport. In this case, two aspects should be considered for any modal shift: 

•  If the number of passengers were to increase, this would not necessarily entail an 
increase in transport frequencies or services. In fact, the main effect would be to 
increase  average  load  factors  and  allow  better  management  of  the  existing 
European fleet; 

•  If the number of maritime transport services were to increase, given that most new 
passengers  would  come  over  from  other  (more  polluting)  modes  of  transport, 
there would be a marginal positive impact on the environment. 

It might be concluded that this option does not take account of any important environmental 
impacts. 

78 

Eurostat Database: NACE H Hotels and Restaurants, year 2004, EU-27  

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.3. 

Option 3: EU coordination and exchange of best practices to enhance national 
legislations 

5.3.1.  Economic impact 

The adoption by some Member States of the measures proposed to enforce passengers rights 
might result in an increase in passenger fares. However, the UK's experience (see Annex 12) 
shows that the impact is likely to be limited. 

A positive impact on the tourism industry is expected. However, potential additional revenues 
from tourism would be lower than with option 2, since services would be fully accessible only 
in Member States that fully adhere to the EU recommendations.  

If the national legislation approach were to be adopted, all of the types of costs for option 2 
above  would  also  be  incurred.  However,  total  costs  in  this  case  would  be  lower  than  with 
option 2, since only the operators of Member States that adhered to the EU recommendations 
would bear any additional costs. 

Some distortion of competition may be expected between ports situated in the same area but 
in different Member States, where the applicable legislation on accessibility may be different. 

It is not possible to ensure that all Member States will specify one or more specific authority 
for monitoring and complaint management. 

5.3.2. 

Social impact 

The  aim  of  the  measures  proposed  to  ensure  the  following:  a  service  of  quality;  proper 
information  to  passengers  in  all  circumstances;  accessibility  and  assistance  in  ports,  and 
assistance  aboard  ships  for  PRMs;  and  for  enforcement  and  monitoring,  are  the  same  for 
every  policy  option.  However,  each  policy  option  differs  in  terms  of  delivery  mechanisms 
(European or national) and the level of compliance required of the sector in implementing the 
measures.  With  this  option,  the  likely  benefits  and  costs  will  thus  depend  on  the  level  of 
commitment of the EU Member States in adopting and enforcing the new rules. 

A  number  of  Member  States  have  already  adopted  specific  legislation  to  protect  passenger 
rights  in  maritime  transport,  while  others  may  decide  to  take  action  to  improve  the  current 
passenger rights situation. However, all things being equal, few Member States are likely to 
enact specific legislation on this matter in the coming years. If no action is taken, there is a 
real  risk  of  creating  widening  disparities  between  European  Member  States,  especially  as 
regards the level of accessibility for PRMs: 

•  For  accessibility  in  ports,  one  of  the  main  dangers  is  the  following:  a  route  with  a  fully 
accessible departure or arrival port (because it is located in a Member State with proactive 
legislation for PRMs) and a non-accessible departure or arrival port (because it is located 
in a Member State with no or insufficient legislation for PRMs) is a fully non-accessible 
route, despite all the efforts made by the proactive Member State. Even where both ports 
are accessible, the potential lack of clarity in the two Member States as regards rules and 
conditions  for  accessibility  and  assistance  may  in  itself  be  a  disincentive  for  PRMs  to 
travel, and “de facto” nullify the investment made by both Member States in this area. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
•  As  regards  assistance  in  boarding  and  disembarking  from  ships,  maritime  passenger 
carriers  that  operate  between  two  or  more  EU  Member  States  may  find  it  economically 
costly and difficult in practice to comply with different sets of legislations on PRMs, even 
if they are similar in scope and content.  

All passengers would potentially benefit from the proposed measures in those Member States 
that  implement  the  EU  recommendations.  As  with  option  2  above,  there  should  be  positive 
impacts on employment. However, employment impacts would be confined to Member States 
that actually implement the EU recommendations. 

5.3.3.  Environmental impact 

As noted above and with regard to option 3, the likely benefits and costs depend on the level 
of commitment by Member States in adopting new rules.  

Improved quality of service in countries that adopt the measures proposed by the EU is likely 
to  result  in  an  increase  the  number  of  passengers.  Considering  that  maritime  transport  is  in 
second place in terms of lower external costs, a modal shift would probably have a positive 
environmental impact. 

In those countries that do not adopt the measures proposed by the EU, service is not likely to 
improve.  Passengers  are  thus  likely  to  express  their  dissatisfaction  by  opting  for  alternative 
modes of transport that are more polluting than maritime transport. 

5.4. 

Option 4: Voluntary agreements 

5.4.1.  Economic impact 

The types of costs are the same as for previous options. However, the total costs are expected 
to  be  limited  compared  to  the  other  options,  since  only  a  limited  number  of  operators  are 
likely to bear any additional costs on a voluntary basis. 

PRMs, for their part, would benefit from accessible travel services only when embarking and 
disembarking at EU ports and terminals where accessibility was already acceptable and where 
operators and port authorities had taken voluntary initiatives to improve the existing situation. 
Therefore,  if  only  a  few  operators  voluntarily  improve  their  services,  maritime  and  inland 
waterway  transport  will  still  be  perceived  by  PRMs  generally  as  a  non-accessible  mode  of 
transport. Here, the major risk is that operators that do invest in accessibility will not see an 
increase  in  their  traffic,  simply  because  PRMs  would  not  even  consider  this  mode  of 
transport.  

5.4.2. 

Social impact 

In  this  case,  the  policy  option  differs  from  the  others  in  terms  of  its  delivery  mechanism 
(mandatory  vs.  voluntary)  and  the  level  of  compliance  by  the  sector  in  implementing  the 
proposed measures. Under this option, the likely benefits and costs would thus depend on the 
level  of  commitment  by  operators  in  adopting  the  new  rules,  accepting  them  if  they  are 
adopted collectively, and in any event respecting them in practice. 

Even if a large proportion of operators adhered to acceptable voluntary agreements, the policy 
objectives  would  still  not  be  satisfactorily  achieved.  In  maritime  and  inland  waterway 
transport,  a  variety  of  actors  and  operators  all  play  a  part  in  providing  a  passenger  service. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
Therefore, a small proportion of operators not complying with the voluntary agreements could 
result in non-accessibility in many cases. 

The effectiveness of voluntary agreements in passenger transport is a much debated subject: 
strong views expressed by consumer organisations confirm that the very few codes of conduct 
that  have  so  far  been  developed  have  failed  to  deliver.  Past  experience  in  regulating  the  air 
transport sector seems to confirm the agreements of this type have only very limited success. 
Initially,  the  EU  allowed  air  operators  (air  carriers  and  airports)  to  conclude  agreements  to 
ensure passenger rights by means of voluntary commitments. However, although the content 
of such voluntary agreements was valid, they were not correctly applied either by operators in 
the sector as a whole or even by those who had explicitly committed to them. This failure led 
the Community to introduce compulsory rules in order to make sure that passenger rights are 
ensured and enforced. 

Further  pointers  as  to  the  likelihood  of  success  for  this  policy  option  in  achieving  its 
objectives  in  maritime  transport  can  be  drawn  from  the  EUSG  Report79.  According  to  this 
report, some 531 transport operators across all modes of transport were contacted in order to 
find  out  what  kind  of  voluntary  agreements  and/or  service  guarantees  they  offered  to  their 
customers -if any. About 70% of the operators who were contacted provided information on 
their  passenger  service  standards.  For  the  operators  surveyed,  148  quality  charters  and  161 
service guarantees were identified (see table 22 in annex 2).  

Compared  with  all  other  modes  of  transport,  the  maritime  sector  had  the  lowest  number  of 
quality charters and service guarantees. Only a few ferry companies in Italy, Sweden and the 
United  Kingdom  provided  details.  Three  quality  charters  and  five  service  guarantees  were 
identified  for  all  the  maritime  operators  surveyed.  These  examples  either  have  some  formal 
basis such as legislative or contractual obligations or are described as “informal guarantees”. 
Voluntary schemes in the strict sense are thus even rarer than the figures indicate. 

As  with  option  2  above,  there  ought  to  be  positive  impacts  on  employment.  However, 
employment  impacts  would  be  confined  to  companies  that  actually  do  implement  the  EU 
recommendations. 

In  conclusion,  as  mentioned  previously  there  is  no  guarantee  that  the  objectives  will  be 
achieved:  given  the  non-enforceable  nature  of  such  rules,  too  much  depends  on  the 
willingness of operators. 

5.4.3.  Environmental impact 

As noted above, with regard to option 4, the likely benefits and costs depend on the level of 
commitment by operators in adopting new rules.  

Maritime services are not expected to improve. Passengers are therefore likely to express their 
dissatisfaction  by  opting  for  alternative  modes  of  transport  that  are  more  polluting  than 
maritime transport. 

79 

TENDER TREN/A5/25-364/2005: “Evaluation and monitoring of trends with regard to passenger needs 
on the level of service and treatment of passengers” (“EU Service Guarantees — EUSG”) (Dec. 2006) 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.5. 

Administrative costs 

5.5.1.  Enforcement through monitoring, and complaint management 

Preliminary remark 

Three  main  means  of  redress  can  be  mentioned:  complaint  handling  within  companies, 
arbitration external to companies, and schemes run by public authorities. These three means 
of redress have their merits and their limitations in the context of this proposal.  

Arbitration  external  to  companies  involves  significant  costs  due  to  the  type  of  litigation  at 
stake  here:  the  price  of  the  tickets  is  normally  quite  low,  which  makes  such  litigations 
candidates for small claims courts under civil law, where such courts exist. Therefore it has 
not been considered in the context of this proposal.  

The  system  of  self  regulation,  including  complaint  handling  within  companies,  was  tested 
between 2001 and 2004 in the air transport sector. The air transport business model is more 
passenger-focused  than  the  maritime  model,  and  is  better  organised  for  self  regulation. 
However,  self  regulation  in  air  transport,  including  complaint  handling  by  companies, 
ultimately failed (companies did not enforce the rules they had established). This failure led to 
Regulation  261/2004  being  adopted  by  the  Parliament  and  the  Council.  There  is  no  reason 
why the outcome in the maritime sector would be different.  

This proposal actually provides for an enforcement scheme run by public authorities: namely 
the  national  enforcement  bodies.  The  Member  States  must  also  establish  a  regime  of 
sanctions. This type of enforcement will be assessed below. 

The  entity  responsible  for  enforcement  and  monitoring  of  the  envisaged  rules  and  for 
complaint management would be very similar -in terms of its activity, tasks and structure- to 
the  body  designated  in  each  Member  State  to  enforce  the  “Regulation  on  International  Rail 
Passengers’ Rights and Obligations”80 or the “Regulation on Air Passengers’ Rights”81. The 
experience already gained in air transport is therefore very valuable in this respect. 

It can be estimated that the designated national enforcement bodies (or NEBs) would have to 
employ  at  most  7.6  FTEs  to  handle  complaints  about  maritime  transport  (not  even  one 
employee  per  Member  State).  Given  that  the  average  labour  cost  of  an  FTE  employee  in 
public  administration  in  the  EU-27  was  €32 600  per  year  in  200482,  the  total  cost  of 
employing 7.6 extra FTEs will be €249 800 (see Annex 11). 

It  is  possible  that  this  figure  for  the  administrative  costs  is  an  overestimate;  in  fact, 
considering  the  small  number  of  staff  needed,  it  is  likely  that  complaints  would  be  handled 
initially by existing staff. However, if the number of complaints rises significantly, additional 
staff may need to be employed.  

80 

81 

82 

Regulation (EC) Nº 1371/2007 of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations. JO L315 
of 3.12.2007. 
Regulation  (EC)  261/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  February  2004 
establishing  common  rules  on  compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. 
Eurostat Labour Market Survey (2004). 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  order  to  ensure  that  the  measures  adopted  are  applied  correctly  and  that  the  processes 
involved  are  managed  in  accordance  with  the  rules,  a  specific  entity  should  be  given 
responsibility for monitoring. NEBs may take on this task, although the choice will depend on 
the specific form of organisation to be set up. 

In general, monitoring should encompass the following activities: assessment of the number 
of well-trained employees in ports and ships; reporting on complaint management; detection 
of bottlenecks and feedback to improve the process; corrective interventions, where needed; 
and reporting to the EU authority in charge of collecting and organising Member State data. 

These  activities  have  predictable  costs.  Assuming  that  2  and  4  man-days83  respectively  are 
needed  for  each  shipping  operator  and  port  to  carry  out  the  monitoring  exercise,  and  also 
assuming that the collection and organisation of data in each Member State takes at most three 
days, the total predictable cost would be about €568 000 for the EU (see table 23 in annex 2).  

5.5.2.  Administrative cost for the sector 

The  sector  will  incur  additional  costs  in  order  to  provide  assistance  and  information  and  to 
construct or refurbish accessible facilities. To ensure smooth implementation of the new rules, 
and  at  the  same  time  reduce  the  administrative  costs  of  enforcing  passenger  rights,  the  EU 
needs to consider the resources needed in order to ensure effective planning to comply with 
the obligations imposed on the sector. 

Under  the  EU  rules,  Member  States  would  be  required  to  report  to  the  Commission  on  the 
investment needed in infrastructure and facilities to guarantee adequate accessibility in each 
national port, on the entities providing passenger services when in port, and on the personnel 
needing specific disability awareness training for each national port.  

The effort required might differ from port to port. Moreover, most port authorities generally 
administer  more  than  one  port,  so  the  resources  needed  might  be  the  same  for  several 
terminals. Therefore, a conservative estimate puts the effort required of each Member State to 
undertake this reporting activity at 5 man-days for each port, i.e. one man-day for each of the 
following activities: a) Specification of procedures and responsibility for assistance to PRMs; 
b)  Identification  of  the  infrastructure  and  facilities  needed;  c)  Evaluation  of  the  investment 
needed  and,  where  appropriate,  reasons  for  non-intervention;  d)  Internal  approval  of 
measures; and e) Administrative documentation. 

On the basis of these data, the total administrative cost is estimated at €1 632 000 (see table 
24 in annex 2). 

5.6. 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

5.6.1.  The importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector 

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are defined as enterprises that have fewer than 
250  employees,  and  have  either  an  annual  turnover  not  exceeding  EUR  40  million  or  an 
annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 27 million. Where it is necessary to distinguish 
between small and medium-sized enterprises, a ‘small enterprise’ is defined as an enterprise 

83 

The reason for the greater number of days needed for port monitoring is that more indicators need to be 
checked, as set out in the table of indicators in “Monitoring and evaluation” below. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
that  has  fewer  than  50  employees  and  has  either  an  annual  turnover  not  exceeding  EUR  7 
million or an annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 5 million84. 

In  order  to  determine  whether  the  envisaged  measures  will  have  an  impact  on  SMEs  in  the 
passenger carrier business, an analysis of the structure of the sector has to be carried out first. 
The maritime and IWW (inland waterway) passenger sector in the EU is characterised by a 
lack of reliable, aggregated data on a number of aspects85. To our knowledge, as confirmed by 
the  European  associations  concerned86,  the  size  of  the  sector,  or  the  percentage  of  SMEs 
among  maritime  and  IWW  passenger  carriers,  is  one  of  these  missing  statistics.  Moreover, 
given the complex definition of SMEs, constructing these statistics for the entire sector for the 
sole purpose of this impact assessment would have been a disproportionate exercise. 

However,  a  proxy  can  be  obtained  using  only  one  component  of  the  definition,  namely  the 
number  of  employees  per  company.  A  distinction  should  be  made  between  cruise  and  ferry 
operators. 

Regarding  ferry  operators,  data  on  the  number  of  employees  are  available  for  109 
companies87 out of a total of 288 operators, which amounts to 38% of the sector. Among these 
109 operators, 38 companies report having fewer than 250 employees and therefore could be 
considered as SMEs.  

Regarding the cruise sector, there are around 21 cruise companies working in the EU. If the 
same proxy, namely the number of employees per company, is used to determine the size of 
the sector, the conclusion is that the number of small and medium-sized cruise companies is 
either zero or not significant88. 

5.6.2.  The impact on SMEs in the maritime sector 

In  the  previous  chapters,  all  economic  social  and  environmental  impacts  of  the  measures 
proposed were assessed. It is worth recalling that the measures proposed under options 2, 3 
and 4 do not differ in essence. In fact, the options differ only in terms of the manner in which 
the proposed measures are to be implemented (either binding or not binding, at national or at 
Community level), and the degree of compliance with the measures.  

A preliminary issue to be explored is whether the SMEs should benefit from a more flexible 
regime  than  other  companies.  In  this  respect,  three  measures  are  relevant  for  SMEs  in  the 
proposal: (1) measures in favour of PRMs (essentially assistance), (2) assistance measures for 
cancellations and delays and (3) compensation for cancellations and delays. 

84 

85 

86 
87 

88 

Article  1  of  Commission  Recommendation  96/280/EC  of  3  April  1996  concerning  the  definition  of 
small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (OJ  L  107,  30.4.1996,  p.  4),  quoted  in  Annex  I  of  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  70/2001  of  12  January  2001  on  the  application  of  Articles  87  and  88  of  the  EC 
Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises — OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, pp. 33–42. 
This lack of data is acknowledged by the industry and research bodies. See ShipPax Market Statistics 
’07,  page  16.  See  also  the  summary  of  contributions  received  by  the  Commission  in  response  to  the 
Commission consultation mentioned in point 1.2.2. 
European Cruise Council (ECC) and European Community Shipowners Association (ECSA). 
ShipPax  Market  statistics  ’07,  table  in page  16, plus data  provided  to  the  Commission  by  some  ferry 
operators. 
Commission  analysis  of  data  collected  from  company  websites  and  an  ad  hoc  survey  carried  out  via 
phone calls to companies. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The issue of compensation in case of delay and/or cancellation was evaluated earlier in this 
report,  (see  Section  5.2)  and  also  when  the  question  of  SMEs  was  taken  into  account. 
Nevertheless, it is worth recalling that the impact of establishing such a compensation scheme 
might be greater in SMEs than in large companies. SMEs usually operate only in one market 
and are therefore more dependent inter alia, on local exceptional weather conditions because 
they cannot change their route. These exceptional circumstances must therefore be taken into 
account in order to mitigate damaging economic impacts on SMEs.  

Regarding to measures in favour of PRMs, the provisions of the draft regulation are based on 
four principles (accessibility, assistance, non discrimination and information). All companies 
have  to  respect  these  principles  vis-à-vis  PRMs.  However,  companies  are  free  to  determine 
the best way for them to fulfil these objectives. This very significant flexibility naturally also 
applies to SMEs. In the air transport sector, this type of approach has so far proved to be very 
satisfactory. 

The same flexibility applies in respect of assistance in case of cancellation and/or delay. The 
content of the assistance to be given will have to be assessed with the particular operational 
constraints of each company. This flexibility will also have to be reflected when the company 
is a SME. Such an approach has been also followed with success in the air transport sector. 

As regards the specific costs incurred by SMEs in the maritime sector, the costs calculated in 
the previous chapters also apply to SMEs. As shown above, the costs for operators would be 
minor, regardless of the size of the operator. As an example, the cost for operators to provide 
assistance in ports for PRMs would be around €170 per employee on training and about €150 
per  employee  for  assistance  on  ships.  Both  costs arise  in  the  first  year  only,  since  refresher 
training  courses  will  not  be  necessary  until  some  years  later.  Moreover,  since  the  ship 
operator may itself provide assistance at the port and use the same personnel on board and in 
ports, these costs, already modest, will be borne only once. 

In view of the structure of the sector, SMEs are unlikely to face competition on most of the 
routes  they  sail.  In  most  cases  PSO  contracts  granted  to  operators  demonstrate  the  lack  of 
commercial viability for competitive service offers. The profitability of SMEs on the market 
would not be affected by the proposed measures for three reasons: firstly, the costs involved 
are small; secondly, on more than 60% of the domestic routes, companies may be cushioned 
against  the  costs  of  the  new  measures  through  PSOs  contracts;  thirdly,  the  low  level  of 
competition on the majority of routes allows companies to determine their own pricing policy 
and, even in cases where there is some competition, it is likely to be among enterprises of a 
similar size. In view of the modest size of the burden that will be imposed on operators by the 
measures  envisaged,  the  small  proportion  of  SMEs  in  the  sector  as  a  whole,  the  fact  that 
companies  do  not  face  strong  competition  on  the  vast  majority  of  routes,  and  the  actual 
structure  of  the  routes,  the  conclusion  is  that  the  impact  of  these  measures  on  SMEs  in  the 
maritime sector would not be significant, whichever option is considered. 

5.7. 

Assumptions  on  routes  subject  to  Public  Services  and  Member  States  which 
accessible infrastructure 

A)  It  might  be  that  some  Member  States  have  included  certain  passenger  rights,  especially 
regarding the principle of non discrimination and some assistance for PRMs, in a number of 
their public service contracts. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
That is why the EU regulation would leave some flexibility for measures on routes subject to 
public  service  contracts  (see  point  2.2).  It  will  give  Member  States  the  possibility  of 
exempting  maritime  transport  services  covered  by  PSCs  from  the  Regulation  when  such 
contracts ensure a level of passenger rights comparable to the level afforded by Community 
action.  

B) Secondly, it may be the case that some Member States have already achieved the minimum 
standards on accessibility in ports desired by the Commission. This could be the case for the 
United Kingdom, and might be partially the case for Ireland and the three Nordic countries.  

In order to assess the implications of these two cases, four scenarios have been constructed. 
The baseline scenario as described earlier assumes that 100% of the market would be affected 
by the proposed measures. This assumption is made because: A) the kinds of rights that may 
already be in place for some routes through PSC under the first assumption are unlikely to be 
the  same  as  those  being  assessed  here.  The  main  difference  is  that  the  rights  under  a 
Community  action  are  specifically  aimed  to  provide  passengers  with  an  automatic  and 
immediate solution on the spot to cope with the inconveniences of a critical event, whereas 
the  few  Member  States  who  have  addressed  the  issue  of  maritime  passenger  rights  have 
focused on other types of rights, such as those linked to liability in case of accident, or general 
consumer rights; B) the second assumption only affects accessibility for PRM, which is but a 
small part of the scope of the Community action. 

An extreme assumption would have been to exclude from the market all the PSCs routes and 
all  the  routes  from  the  most  advanced  countries,  this  would  have  meant  excluding  roughly 
50% of the market89. A more realistic approach would be to consider that only some Member 
States  impose  -  through  their  PSC  -  obligations  reflecting  passenger  rights,  including, 
accessibility for PRM, and that only some of the most advanced Member States have already 
achieved the minimum accessibility standards for all their ports. To reflect this approach, two 
scenarios have been selected; one excludes 40% of the market and the other excludes 20%.  

In the range between total inclusion (100%, which is the baseline) and total exclusion (50%), 
the estimates provide indications of the impact of Community action if some Member States 
already apply a similar level of passenger rights. The table below makes assumptions based 
on these four scenarios. 

. 

All routes 

A few PSC on 
domestic 
routes 
excluded + all 
routes from 
UK excluded  

Many PSC on 
domestic 
routes 
excluded + 
UK and two 
other of the 
most advanced 
countries 
excluded  

All PSC 
domestic routes 
excluded + all 
routes from UK, 
IE, SE, DK, FI 
excluded 

89 

Which  amounts  to  the  addition  of  28%  of  the  total  PSC  routes  plus  all  the  remaining  routes  for  five 
countries (UK, IE, DK, SE, FI) which means roughly 22% of the total market. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Unit cost per passenger 
ticket* 

Total increase in 
tourism 

PRM passengers 
beneficiaries 90 

100% 

80% 

60% 

50% 

60 cents 

60 cents 

60 cents 

60 cents 

1.8million 

 1.44 million 

1.08 million 

0.9 million 

38.1 million 

30.48 million 

22.86 million 

19.05million 

* Estimate based on the air sector costs for comparable measures 

For the sake of simplicity, the table above assumes that the exclusion of a certain percentage 
of routes would result in an identical percentage decrease in the number of PRM passengers 
who  are  beneficiaries.  However,  this  assumption  is  probably  too  pessimistic,  because  PSC 
routes are often minor domestic routes with little passenger numbers. But lack of data on this 
point  makes  it  impossible  to  adjust  the  range  of  PRM  passengers  mentioned  to  get  a  sound 
fixed figure.  

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

In order to recommend the “most promising” policy option, the proposed options are analysed 
and  compared  in  terms  of  effectiveness  in  achieving  the  main  policy  objectives;  cost;  and 
added-value for the EU. 

The evaluation criteria used are thus:  

•  Effectiveness:  none  (-),  very  modest  (√),  modest  (√√),  significant  (√√√),  high 

(√√√√), very high (√√√√√). 

•  Additional costs: none (-), very modest (€), modest (€ €), significant (€ € €), high 

(€ € € €), very high (€ € € € €). 

•  Added value for the EU: none (-), very modest (+), modest (+ +), significant (+ + 

+), high (+ + + +), very high (+ + + + + ). Accessibility in port for PRMs 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  number  of  potential  beneficiaries  mentioned  in  this  Impact 
assessment is different from the number of additional beneficiaries.  

6.1. 

Rights of Persons with Reduced Mobility 

6.1.1.  Accessibility in ports  

The  suggested  policy  is  “Option  2  —  EU  regulation”.  This  option  will  guarantee  that  the 
policy objective is achieved in all Member States. Under option 2, about 38.1 million PRMs 
will potentially benefit from full accessibility in all EU ports. Moreover, a significant impact 
on the tourism sector is expected.  

90 

See footnote 31 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Under this option, the cost of adaptation might be very high for some EU ports. Other ports in 
Member  States  that  already  have  specific  legal  requirements  regarding  PRM  accessibility 
might have to bear extra costs in order to comply with new requirements. 

Depending on the port charging systems in the Member States, the costs of new investment 
might  be  passed  on  in  port  tariffs,  i.e.  spread  across  all  passengers.  However,  the  UK 
experience (see Annex 13) shows that this is not necessarily true. 

To avoid or mitigate these risks, the legislator may consider the following recommendations: 

•  As far as possible, the EU regulatory text should try to avoid technical details so as not to 
conflict with any existing national law on the matter. If a specific investment is found not 
to be reasonable compared with the expected benefits, this will then allow alternative and 
cost-effective interventions to be explored on a case-by-case basis. 

•  Ideally, ports could be required to meet all the low-cost requirements set by the legislator 
in  the  short  term,  whereas  high-cost  interventions  could  be  undertaken  when  the  port  or 
terminal  is  undergoing  a  major  refurbishment,  although  not  later  than  a  fixed  date.  In 
practice, this would mean a transitional period that allows the sector to spread costs over 
time. 

Accessibility in ports for PRMs 

Options 

Effectiveness 

Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 

Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 

Option 3: 
National 
Legislation 

(cid:51) (cid:51) 

Specific  legislation  in  some 
Member 
already 
States 
addresses this issue.  

(cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) 
Ensures that the objective will 
be  achieved  in  all  Member 
States.  This  measure  applies 
equally  to  all  kind  of  ports 
(inland  waterway  and  sea 
ports).  Passengers  in  some 
member  states  may  already 
benefit from accessible ports. 
Passengers  in  some  domestic 
routes of some member states 
may  already  benefit 
from 
some kind of assistance under 
the service public contracts. 

Costs  of  investment  might  be 
passed  on  in  port  tariffs,  thus 
spread over all passengers.  

(cid:51) (cid:51) 
Cross border only sub-option: 
The  objective  will  not  be 
the 
achieved  for  60%  of 
market.  

(cid:51) (cid:51)(cid:51) 
Ensures that the objective will 
be  achieved  only  for  those 
Member  States  following  the 
recommendations. 

Costs  

- 

N/A 

Added value for the EU 

N/A 

€ € € € € 
For  some  ports  the  cost  of 
adaptation may be very high,  

+ + + + + 
All  PRM  passengers  in  the  EU)  can 
benefit  from  full  accessibility  in  all  EU 
ports. 

Passengers  in  some  domestic  routes  of 
some member states may already benefit 
from  some  kind  of  assistance  under  the 
service public contracts. 

€€ € 
Cross border only sub-option: 
For  the  member  states  where 
this  accessibility  is  already  in 
place,  the  EU  regulation  will 
imply no extra cost. 
€ € € 
Costs  will  be  significant  but 
not  as  high  as  with  option  2 
(more  flexibility  than  with 
option 2). 

+ + 

Cross  border  sub-option:  PRM  will  not 
benefit  from  full  accessibility  in  a  large 
number  of  ports.  Lack  of  clarity  about 
their  rights  is  a  main  deterrence  to  PRM 
travel.  

+ + + + 
PRMs will benefit from full or acceptable 
accessibility in most EU ports. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 

(cid:51) 
assurance 

No 
objective will be achieved. 

that 

the 

€ 
Port  authorities  and  terminal 
operators  are  not  likely  to 
bear  major  costs  if  they  can 
avoid it. 

+ + 
Benefits  are  not  expected  to  differ  from 
option  1  since  only  few  operators  are 
likely 
in 
accessibility. 

voluntarily 

invest 

to 

6.1.2.  Assistance in ports  

The suggested policy is “Option 2 — EU Regulation” as this ensures that the objective will be 
achieved in all Member States. Following implementation of this measure, ship operators will 
be responsible for assistance to PRMs in ports. Ship operators should be able to provide such 
assistance without incurring in any additional costs, since their onboard personnel can take on 
this task when the ship is moored in port. Onboard personnel will have to undergo training in 
order to provide adequate assistance to PRMs, both in ports and on board. Alternatively, ship 
operators may contract one or more other parties to provide the assistance. 

Although  port  authorities  and  terminal  operators  will  not  be  responsible  for  assistance  to 
PRMs in ports, their personnel are likely to come into direct contact with PRMs. Therefore, it 
is reasonable to expect these employees to receive training so that they can provide adequate 
and  qualified  assistance  to  PRMs  when  asked  to  do  so.  Approximately  24 300  workers 
employed in  EU  passenger ports will be  trained to provide assistance to PRMs. The cost to 
port operators for providing training to their employees will be very modest (about €167 per 
employee per 8 hours). Employees will need to be trained only for the first year and will then 
be required to follow refresher courses. 

This  approach  will  allow  PRMs  to  benefit  from harmonised procedures for assistance in all 
EU ports. Furthermore, as it will help increase the confidence of PRMs in travelling by ship, 
positive effects on the tourism sector are also expected. 

Assistance in ports for PRMs 

Options 

Effectiveness 

Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 

(cid:51) 
Specific  legislation  in  a 
States 
few  Member 
already 
this 
issue. 

addresses 

Costs  

- 
N/A 

Value added to the EU 

- 
N/A 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
(cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) 
The  objective  will  be 
achieved  in  all  Member 
States. 
This  measure 
applies  equally  to  all  kind 
of  ports  (inland  waterway 
and sea ports).  
Passengers 
some 
domestic  routes  of  some 
Member 
States  may 
already  benefit  from  some 
kind  of  assistance  under 
the 
public 
contracts. 

service 

in 

(cid:51) (cid:51) 
Cross  border  sub-option: 
The  objective  will  not  be 
achieved for domestic only 
ports. 

(cid:51) (cid:51)(cid:51) 
The  objective  will  be 
achieved  only 
the 
Member  States  following 
the recommendations. 

for 

(cid:51) 
No  assurance 
objectives 
achieved. 

that 

will 

the 
be 

€ 

to 

ship 
No  additional  cost 
operators since training is needed 
anyway for assistance on ships. 
The  cost  per  port  and  terminal 
operator  will  be  very  modest 
(about  €167  per  employee). This 
cost  applies  both  to  sea  and  to 
inland waterway ports. 

+ + + + + 
All  PRM  passengers  in  the  EU)  can 
obtain  assistance  when  needed  in  all 
EU  ports.  About  24 300  workers 
employed in EU passenger ports will be 
trained  to  provide  assistance  and  made 
aware of the specific needs of the PRM 
segment of the society 
Passengers  in  some  domestic  routes  of 
some  member  states  may  already 
benefit  from  some  kind  of  assistance 
under the service public contracts. 

€ 
Cross  border  sub-option:  No 
additional  cost  to  ship  operators 
since  training  is  needed  anyway 
for assistance on ships. 

+ + 
Cross border sub-option: PRM will not 
benefit  from  assistance 
large 
number  of  ports.  Lack  of  clarity  about 
their rights is a main deterrence to PRM 
travel.  

in  a 

€ 

to 

No  additional  cost 
ship 
operators  for  the  same  reason 
given above.  
Costs  per  port  and 
terminal 
operator will be very modest, and 
unlike  with  option  2  not  all 
workers  will  necessarily  be 
required by Member States to be 
trained. 

- 
Costs  will  be  negligible  since 
only 
operators  will 
few 
voluntarily commit. 

+ + + + 
PRMs  will  benefit  from  assistance  in 
most  EU  ports.  Possibly  not  all  the 
workers  will  be  trained.  Assistance 
procedures  will  not  be  harmonised  as 
with option 2. 

+ + 
Benefits are not expected to differ much 
from option 1. 

Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 

Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 

Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 

6.1.3.  Assistance on ships  

The  suggested  policy  is  “Option  2  —  EU  Regulation”.  This  option  will  guarantee  that  the 
policy objective is achieved in all Member States. Under option 2, about 38.1 million PRMs 
will benefit from assistance in ships when travelling in Europe. As with the other measures 
outlined above, this measure will have a positive impact on the tourism sector.  

In  drafting  a  new  Regulation,  it  is  recommended  that  the  legislator  should  refer  to  the 
specifications in the STCW95 Code, sections A-V/2 and A-V/3.91 

91 

The IMO STCW95 Code specifies standards for training for seafarers, also with regard to the specific 
needs of PRMs. The Code is the result of the 1995 International Convention on Standards of Training, 
Certification  and  Watchkeeping  for  Seafarers,  which  was  signed  by  all  European  Member  States. 
Unfortunately, only a few Member States have so far taken effective steps to comply with the STCW95 
Code. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Assistance on ships for PRMs 

Options 

Effectiveness 

(cid:51) 

Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 

Specific  legislation  in  a  few 
already 
States 
Member 
addresses  this  issue.  Training 
for  assistance  is  also  required 
by the IMO STCW95 Code. 

Costs  

- 

N/A 

Added value for the EU 

- 

N/A 

(cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) 

€ 

+ + + + + 

The 
be 
objective  will 
achieved in all Member States 
and  for  the  two  segments  of 
and 
the  market, 
cruises,  independently  of  the 
kind of port they use (sea and 
inland waterways). 

ferries 

Passengers  in  some  domestic 
routes of some member states 
may  already  benefit 
from 
some kind of assistance under 
the service public contracts. 

The  cost  per  operator  will  be 
very  modest  (about  €150  per 
employee).  Since  the  cost  is 
related  to  training,  it  may  be 
assumed  that  the  cost  linked 
to the training of a seafarer is 
the same for the two segments 
of 
ferry  and 
cruise. 

the  market: 

PRMs  will  benefit  from  assistance  if 
needed on all kind of ships and market 
segments in the EU.  

70 500  seafarers  employed  on  EEA 
passenger  ships  will  be 
to 
provide  assistance  and  made  aware  of 
the specific needs of the PRM segment 
of the society. 

trained 

Passengers  in  some  domestic  routes  of 
some  member  states  may  already 
benefit  from  some  kind  of  assistance 
under the service public contracts. 

Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 

(cid:51) (cid:51) 

€ 

+ + 

Cross  border  sub-option:  The 
objective will not be achieved 
for domestic only carriers. 

Cross border sub-option: there 
will  be  no  cost 
the 
excluded carriers. 

for 

Cross border sub-option: PRM will not 
benefit  from  assistance 
large 
number  of  routes.  The  uncertainty  of 
assistance  will  deter  PRM  from  using 
transport by boat. 

in  a 

(cid:51) (cid:51)(cid:51) 

€ 

+ + + + 

Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 

be 
objective  will 
The 
achieved  only  in  the  Member 
States 
the 
recommendations. 

following 

The  cost  per  operator  will  be 
very  modest  (about  €150  per 
employee)  and  unlike  with 
option  2  not  all  workers  will 
be  necessarily  required  by 
Member States to be trained. 

PRMs  will  benefit  from  assistance 
when travelling by ship in the EU.  

Possibly  not  all  seafarers  will  be 
trained.  

Assistance  procedures  will  not  be 
harmonised as with option 2. 

Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 

(cid:51) 

- 

+ + 

No  assurance  that  objectives 
will be achieved. 

Costs  will  be  negligible  since 
only 
few  operators  will 
voluntarily commit. 

Benefits are not expected to differ much 
from option 1. 

6.2. 

Quality of service and assistance in case of cancellation and delays 

The  suggested  policy  is  “Option  2  —  EU  Regulation”.  This  option  will  guarantee  that  the 
policy  objective  is  achieved  in  all  Member  States.  Under  option  2,  about  398  million  of 
passengers will benefit from better services and assistance in case of cancellation and delays 
when travelling in Europe. As with the other measures outlined above, this measure will have 
a positive impact on the tourism sector. None of the 27 Member States currently offers to the 
passenger in any of the segments of the market the kind of automatic, immediate rights on the 
spot that are sought by the Community action assessed (see point 4).  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quality of service and assistance in case of cancellation and delays 

Options 

Effectiveness 

Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 

(cid:51) (cid:51) 

Specific  legislation  in  some 
already 
States 
Member 
addresses this issue. 

Costs  

- 

N/A 

in 

accomplished 

(cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) 
Ensures that the objective will 
all 
be 
Member  States.  Guarantees 
full  harmonisation,  enabling 
the  global  assessment  of 
sector  performance  in  whole 
EU covering all passengers. 

€€  
Minimum  cost  for  operators 
are  envisaged.  The  cruise 
segment  of  the  market  will 
likely  have  no  added  costs 
related  to  the  assistance  in 
case of delays. 

Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 

(cid:51) (cid:51) 

- 

Cross  border  sub-option:  The 
objective will not be achieved 
for domestic only carriers. 

Cross border sub-option: there 
will  be  no  cost 
the 
excluded carriers. 

for 

Option 3: 
National 
Legislation 

Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 

for 

that 

(cid:51) (cid:51)(cid:51) 
Not  an 
is 
insurance 
widely subscribed to. Ensures 
the  objective  will  be 
that 
achieved  only 
those 
Member States that follow the 
recommendations  
(cid:51) 
Not  sufficient  to  improve  the 
the  sector.  No 
quality  of 
assurance  that  the  objective 
will be achieved. 

€ 
Same as in option 2, but total 
costs  would  be  lower  since 
only  operators  of  Member 
States 
to  EU 
recommendations  would  bear 
additional costs. 

adhering 

- 
Port  authorities  and  terminal 
operators  are  not  likely  to 
bear  major  costs  if  they  can 
avoid it. 

Added value for the EU 

- 

N/A 

+ + + + + 

About  398  million  passengers  (including 
PRM)  will  benefit  from  standards  of 
quality service and assistance in the event 
of  cancellation  and  delays  at  EU  level 
which do not currently exist in any of the 
27 Member States. 

+  

Cross  border  sub-option:  passengers  of 
domestic maritime and inland waterways 
transport will remain the only passengers 
in  the  EU  (all  modes  of  transports 
included)  with  no  minimum  standard 
rights in case of cancellation, delays and 
refuse of carriage. 

+ + + + 
Potential increase if compare with option 
4, once it is expected that most countries 
will 
follow  EC  guidance.  Likely 
economic  impact  as  regard  innovation 
and  performance  improvements  resulting 
from monitoring/benchmarking 

+ + 
Benefits  are  likely  to  be  limited  in  the 
beginning,  but  may  increase  if  voluntary 
agreements  become  more  general  across 
the EU. 

6.3. 

Information provided to passengers before and during their trip 

The suggested policy is “Option 2 — EU Regulation”, as it ensures that the objective will be 
achieved in all Member States. Not just general passengers but some 38.1million PRMs could 
potentially benefit from harmonised information provided in all the formats required for every 
category  of  passengers  with  reduced  mobility  or  sensory/cognitive  impairment  (Braille 
format, large format, signs in relief, etc.). This measure will also increase the confidence of 
passengers in travelling by ship.  

In fact, proper information has positive effects not only by facilitating the choice of the means 
of transport, but also by enabling passengers to determine in advance what their needs will be 
and what problems they may encounter, thus avoiding possible emergencies. Furthermore, the 
measure  might  have  positive  effects  for  the  tourism  sector  too,  as  it  will  make  it  easier 
generally to travel by ship. 

The  cost  to  operators  for  providing  information  will  be  very  modest,  as  this  can  mostly  be 
achieved with the normal means of communication they already use to promote their services. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Information delivered to passengers before and during their trip 

Options 

Effectiveness 

(cid:51) 

operators 

PRMs  will  benefit 
from 
accessible information in only 
a few instances, as only 9.3% 
of 
provide 
information  in  Braille,  16.3% 
adapt  information  points  to 
PRMs,  2.3%  provide  specific 
information  to  PRMs,  while 
14%  of  operators  do  not 
provide 
particular 
any 
information to PRMs. 
(cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) 
objective  will 

be 
The 
all  Member 
achieved 
States. 
full 
standardisation of information 
procedures in the whole of the 
EU covering all passengers. 

in 
Guarantees 

(cid:51) (cid:51) 

Cross border sub-option: The 
objective will not be achieved 
for domestic-only carriers. 

(cid:51) (cid:51)(cid:51) 
be 
objective  will 
The 
achieved only for the Member 
States 
the 
recommendations. 

following 

(cid:51) 
assurance 

No 
objective will be achieved. 

that 

the 

Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 

Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 

Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 

Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 

Costs  

- 
N/A 

Value added to the EU 

- 
N/A 

€ 
Costs  for  shipping  operators 
(both  ferries  and  cruise),  port 
authorities  (for  both  sea  and 
inland  waterway  ports)  and 
travel  agencies  will  be  very 
modest  as  most  of 
the 
objectives  can  be  achieved 
with  the  normal  means  of 
communication  already  used 
to promote their services. 

-_ 
Cross border sub-option: there 
will  be  no  cost 
the 
excluded carriers. 

for 

€ 
Costs  for  shipping  operators, 
ports  authorities  and  travel 
agencies  will  be  very  modest 
not  only 
the  above-
for 
mentioned  reasons,  but  also 
because  only  operators 
in 
compliant Member States will 
incur costs. 

- 
Cost  will  be  negligible  since 
only 
few  operators  will 
voluntarily  provide  adequate 
information  to  both  general 
passengers and PRMs. 

+ + + + + 
Passengers  (including  PRM  passengers 
will benefit from adequate and standard 
information  which  will  allow  them  to 
better  plan  their  trips  and  what  to 
expect from the carrier.. 

+  

Cross  border  sub-option:  passengers  of 
domestic  routes  will  remain  the  only 
passengers  in  the  EU  (from  all  modes 
of 
transports)  with  no  minimum 
standard rights regarding information. 

+ + + + 
Passengers  will  benefit  from  adequate 
information when travelling in the EU  

Possibly  not  all  operators  will  use 
harmonised  tools  and  procedures  as 
with option 2. 

+ + 
Benefits are not expected to differ much 
from option 1 

6.4. 

Enforcement, monitoring and complaint management 

The suggested policy is “Option 2, EU Regulation”. This option will allow better enforcement 
of  the  EU  legislation  and  thus  ensure  that  the  policy  objectives  are  achieved  in  all  Member 
States.  Under  option  2,  maritime  passengers  will  be  able  to  avail  themselves  of  a  standard 
complaint management system, which allows out-of-court procedures. 

Furthermore,  under  this  option  all  Member  States  will  be  required  to  designate  a  specific 
authority responsible for reporting to the monitoring system. As a result, this system will be 
able to verify whether the legislation is being implemented and to what extent it is achieving 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
its  objectives.  Where  a  problem  is  identified,  corrective  action  can  be  taken  to  re-align 
implementation to the primary objectives. 

Choosing this option entails a certain lack of flexibility regarding the definition of the nature 
and  structure  of  the  enforcement  and  monitoring  authorities,  including  procedures  and 
interventions.  However,  this  risk  can  be  mitigated  by  allowing  Member  States  to  set 
additional  indicators  to  monitor  specific  national  issues  without  modifying  the  basic  set  of 
indicators proposed by the EU. 

Enforcement, monitoring and complaint management 

Options 

Effectiveness 

Option 1: 
No 
Intervention 

N/A 

- 

(cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) (cid:51) 
Objective  will  be  achieved  in 
all Member States. 

Option 2: 
EU 
Regulation 

Option 3: 
National 
Legislations 

(cid:51) (cid:51) 

Cross border sub-option: The 
objective will not be achieved 
for domestic-only carriers. 

(cid:51) (cid:51)(cid:51) 
The 
be 
objective  will 
achieved only for the Member 
States 
the 
recommendations. 

following 

Costs  

- 

Benefits 

- 

N/A 

N/A 

€ € 

is 

per 

complaint 

Cost 
insignificant. 
Modest cost to Member States 
for  reporting  activities  to  the 
monitoring system. 

€ 
Cross border only: even more 
modest  cost 
for  Member 
States. 

€ 
Cost  per  Member  State  will 
be  as  with  option  2  above. 
only  Member 
However, 
States 
the 
recommendations  will  incur 
costs. 

follow 

that 

+ + + + + 
National  enforcement  bodies  will  be 
designated by all Member States. 
Passengers 
travelling  by  boat  will 
benefit  from  complaint  management 
allowing out-of-court procedures. 
EU-wide  monitoring  system  will  allow 
a  better  knowledge  of  the  sector  and 
further improvement. 
+ + 
Cross border sub-option: The objective 
will not be achieved for the domestic 
segment. 

+ + + 
Benefits  predicted  for  option  2  above 
will  be  achieved  only  in  the  Member 
States following the recommendations. 

Option 4: 
Voluntary 
Agreement 

(cid:51) 
No  assurance  that  objectives 
will be achieved. 

- 
Cost  will  be  negligible  since 
only 
few  operators  will 
voluntarily commit. 

+  

Possibility  of  surveys 
launched  by 
operators  to  check  specific  PRM  needs 
and requirements 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  needs  to  be  established  in  order  to  verify  whether  the 
policy  or  regulation  is  being  implemented  and  to  what  extent  it  is  achieving  its  objectives. 
This will identify discrepancies with respect to the policy objectives, and their causes (such 
as: problem definition is not accurate, objectives are not relevant and/or attainable, parties do 
not fully understand the policy or are unable to implement it). Once the root causes have been 
identified,  corrective  action  can  be  taken  to  re-align  implementation  with  the  primary 
objectives.  Monitoring–evaluation–cause  identification–correction  should  be  an  iterative 
process throughout policy implementation. 

7.1. 

Core monitoring indicators 

The  definition  of  a  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  starts  with  identification  of  the  key 
indicators.  An  indicator  can  be  defined  as  the  measurement  of  an  objective  to  be  met,  a 
resource  mobilised,  an  effect  obtained,  a  gauge  of  quality,  or  a  context  variable.  The  table 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
presented in Annex 12 details the indicators identified for monitoring the rights of passengers 
when travelling by sea or inland waterways within the EU. 

7.2.  Monitoring and evaluation  

7.2.1.  Monitoring 

The key indicators will be identified in order to report regularly on performance and enable 
measurement  of  the  extent  to  which  policy  objectives  are  being  achieved.  Data  should  be 
relevant for the responsible authorities, the operators and PRM representative organisations at 
different levels. 

The monitoring system will operate from the outset, and adequate provisions will be in place 
to ensure that the collection of data from Member States or third parties proceeds reliably and 
smoothly. See Annex 12. 

The  potential  users  of  the  information  are  the  Commission  and  stakeholders  with  their  own 
areas of responsibilities and therefore their distinctive information needs. The following table 
shows the main information suppliers to be involved in the monitoring process. 

Type of supplier 

Supplier of information 

Public bodies 

Transport operators 

Wider public, including civic organisations 

European  Commission,  Member  States,  Ministries  of 
Transport, Port Authorities 

Shipping  operators,  inland  waterways  and  maritime 
passenger liners, terminal operators, tour operators 

Education 
research 
representative organisations, training institutions 

organisations, 

/ 

PRM 

Source: PwC analysis 

Furthermore, given that implementation of the proposed measures depends on the joint efforts 
of the Member States, it is crucial that the national monitoring systems should be harmonised 
so that they can be integrated in order to provide an overall vision. Moreover, efforts must be 
made to enhance the level of efficiency in transmitting and exchanging reports. 

7.2.2.  Evaluation 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  chosen  policy  option  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives set, an initial evaluation of its implementation will be launched at the latest three 
years after the legal instrument has become fully applicable. 

The evaluation will assess to what extent the legal instrument has been effective and efficient 
in collecting data, reporting and monitoring critical events; providing assistance to passengers 
when  travel  is  interrupted;  establishing  standards  for  the  provision  of  information  about 
maritime passenger rights; and in reducing inequalities as regards PRMs' access to and use of 
maritime transport. The evaluation might recommend, if necessary, elements for the revision 
of  the  legal  instrument  in  view  of  past  experience.  Moreover,  the  evaluation  will  assess  the 
reliability  and  added  value  of  the  existing  reporting  and  monitoring  tools  and  will  provide 
recommendations in this regard if relevant. Finally, the evaluation will recommend dates for a 
new evaluation of the legal instrument. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
Annex 1  

Summary of the public consultation launched in 2006  

Unlike with other modes of transport, the rights of maritime users are not generally covered either by 
Community  legislation  or  by  international  agreements  (except  for  the  Protocol  to  the  Athens 
Convention92).  The  contributions  received  clearly  indicate  divergences  in  the  protection  of  maritime 
passengers  between  different  Member  States.  Passenger  protection  varies  from  country  to  country 
depending  on  the  level  of  rights  established  by  national  legislation,  best  practices  and  voluntary 
commitments by operators.  

Taking  due  account  of  all  types  of  maritime  transport,  the  aim  of  this  consultation  was  to  allow 
interested parties to express: 

–  their views on whether the principles of existing Community policy on the protection of users of 

other means of transport should be applied to maritime transport; 

–  how  they  view  the  general  situation  and  the  laws  concerning  the  protection  of  the  rights  of 

passengers carried by sea or inland waterway and the information provided to travellers; 

–  their opinions and suggestions on how best to make the improvements that might be needed, and 

what general and legal means should be used. 

Many  contributions  draw  the  Commission’s  attention  to  the  specific  and  distinctive  features  of  the 
maritime passenger transport sector. For instance:  

–  there are more factors that could result in delays and interruption of journeys (mostly the influence 
of bad weather, which is greater for maritime transport than for any other mode of transport, or the 
difficulty of changing ships in the event of a ship breaking down);  

–  there  are  big  differences  in  weather  and  infrastructure  conditions  depending  on  countries  and 

regions within a country; 

–  local and regional services play a particular role;  

–  some services (e.g. maritime regional transport) are mainly provided by medium-sized enterprises 

with limited financial means;  

–  maritime transport is essential for people living on islands and in peripheral regions; 

–  maritime passengers tend to be people with lower purchasing power than air passengers, and who 
are not accustomed or do not have the means to lodge a complaint or to stand up for their rights.  

–  The scope of the definition of maritime transport is subject to discussion, which is not the case for 

air transport. 

The contributions received reveal a clear split between maritime operators and their associations and 
federations on the one hand, and consumer associations on the other, even though all of them (Member 
States included) agree that a common minimum level of protection of passengers' rights throughout the 
EU  is  necessary.  As  a  general  rule,  operators  see  a  limited  need  for  regulation  at  Community  level, 
whereas consumer associations call for extensive rights for passengers and even more so where PRM 

92 

Athens  Convention  relation  to  the  Carriage  of  Passengers  and  their  Luggage  by  Sea,  1974,  and  its 
Protocol of 2002. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
passengers  rights  are  concerned.  Most  of  the  replies  received  from  Member  State  governments 
supported a further strengthening of protection in the sector through EU intervention.  

There  is  no  unanimity  among  respondents  about  the  inclusion  or  exclusion  of  particular  types  of 
service (namely the cruise sector, inland waterway services, or coastal routes, which tend to be local 
and regional services) within the definition of maritime transport for the purpose of this consultation. 

It can be seen from all the answers received that, unlike the case in air transport for denied boarding, 
long  delays  or  the  principle  of  assistance,  for  example,  there  are  no  agreed  common  definitions  of 
certain "critical events" in maritime transport. It is also clear from the answers that neither the Member 
States  nor  the  operators,  with  very  few  exceptions,  have  ever  compiled  data  or  statistics  relating  to 
such critical events.  

This lack of consensus regarding the definition of some critical events, as well as the lack of data and 
statistics  on  the  actual  incidence  of  these  events,  help  to  explain  why  operators  appear  not  to  be 
conscious  of,  or  do  not  evaluate  in  the  same  way,  the  difficulties  that  confront  passengers  in  such 
cases.  

Consumer associations feel that the level of consumer protection is far from sufficient. As a matter of 
principle,  they  believe  that  maritime  passengers  should  enjoy  the  same  level  of  protection  as 
passengers  in  other  transport  modes,  which  is  not  yet  the  case.  They  consider  that  self-regulation 
initiatives and voluntary commitments may indeed benefit consumers, but are insufficient due to their 
non-binding  nature,  and  that  national  regulation  would  create  different  levels  of  protection  among 
countries  linked  by  intra-Community  routes,  which  militates  against  the  proper  implementation  of 
such passenger rights.  

Some Member States and some operators are also concerned that any increase in the regulatory burden 
could  raise  fares  and  be  passed  on  to  consumers.  Concerns  were  also  voiced  that  provisions  for 
compensation in the event of delays could undermine safety.  

As  to  means  of  redress,  a  very  large  majority  of  respondents  consider  that  legal  action  may  be  too 
expensive, too slow or too complicated for passengers inconvenienced during a journey who wish to 
claim their rights. The exercise of these rights must be made as simple as possible. The best way of 
protecting  passenger  rights  will  be  to  provide  fast,  transparent,  flexible  and  straightforward  out-of-
court procedures for settling disputes.  

Various  suggestions  have  been  made  regarding  the  practicalities  of  such  a  system  of  redress.  Some 
favour  complaint  handling  within  companies,  while  others  favour  arbitration  systems  external  to 
companies  or  schemes  run  by  public  authorities  at  national  or  EU  level.  A  very  large  majority  of 
contributors support the idea of creating a national body for complaint handling and providing means 
of  redress.  Only  the  operators  are  opposed  to  such  a  system.  Similarly,  most  PRM  and  consumer 
associations,  together  with  local  authorities,  are  in  favour  of  the  publication  of  an  annual  list  of 
complaints  received,  broken  down  by  the  subject  of  the  complaint  and  how  it  was  resolved.  In 
contrast, most operators and some Member States consider this unnecessary. 

With regard to the information provided to passengers on their rights an also on the quality of services, 
there are some differences of opinion. Most consumer and PRM associations think that the information 
provided on tickets for journeys by sea is insufficient. Many Member States and most operators take 
the  opposite  view.  Consumer  and  PRM  associations  are  generally  in  favour  of  quality  standards, 
whereas operators are reluctant. Member States are divided on the issue.  

As to the protection of the rights PRMs in the European Union: 

Need  for  regulation.  There  is  a  consensus  among  stakeholders  on  the  need  for  a  minimum  set  of 
standards for the rights of passengers with reduced mobility, which should be consistent with what has 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
been established for other modes of transport while reflecting the particularities of maritime transport. 
On  the  other hand,  stakeholders'  views  are  divided as  to  the  means  of  setting those  standards:  some 
advocate  a  regulatory  approach  through  Community  action  and  others  prefer  a  self-regulatory 
approach via codes of conduct or voluntary agreements. 

Non-discrimination  and  assistance.  Most  associations  representing  consumers  and  PRMs  consider, 
along  with  Member  States  and  national  authorities,  that  the  assistance  given  by  shipping  companies 
and ports to PRMs, including access to ports and ships, is not satisfactory. In contrast, most operators 
consider  that  the  situation  is  constantly  improving.  There  is  at  least  a  consensus  on  the  fact  that 
information aimed PRMs should be improved. All respondents also agree on the following point: the 
additional  costs  of  measures  to  improve  accessibility  and  assistance  for  PRMs  should  not  be  borne 
solely by the latter. The contributions received point out that access must be extended in particular to 
deaf, blind and intellectually impaired people. For instance, blind people are a substantial group: 1 in 7 
European citizens over 70 years of age have a visual disability, rising to 1 in 4 for those over the age 
of 8093.  

Information  and  accessibility  issues.  Stakeholders  consider  that  additional  facilities  are  needed  at 
ports.  They  suggest  introducing  a  variety  of  technological  equipment  and  tools  to  provide 
information94. 

Enforcement. Consumer associations are in favour of a common complaint handling system imposed 
on  companies  by  regulation.  As  regards  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  passengers  with  reduced 
mobility  in  the  European  Union,  they  agree  on  a  common,  harmonised  three-step  system  (direct 
complaint to the company; complaints not satisfactorily settled to be dealt with by a cheap, quick out-
of-court conciliation and arbitration body; and, finally, complaint to the Court of Justice). 

Regulation  1107/2006  on  the  rights  of  persons  with  reduced  mobility  travelling  by  air  gives  airport 
authorities  a  major  role  in  providing  services  for  passengers  with  reduced  mobility.  There  is  a 
consensus  among  respondents  that  ports  clearly  have  a  role  to play  in  providing  specific  services  to 
PRMs travelling by sea. 

93 

94 

In particular, the main suggestions regarding the type of assistance for persons with reduced mobility 
are: care during boarding/disembarking and journey, care at ports, loading luggage, travel information 
in required format, physical assistance at any stage. 
Such  as:  vibrating,  visual  and  acoustic  alerts,  brochure  published  in  an  accessible  format,  tactile 
information boards. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1: Percentage of complaints occurred in intra-community traffic for 2005. 

Annex 2: Figures and tables 

3%

26%

27%

44%

Delay s

Cancellations

Interruptions

Refused carriage / Denied boarding

Figure 2: Level of accessibility in the 49 EU terminals surveyed 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

84%

71%

71%

20%

20%

2%

Accessibility for
WU from port
entrance to terminal
or berths/vessels

Accessibility for
WU in terminal and
from terminal to
berths/vessels

Accessibility for
visual impaired
persons to terminal
and berths/vessels

Availability of
counters with lower
level for WU

Availability of
induction loops

Availability of
accessible toilettes

Source: PwC analysis of survey results (2007) 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
Figure 3: Population ageing in the EU-25 

Source: OECD Demographic and Labour Force database, used in OECD (2007), Society at a Glance: OECD Social 
Indicators 2006 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 1: Distribution of passengers by zones 

Source: 

ShipPax (2005) 

SAI (2005) 

Baltic Sea:  

187 182 008 (36'5% )

147 113 319 (40'3%) 

North Sea:  

131 772 903 (25'6%)

90 514 727 (25%) 

Mediterranean Sea:  

192 195 725 (37'5%)

126 733 725 (35%) 

Table 2 - Passenger ports in Europe categorised by their major type of traffic (2004) 

National 

Intra-
community 

International

Cruise 

All major 
passenger ports 

Mediterranean 

Atlantic 

Baltic 

Nordic 

Total EU 

20 

66 

67 

107 

260 

19 

59 

67 

17 

4 

5 

1 

0 

162 

10 

Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 

12 

13 

4 

0 

29 

55 

143 

139 

124 

461 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
Table 3 Passenger Traffic at major EU seaports 

Total (passengers embarking + disembarking) 

1000 Passengers 

Dover (UK) 

Calais (FR) 

Helsingborg (SE) 

Helsingor (DK) 

2002 

16449 

14991 

11666 

11609 

Paloukia Salaminas (EL) 

12133 

Perama (EL) 

Piraeus (EL) 

Messina (IT) 

12133 

8639 

10256 

Reggio Di Calabria (IT) 

10137 

Antirio (EL) 

Rio (EL) 

Helsinki (FI) 

Stockholm (SE) 

Napoli (IT) 

14210 

14210 

8871 

6826 

6708 

Rodby (Faergehavn) (DK) 

6508 

Puttgarden (DE) 

Tallinn (EE) 

Santa  Cruz  De  Tenerife 
(ES) 

Capri (IT) 

Algeciras (ES) 

6592 

5136 

4861 

5028 

4286 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2003 

14770 

13729 

11693 

11646 

12541 

12541 

9315 

9833 

9698 

13688 

13688 

8549 

7294 

6811 

6421 

6422 

5172 

5011 

4749 

4542 

2004 

14429 

13259 

11808 

11612 

11568 

11568 

10713 

10128 

9992 

9105 

9105 

8747 

7823 

6801 

6744 

6741 

6452 

5164 

4771 

4605 

2005 

13501 

11695 

11102 

11023 

11663 

11663 

11076 

9802 

9645 

2414 

2414 

8854 

8211 

6084 

6761 

6760 

6701 

4564 

3860 

4828 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Turku (FI) 

Palma Mallorca (ES) 

Piombino (IT) 

Porto D'Ischia (IT) 

Frederikshavn 

Portoferraio 

Portsmouth 

Olbia 

29  Mariehamn 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Goteborg 

Genova 

Sjaellands Odde 

Norddeich 

Holyhead 

Rostock 

Igoumenitsa 

Ceuta 

Civitavecchia 

Barcelona 

Livorno 

4025 

2286 

3675 

3576 

3597 

3176 

3469 

2683 

2311 

2747 

2820 

2191 

2285 

2371 

2099 

2202 

2353 

1975 

1473 

1792 

4039 

2537 

3716 

3494 

3537 

3120 

3169 

2764 

2389 

2750 

2961 

2294 

2332 

2333 

2332 

2467 

2091 

1932 

1869 

1907 

3828 

3773 

3702 

3535 

3449 

3195 

3127 

2908 

2843 

2608 

2507 

2381 

2267 

2262 

2253 

2221 

2147 

2145 

2039 

2013 

Source: EU 2007/2008 statistical pocketbook 

3697 

4611 

3277 

3169 

3004 

2829 

2679 

3253 

3192 

2267 

2406 

2310 

2257 

2173 

2417 

2338 

2135 

2099 

2208 

2103 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
Routes 
with  

More than 
1.000.000 
pax/year 

Baltic 
zone 

Approx. 18+7* 
(13,8%). 

5 routes with 
competitors 

Table 4: Routes by number of passengers 

More than 
500.000 pax/year 

More than 100.000 
pax/year 

Approx. 16 (8,8%) 

Approx. 46 (25,5%) 

2 routes with 
competitor 

4 routes with 
competitors 

More than 
50.000 
Pax/year 

Approx. 16 
(8,8%) 

Less than 
50.000 
pax/year 

Approx. 79 

(43.8% ) 

North 
Sea zone 

Approx. 19 
(9,5%). 

Approx. 19 (9,5%) 

Approx.51 (25,5%) 

Approx. 27 
(13.5%) 

Approx. 83 
(41.5%) 

2 routes with 
competitors 

2 routes with 
competitors 

4 routes with 
competitors 

Mediter
ranean 
Zone 

Approx. 17 (4,3% 
of the total). 

Approx. 14 (3,5% 
of the total) 

Approx 57 (14,6% ) 

9 routes with 
competitors 

11 routes with 
competitors 

26 routes with 
competitors 

Approx. 20 
(5,1%) 

4 routes with 
competitors 

Approx. 282 

(72.3%) 

19 of them 
with 
competitors 

*domestic NO 

Table 5 - Maritime ferry operators in Europe by main type of activity and main 
area of operation 

National 

International 

Cruise 

All operators 

Mediterranean 

Atlantic 

Baltic 

Nordic 

All European 
operators 

26 

15 

3 

26 

70 

32 

29 

17 

22 

100 

55 

15 

0 

0 

70 

113 

59 

20 

48 

240 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 - Number of critical events and passengers affected, reported by country 
and type of traffic 

Country 

UK 

France 

Ireland 

Poland  Estonia 

Type of traffic 

Nat (4) 

Intra (5) 

Mixed 
(1) 

Intra (1) 

Intra (1) 

Intra (1) 

Delays 

14.932 

257

219   

Cancellations 

1.429 

419   

50   

50

(6.644)

77

(228)

Interruptions 

1.136 

Refused carriage / 
Denied Boarding 

Handling 
complaints 

Total 

17.497 

803

219

50

Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 

Legend: Between brackets is the number of passengers affected. 

1 

(400) 

3 

(3) 

45 

(63) 

49 

100 

There is a lack of data on number of critical events. Individual companies differ in their definition of delays. Only the UK 
and  Poland  had  reported  the  number  of  critical  events  disaggregated  by  their  cause,  along  with  the  number  of  passengers 
affected. In the case of Estonia, France and Ireland, only one operator (in each country) provided data on critical events. Data 
presented here should be understood as illustrative. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 7 – Current situation regarding protection of passenger rights 

General policy on Passenger 
rights  

Maritime Passenger rights  

PRM rights (general and in maritime 
transport) 

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n
I

s
l

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

Athens Convention relating to the 

“Recommendation on the Design and 

Carriage of Passengers and their 

Operation of Passenger Ships to Respond to 

Luggage by Sea 1974 (IMO) 

Elderly and Disabled Persons’ Needs” 

Protocol to the Athens Convention 1976. 

(IMO) 

Com (2001) 370: White Paper 

COM (2002) 158 final: Communication 

Directive 1999/35/EC on a system of 

European transport policy for 

from the Commission on the enhanced 

mandatory surveys for the safe operation of 

2010 : time to decide 

safety of passenger ships in the 

regular ro-ro ferries and high speed 

COM (2004) 374 final: White 

Community 

passenger craft services 

Paper on services of general 

Directive 2003/25/EC, 14 April 2003 - 

COM (2000) 284 final – Towards a barrier 

interest 

specific stability requirements for ro-ro 

free Europe for people with disabilities 

COM (2005)46 final: 

passenger ships 

Directive 2003/24/EC, 14 April 2003 - 

Strengthening passenger rights 

COM (2003) 375 final: Proposal for a 

amending Council Directive 98/18/EC on 

within the European Union 

Council Decision concerning the 

safety rules and standards for passenger 

Directive 90/314/EEC: Package 

conclusion by the European Community 

ships; 

travel, package holidays and 

of the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens 

COM (2003) 650: Equal opportunities for 

package tours regulations 

Convention Relating to the Carriage of 

people with disabilities: A European Action 

REGULATION (EC) No 

Passengers and their Luggage by 

Plan 

2006/2004 of the European 

Sea,1974 

CEN/CENELEC Workshop Agreement: 

parliament and of the council of 

COM (2005) 592 final: Proposal for a 

Guidelines to standardisers of Collective 

27 October 2004 on cooperation 

Regulation of the European Parliament 

Transport Systems - Needs of older people 

between national authorities 

and of the Council on the liability of 

and persons with disabilities - Part 1: Basic 

responsible for the enforcement of 

carriers of passengers by sea and inland 

guidelines (CWA 45546-1:2004) 

consumer protection laws (the 

waterway in the event of accidents 

Regulation on consumer 

protection cooperation) 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 - Information provided to passengers in general 

)
2
(

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

x 

x 

x 

c
i
d
r
o
N

*
)
6
(

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

)
3
(
d
n
a
l
o
P

x 

1 

x 

)
3
(
n
i
a
p
S

)
5
1
(

K
U

x 

11 

)
1
(

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

4 

1 

15 

5 

)
1
(
a
i
n
o
t
s
E

)
3
(

e
c
n
a
r
F

)
1
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
3
(

e
c
e
e
r
G

x 

x 

x 

)
1
(
d
n
a
l
e
r
I

x 

)
3
(
y
l
a
t
I

)
1
(
a
t
l
a
M

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Printed 
copies of 
applicable 
framework 

Copy of 
applicable 
framework 
on ticket  

Reference to 
web site 

Oral 
information 
only 

Other 
information 

Passengers 
request 

Written 
information 

Identification 
of the 
operator 

Comparative 
information 

Electronic 
notice board 

Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 

Legend: * Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.  

Between brackets is the number of responders in the respective country. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 9: Information provided to PRMs  

Information in 
Braille 

Information 
points adapted 
to PRM needs  

Information 
adapted to 
PRM needs 

No special 
information for 
PRMs 

Number of 
respondents 

Estonia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Malta 

1 

Netherlands 

Nordic countries * 

1 

Poland 

Portugal 

Spain 

UK 

Total EEA 

2 

9.3% 

1 

1 

5 

1 

4 

1 

1 

16.3% 

2.3% 

14.0% 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

2 

6 

3 

1 

3 

15 

43 

Legend: * Nordic countries = Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (TiS.pt Report, 2006) 

Table 10 -Information provided in case of critical events 

)
1
(
a
i
n
o
t
s
E

)
4
(

e
c
n
a
r
F

)
3
(

e
c
e
e
r
G

)
3
(
y
l
a
t
I

)
1
(
a
t
l
a
M

Printed copies of 
applicable framework 

D, C, I, 
DB 

D, C, I, 
DB, RI 

)
2
(

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

c
i

d
r
o
N

*
)
6
(

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

On 
request

D, C, I, 
RC, O 

)
3
(
d
n
a
l
o
P

D, 
C, I, 
DB 

)
1
(

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

)
3
(
n

i
a
p
S

d
e
t
i

n
U

)
5
1
(

m
o
d
g
n
K

i

D, C 

D, C, I, RC 

Copy of applicable 
framework on ticket  

D, C, I, 
DB 

D, C, I, 
DB, RI 

D, C, I, 
DB 

D, C, I, 
DB, RI 

X 

all 

D, C, I, RC 

Reference to web site 

D, C, I, 
DB 

D, C, I, 
DB, RI 

D, C, I, 
DB 

D, C, I, 
DB, RI 

Someti
mes 

D, C, I, 
RC, O 

D, 
C, I, 
DB 

all 

D, C, I, RC 

Oral information only 

O 

D, C, 
I, RC

Someti
mes 

D, 
C, I, 
DB 

D, C, I, 
DB, RI, 
O 

D, C, I, 
DB 

D, C, I, RC, 
O 

No information 

RI 

x 

Other information 

Passengers request 

EN 

x 

84 

D, C, I, RC, 
O 

D, C, I, RC 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source: Country reports (Tis.pt,2006) 

Legend: D: Delay; C: Cancellation; I: Interruption; DB: Denied Boarding; RI: Refusal of Information; RC: Refused Carriage; 
O:  Overbooking.  Nordic  countries  –  Denmark,  Finland,  Norway  and  Sweden.  (  )  Between  brackets  is  the  number  of 
responders. 

Table 11: Specific services provided to PRMs 

Support / 
Assistance to 
PRMs 

Accessibility 
facilities 

Assistance 
throughout the 
entire trip 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Malta 

UK* 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

11 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

9 

5 

Legend: * Out of 13 respondents (TiS.pt, 2006) 

Source: ShipPax Statistics, 2004 
Table 12: Average external costs in 2000 by category and transport mode 

Average Costs for Passengers (EUR / 1000 pkm) 

Average Costs for Freight (EUR / 1000 tkm) 

Environmental impact 

Road 

Rail  Air 

Tot 

Road 

Car  Bus  MC 

Tot 

LDV  HDV  Tot 

Rail 

Air  Water 

Tot 

Noise 

Air pollution 

Climate change 

Nature & Landscape 

Up/Downstream 

Urban effects 

Total EU-1795 

5.2 

1.3 

16.0 

5.1

12.7 

20.7 

3.8 

13.2

10.1 

2.9 

5.2 

1.6 

4.8 

0.7 

3.9 

0.4 

6.7 

2.1 

3.0 

1.1 

9.5

2.1

5.0

1.5

3.9

6.9

3.6

0.6

3.4

1.3

1.8

2.4

4.2

10.0

26.4

13.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

2.0

3.9

1.1

32.4

86.9

32.8

10.9

22.4

5.2

4.9

7.4 

38.3

42.8 

3.2 

8.3 

8.9

0.0

15.6

14.1

7.3

2.0

7.4

1.1

9.7 

2.9 

8.8 

1.5 

1.9 

134.7

0.3 

2.4 

0.5 

3.8

7.4

0.0

2.5

0.8

3.3

0.0

7.1

38.5

9.7

2.6

8.0

1.3

37.7 

31.8 

32.7 

36.4

19.7

32.4

34.8

190.6

61.0

73.1 

16.6 

170.4

20.7

67.2

Source: INFRAS/IWW, 2004 

95 

EU-15 plus Switzerland and Norway. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                 
Table 13: Facilities to be provided at terminal buildings to permit better accessibility 

Facility 

Ramps  

Automatic doors  

Accessible toilet at terminal building 

Double handrails on stairs  

Glass markings  

Guideways  

Warning markings  

Obstacle markings  

Indications in relief  

Spoken information  

Cost 
€200 per m2 

€15 000 each 

€15 000 each 

€100 per m 

€20 per area of glass 

€100 per m 

€100 per m 
€200 per m2 

€400 each 

€150 per transmitter 

Source: COST 335 

Table 14: Average number of employees in passenger terminals for every 1000 
passengers 

Small ports 

Medium-sized 
ports 

Large ports 

Average for all 
ports  

Front office 

Back office 

All employees 

0.143 

0.118 

0.261 

0.052 

0.021 

0.073 

0.024 

0.002 

0.026 

0.049 

0.025 

0.074 

Source: PwC analysis of survey results (2007) 

Table 15: Estimated number of employees in EU passenger ports per geographic area 

Front Office 

Back Office 

Total 

Baltic 

North 

Med 

Total 

4 324  

3 085  

9 869  

17 642  

1 588  

1 211  

3 673  

6 637  

5 912  

4 297  

13 542  

24 279  

Source: PwC analysis of survey results, Eurostat and ShipPax (2007) 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 16: Estimated training costs in ports 

Country 

Front Office Employees  
(€ thousand) 

Back Office Employees  
(€ thousand) 

All Employees 
(€ thousand) 

DK 

EE 

FI 

LT 

LV 

PL 

SE 

Baltic 

BE 

DE 

NL 

IE 

UK 

North 

BG 

CY 

ES 

GR 

IT 

MT 

FR 

PT 

SI 

Med 

Total 

411 

31 

82 

4 

4 

24 

165 

721 

11 

250 

21 

22 

210 

515 

0 

6 

115 

829 

511 

5 

164 

16 

1 

186 

6 

18 

3 

2 

13 

38 

265 

6 

107 

11 

7 

71 

202 

0 

4 

34 

339 

168 

4 

53 

10 

1 

1 647 

2 883 

613 

1 080 

Source: PwC analysis of survey results (2007) 

597 

37 

100 

7 

6 

37 

203 

986 

17 

357 

32 

30 

281 

717 

1 

10 

149 

1 168 

678 

9 

217 

26 

2 

2 259 

3 963 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
Table 17: Estimation of the cost of training in the EEA  

Ship categories 

No of ships 

Thousand GT 

Employees in 
deck and hotel 
areas 

Estimated 
training costs 
(EUR) 

Cruise 

Ferries 

Fast Units 

Other Ro-Pax 

Ro-Ro Cargo Ferries 

All Passenger Ships 

79 

1 167 

781 

56 

278 

2 361 

2 694 

9 536 

270 

53 

4 030 

23 118 

37 237 

6 517 

1 341 

2 243 

2 889 731 

4 351 327 

907 759 

100 544 

168 228 

16 583 

70 456 

8 417 589 

Source: PwC analysis of ECSA Annual Report 2005-2006 and Confitarma  

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
Table 18: Port governance in European MSs 

Investment & Maintenance 

Baltic  

DK 

EE 

FI 

LV 

LT 

PL 

SE 

North 

DE 

NL 

UK 

NO 

IE 

BE 

Mediterranean 

CY 

GR 

ES 

IT 

MT 

FR 

PT 

SI 

BG 

RO 

Superstructure 
100% private sector 

(buildings/mobile equipment) 

100% port authority 

(cranes, warehouses) 

Superstructure 
Service provider 

Superstructure 
100% private sector 

100% port authority (cranes) 

N/A 

Superstructure 
Operators 

Superstructure 
Private sector 
Port authority 

Superstructure 
100% port authority or private operators 

Superstructure 
100% private sector 

N/A 

Superstructure 
100% port authority or terminal operators 

N/A 

Superstructure 
100% port authority 

Superstructure 
100% private sector 

N/A 

Road, rail and superstructure 
Outside: 100% State 
Inside: 100% port authority  

Superstructure 
100% port authority and private operators 

Superstructure 
Private operators / undertakings 

N/A 

N/A 

Superstructure 
100% port authority or concessionaries 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Source: PwC analysis of “Factual report on the European port sector 2004-2005” ESPO 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
 
Table 19: Potential market for accessible maritime tourism 

 PRM 
passengers 

1.6% will 
use a ship 
to travel for 
tourism 
purposes 

Multiplier 
effect for 
accompanying 
friends and 
family  

Accompanying 
friends and 
family 

Total 
potential 
accessible 
tourism by 
ship 

Average 
expenditure 
per person 
per holiday 

Potential 
additional 
tourism 
revenues 

38.1 million 

0.6 million 

0.5 

2 

0.3 million 

0.9 million 

1.2 million 

1.8 million 

€620  

€ 0.55m 

€1.1m 

Source: PwC analysis of OSSATE and Eurostat (2005) 

Table 20: Potential number of additional employees at ports 

Total potential 
accessible 
tourism 
vacations by ship 

Total accesses 
(embarking and 
disembarking)96 

Index 
employees per 
1000 
passengers 

Total potential 
new employees in 
ports 

First scenario 

0.9 million 

Second scenario 

1.8 million 

3.6 million 

7.2million 

0.049 

 176 400 

352 800 

Table 21: Potential additional employees in the tourism sector 

Source: PwC analysis 

Potential additional 
tourism revenues 

Average turnover per 
person employed in 
hotels and restaurants 

New potential employees in 
the sector (thousand FTE) 

First scenario 

Second scenario 

€0.55m 

€1.1m 

€44 6000 

12.3 

 24.6 

Source: PwC analysis of OSSATE (2005) and Eurostat (2004) 

96 

We assume that a return journey consists of two embarkations and two disembarkations. In fact, there 
might be trips (such as cruises) with a higher number. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 22: Total number of charters and service guarantees identified (cross-national 
schemes are included for each country where an operator adheres to them) 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Total  

Quality Charter 

Service Guarantee 

Rail  Coach  Local  Air 

Ship  Rail  Coach Local Air 

Ship 

Total per 
country 

2 

1 

-- 

-- 

2 

-- 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

-- 

1 

1 

-- 

-- 

1 

1 

-- 

1 

-- 

1 

12 

33 

1 

1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

24 

1 

-- 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

-- 

-- 

1 

1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

2 

1 

-- 

1 

-- 

4 

2 

4 

-- 

6 

24 

4 

-- 

10 

1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

5 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

4 

2 

-- 

-- 

2 

1 

1 

-- 

1 

-- 

1 

1 

1 

-- 

1 

-- 

1 

-- 

20 

66 

26 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

2 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

3 

2 

3 

-- 

1 

3 

-- 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

2 

1 

-- 

-- 

1 

-- 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

16 

3 

12 

45 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

15 

-- 

-- 

-- 

2 

-- 

1 

-- 

-- 

1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

1 

7 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

10 

5 

-- 

1 

56 

3 

-- 

8 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

2 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

17 

14 

6 

101 

Source: EUSG (December 2006) 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

-- 

-- 

1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

-- 

-- 

3 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

2 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1 

1 

5 

6 

8 

1 

6 

18 

5 

6 

14 

88 

13 

5 

5 

31 

2 

4 

3 

0 

7 

5 

5 

1 

3 

5 

28 

40 

309 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
Table 23: Estimated cost of monitoring  

Number of:  

Man-days 
needed for 
monitoring 

Daily cost per 
man 
(EUR)97 

Ship operators 

Ports 

MSs on coast 

274 

583 

22 

2 

4 

3 

Total predictable cost 

193 

Total cost  

(EUR) 

105 565 

449 228 

12 714 

567 507 

Source: PwC analysis of “Maritime passenger traffic in Europe: a picture of the ferry and RoRo sector” - DG TREN 
(2007) 

Table 24: Administrative costs for the sector 

Total number of 
passenger ports98 
(q1) 

Number of man-
days per port 
 (q2) 

Total number of 
man-days  
(Q = (q1) x (q2)) 

Average 
administrative cost 
per day99  
(P) 

Total 
administrative cost 
(P x Q) 

583 

5 

2 915 

€560 

€1 632 000 

Source: PwC elaboration 

97 

98 
99 

The above estimation of the labour cost per day for administrative employees is augmented by 30% for 
expenses and allowances. 
Total number of EU passenger ports was estimated in Annex II — “Market Analysis” 
In order to calculate the average daily administrative cost, we have assumed in line with Eurostat data 
that the gross hourly tariff for an expert consultant is €70. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex 3  

Public Service Obligations and Contracts in the Member States 

Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

Rønne-Ystad and Rønne-Køge 

PSO 

- 

- 

- 

Rønne-Ystad and Rønne-Køge 

PSO / PSC 

1/5/04 

5 years 

30/4/09 

Kolby Kås-Kalundborg 

PSO / PSC 

1/10/03 

5 years 

30/9/08 

DENMARK 

Bøjden-Fynshav 

PSO / PSC 

1/5/03 

5 years 

30/4/08 

Spodsbjerg-Tårs 

PSO / PSC 

1/5/06 

5 years + 1 

30/4/11 

Baagø-Assens 

PSC 

1/1/01 

5 years 

31/12/06 

Expired but 
extended  

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

Bjørnø-Faaborg 

PSC 

1/1/01 

5 years 

31/12/06 

Expired but 
extended 

Avernakø-Lyø-Faaborg 

PSC 

1/1/01 

5 years 

31/12/06 

DENMARK 

Expired but 
extended  

Strynø-Rudkøbing 

PSC 

1/1/01 

5 years 

31/12/06 

Expired and 
extended until 
31/12/2007 

Birkholm-Marstal 

PSC 

1/1/01 

5 years 

31/12/06 

Expired but 
extended  

Sælvig-Hou 

PSC 

1/12/03 

4 years 10 
months 

30/8/08 

Marstal-Rudkøbing, Ærøskøbing-
Svendborg, Søby-Faaborg 

PSC 

1/5/02 

4 years 8 
months 

1/5/02 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

Agersø-Stigsnæs, Omø-Stigsnæs, Sejerø-
Havnsø, Nekselø-Havnsø 

PSC 

1/1/02 

5 years 

31/12/06 

16 routes:  

PSC 

- 

Anholt-Grenaa; Egholm-Aalborg; Aarø-
Aarøsund; Orø-Holbæk; Livø-Rønbjerg; 
Askø-Bandholm 

Tunø-Hou; Fejø-Kragenæs; 

Femø-Kragenæs; Barsø-Barsø Landing; 
Venø-Kleppen; Fur-Branden; Skarø-
Drejø-Svendborg; Hjortø-Svendborg; 
Endelave-Snaptun-Horsens; Hjarnø-
Snaptun 

11 routes:  

PSC 

- 

DENMARK 

Thyborøn-Agger; Bogø-Stubbekøbing; 
Feggesund 

Næssund; Sundsøre-Hvalpsund; 
Udbyhøj 

Mellerup-Voer; Stige 

Hardeshøj-Ballebro; Læsø-
Frederikshavn; Kulhuse-Sølager 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

Rohuküla–Heltermaa, Virtsu–Kuivast 

PSO / PSC 

24/3/06 

10 years 

30/09/2016 

ESTONIA 

Sốru–Triigi 

PSO / PSC 

27/9/06 

5 years 

30/09/11 

Rohuküla-Sviby (county of Läänemaa) 

PSC 

Roomassaare-Ruhnu, Pärnu-Ruhnu, 
Pärnu-Kihnu, Kihnu-Munalaid and 
Ruhnu-Munalaid (county of Pärnumaa) 

PSC 

- 

Southwestern Islands, 14 routes between 
mainland and islands  

PSO 

2-5 years 

Depends on 
the route 

(normally at 
the end of the 
year) 

Depends 
on the 
route 

(normally 
at the 
beginning 
of the year) 

FINLAND 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

Gulf of Finland, 4 routes between 
mainland and islands 

PSO 

2-5 years 

Depends on 
the route 

(normally at 
the end of the 
year) 

Depends 
on the 
route 

(normally 
at the 
beginning 
of the year) 

Åland Islands, 3 routes 

PSC 

- 

5 years 

- 

Mainland - Corsica 

PSO 

- 

- 

- 

(various routes) 

FRANCE 

Marseille - Corsica 

PSC 

1/1/02 

5 to 7 years 

Still running 

Côtes d’Armor: 

PSO / PSC 

31/8/05 

6 years 

30/8/11 

Bréhat Island (3 routes)  

Finistère: 

PSC 

1/1/03 

6 years 

31/12/08 

Sein, Ouessant and Molène Islands 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

(7 routes)  

Finistère:  

PSC 

1/1/03 

6 years 

31/12/08 

Batz Island (1 route) 

Morbihan: 

PSO / PSC 

1/1/01 

7 years 

31/12/07 

Belle-Ile-en-Mer, Groix, Houat and 
Hoëdic Islands (5 routes)  

FRANCE 

Morhiban:  

PSC 

1/1/2007 

5 years 

31/12/2011 

Vannes - Arz Island 

PSC 

1/1/2006 

6 years 

31/12/2011 

Var: 

PSC 

28/12/1990

20 years 

27/12/2009 

Hyères Islands (Porquerolles, Port-Cros 
and Le Levant Islands) 

(5 routes for passengers; 3 for goods; 2 
for transport of cars) 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

Bouches du Rhône: 

PSC 

4/5/2006 

12 years 

3/05/2018 

Marseille - Frioul Island 

Ministry of Mercantile Marine: 22 routes 

PSO / PSC 

Most approx. 
1 year 

GREECE 

Ministry of Aegean and Aegean Policy: 
39 routes 

PSO / PSC 

Most approx. 
1 year 

ITALY 

19 national lines 

11 to Sardinia 

2 to Sicily 

2 to Sardinia and Sicily 

29 local lines to islands 

PSO / 
Conventional 
order 

1/1/1989 

20 years 

31/12/2008 

MALTA 

Cirkewwa-Mgarr (island of Gozo) 

PSO / PSC 

2004 

6 years 

2010 

Mainland Portugal to 

PSO 

- 

Islands of Madeira and Azores 

- 

Continuity of 
the service 
must be 
guaranteed 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

for at least 2 
years. 

PORTUGAL 

Madeira Island: 

PSC 

23/2/1996 

29 years and 
8 months 

11/11/2025 

Funchal – Porto Santo 

Balearic Islands 

PSO 

(21 routes: Peninsula to Balearic Islands 
+ Inter-islands connections) 

Canary Islands 

(18 routes: Peninsula to Canary Islands + 
Inter-islands connections) 

Ceuta and Melilla 

(4 routes: Peninsula to Ceuta and 
Melilla) 

SPAIN 

Balearic Islands 

PSO / PSC 

1/10/2007 

5 years 

1/10/2011 

(6 routes: Valencia and Barcelona to 
Palma, Ibiza and Mahón) 

Canary Islands 

(1 route: Cádiz to Santa Cruz de 
Tenerife and Las Palmas) 

Ceuta and Melilla 

(3 routes: Algeciras to Ceuta and Melilla 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Route / Area 

PSO / 
PSC 

Start 
date 

Duration 

Expiry 
date 

to Almeria and to Málaga). 

Mainland – Gotland 

PSC 

1/1/98 

4 +2 years 

31/12/03 

SWEDEN 

2 routes: 

Visby – Nynashamn 

Visby – Oskarshamn 

Ballycastle – Rathlin Island 

PSC 

2002 

2008 

2 years with 
scope for 
further 1 year 
extensions 

UNITED 
KINGDOM 

Northern isles 

PSC 

6/07/06 

6 years 

5/7/12 

Mainland –Orkney/ 

Shetland -2 routes 

Clyde and Western 

PSC 

1960 

Open ended 

None 

Isles -28 routes 

(most 
recent 

Undertak.:

1995) 

Gourock – Dunoon 

PSO / PSC 

2007/2008 

6 years 

2013/2014 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4 

Handling the missing data in critical events 

Little quantitative data was available in relation to critical events that could evaluate clearly if there is 
a problem. Despite the incompleteness of the data, the following process was undertaken to produce 
sound estimates of the parameters of interest: 

(1) 

Main assumptions for handling missing data: 
(a) 

Number of passengers and number of trips (obtained from ShipPax) considered as the 
basis for comparison100; 
Ship load factors are considered as constant and calculated as number of passengers / 
number of trips; 
Quality of service is considered as constant; 
Legal and regulatory framework do not influence the level of services; 
Passengers  affected  by  critical  events  were  calculated  by  the  number  of  events 
multiplied by the occupation factor (see point b). 

(b) 

(c) 
(d) 
(e) 

(2) 

Concepts adopted: 

•  Two units were considered for the analysis 

•  Country  

•  Sample = universe = 17 countries 

•  Operator 

•  Sample = 113 operators (selected through a non-probabilistic sampling method) 

•  Universe = 240 operators (estimated from ShipPax Statistics) 

Definitions applied: 

(3) 
Valid  countries  and  valid  operators:  questionnaires  in  which  quantitative  data  on  critical  events  is 
available (13 operators from 5 countries); 
Valid  countries  and  respective  sample  operators:  total  operators  surveyed  in  the  countries  in  which 
quantitative data on critical events is available (31 operators in 5 countries); 
Valid  countries  and  respective  universe  of  operators:  total  operators  in  the  countries  in  which 
quantitative data on critical events is available (84 operators in 5 countries); 
Sample  countries  and  sample  operators:  total  operators  surveyed  in  the  country  sample  of  the  study 
(113 operators in 17 countries); 
Universe of countries and operators: universe of the study (240 operators in 17 countries). 
(4) 
Statistical procedures adopted (see Figure below): 
Handling of missing data (treatment of non-responses) in two levels 

– 

– 

Level  1  –  from  valid  countries  and  valid  operators  to  valid  countries  and 
sample operators (done); 
Level  2  –  from  valid  countries  and  valid  operators  to  sample  countries  and 
sample operators (not done); 

Extrapolation (from sample to universe) 

– 

Level 1 – from valid countries and sample operators to universe of countries 
to universe of operators (done); 

100 

Even so this should be treated with some caution as the data from ShipPax still has some missing data 
in some countries. Similarly there is no assurance that this publication covers all of the operators in the 
different countries. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
– 

Level 2 – from sample countries and sample operators to universe of countries 
and universe of operators (not done). 

The  statistical  procedure  was  only  performed  for  Level  1  both  in  handling  missing  data  and 
extrapolation  from  the  sample  of  operators  to  the  universe  of  operators.  Only  this  first  level  of 
analysis,  for  the  five  valid  countries,  was  performed  because  this  procedure  presents  the  following 
gaps: 

(b) 
(c) 
(d) 

Low rate of answers by country; 
Available data were rather poor; 
Figures came from different sources. 

Despite the detected problems related with this procedure, this was the only way to get an idea of the 
(non-)existence of a problem in the valid countries. For this analysis, assumptions were made (these 
are the ones identified previously).  

Level  2  of  the  analysis,  which  includes:  (a)  handling  the  missing  data  from  valid  countries  to  the 
sampled  countries and; (b) extrapolation from the  sampled countries to the universe was not carried 
out,  given  the  fact  that  it  is  not  guaranteed  that  the  assumptions101  made  for  the  five  countries,  for 
which answers were received, can also be assumed for the universe (17 countries) 

(a) 

The analysis was then only on Level 1 given the fact that for Level 2 the result would 
be  extremely  unreliable.  While  at  Level  1  it  could  be  assumed  that  conditions  are 
fairly similar (i.e. the legal and regulatory framework) and that company organisation 
does  not  influence  the  quality  of  service  (i.e.  quality  certifications),  the  same 
assumption could not be made directly for the universe level.  

Overall picture of the rationale used to handle missing data 

Handling of missing data
(level 1)

Handling of missing data
(level 2)

VA countries and 
VA operators 

13 operators
from 5 countries

VA countries 
and  
SA operators

31 operators
from 5 countries

SA countries 
and SA operators

113 operators
from 17  countries

Extrapolation
(level 1)

Extrapolation
(level 2)

VA / U 
2% of passengers, 1% of trips !!!

SA: sampled units of analysis (SA= VA+ NV)
VA: sampled units of analysis with answers on CE)
NV : sampled units of analysis with non response on CE)
NS : non sampled units of analysis
U: universe (U= SA + NS)

VA countries 
and U of operators

84 operators
from 5 countries

U of countries
and U of operators 

240 operators
from 17 countries

Data collection 

Sampling 

Statistical analysis

 Source: TiS Analysis (2006) 

101 

Assumptions made were related to legal framework, quality of service provided by the operators, etc. 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 5 

Reasonable Accessibility and Reasonable accommodation  

Reasonable accessibility and reasonable accommodation are two related concepts that have to 
be  understood  within  the  "social  model  of  disability".  They  both  contribute  to  solutions  to 
compensate for impairments that persons with disabilities have when interacting with goods, 
services and infrastructures and when performing activities. 

Accessibility:  

Accessibility is a broad concept, which addresses the removal and prevention of barriers that 
pose problems for persons with disabilities in using products, services and infrastructures on 
terms equal to those persons without disabilities. General accessibility measures anticipate the 
most common problems experienced by persons with disability. 

As accessibility usually concerns products, services and infrastructures that are intended to be 
purchased or used by more than one person, a "design for all" methodology is applied. 

In  the  case  of  maritime  transport,  it  is  necessary  to  preventively  remove  the  most  common 
barriers in the infrastructures, carriers and related services that are already known. These will 
concern general preventive measures of physical accessibility, access to information (before 
and during the trip; for example, in emergency situations deaf persons should be able to know 
the instructions provided to the passengers), and access to the ships themselves. 

However, general accessibility measures can not always cover all the needs that a particular 
person  with  disability  has  in  order  to  give  them  the  same  access  as  other  passengers  (this 
could be, for example, because the necessary measures would involve a disproportionate cost 
or simply because the need of the person is so specific that it was not known beforehand or it 
would  not  be  cost  effective  to  address  it  by  applying  general  solutions).  Therefore,  and  in 
order  to  achieve  the  goal  of  equal  access,  general  accessibility  measures  need  to  be 
complemented by "reasonable accommodation". 

Reasonable accommodation:  

This  notion  refers  to  the  specific  appropriate  measures  to  be  taken,  where  needed  in  a 
particular case, to enable a particular person with a disability to have equal access to a product 
or  a  service.  These  measures  complement  the  general  accessibility  that  is  already  available. 
Naturally,  if  the  measures  are  disproportionate,  then  the  carrier  should  not  be  obliged  to 
implement  them.  However,  quite  often  those  measures are cheap and easy to implement. In 
the  context  of  maritime  transport,  they  could  involve  providing  instructions  in  writing  to  a 
deaf person, or physically carrying a person in a ship when the entry is too small to place a 
ramp, helping with the luggage, etc. It is also important to have staff that is well trained and 
able to listen to the person's needs at a particular moment and react accordingly in the light of 
the possibilities to accommodate his needs. 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
Annex 6 

Passenger Rights in all modes of transport - correlation table (main provisions) 

Air transport 

Rail transport 

Bus & coach 
transport 

Maritime transport 

LIABILITY 

AND 

INSURANCE 

Regulation(EC) 
2027/97  on  air  carrier 
liability in the event of 
accidents102  

(EC) 
Regulation 
1371/2007  on  rail 
passengers’  rights 
and obligations104 

Regulation 
(EC) 
785/2004 on insurance 
requirements  for  air 
carriers  and  aircraft 
operators103 

Strict 
liability 
for  death  and 
injuries 

Liability 
for 
loss  or  damage 
to the luggage 

Advance 
payments 

lost 

Compensation 
for 
damage 
mobility 

or 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Draft Proposal for 
a 

Regulation  of  the 
European 
Parliament  and  of 
the Council on the 
rights 
of 
passengers  in  bus 
and 
coach 
transport 

Motor 

5th 
Insurance 
Directive105 

x 

x 

x 

x 

for 

a 
Proposal 
Council  Decision 
concerning 
the 
conclusion  by  the 
European 
Community  of  the 
Protocol  of  2002  to 
the 
Athens 
Convention 
the 
Relating 
of 
Carriage 
Passengers 
and 
their  Luggage  by 
Sea, 1974106 

to 

x 

x 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

Regulation (EC) No2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents 
OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p.1; as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of 13 May 2002, OJ L 
140, 30.5.2002, p. 2.  
Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and 
aircraft operators, OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 1 
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on 
rail passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14–41 
Directive  2005/14/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2005  amending 
Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive2000/26/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the 
use of motor vehicles (OJ L 149/14 11.6.2005) 
COM(2003) 375 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
equipment 

Insurance 

x 

x 

x 

Air transport 

Rail transport 

PERSONS WITH 
REDUCED 
MOBILITY 

(EC)  No 
Regulation 
1107/2006  concerning  the 
rights  of  disabled  persons 
and  persons  with  reduced 
mobility  when  travelling 
by air107 

Regulation  (EC)  No 
1371/2007 
rail 
passengers’ rights and 
obligations. 

on 

Bus & coach 
transport 

Maritime 
transport 

Draft Proposal

grounds 

Non-discrimination 
on 
disability 
reduced mobility 

of 
and 

information 

at 
Ticket 
additional cost 

no 

Assistance  based  on 
notification 

Assistance 
at 
airports/stations/port
s/terminals 

Assistance onboard 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Assistance providers 

Airport managers 

Station managers 

Airlines 

Railway companies 

Accessibility rules 

Quality standards 

Training of personnel 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Coach 
terminal 
managers 

Bus and coach 
operators 

x 

- 

x 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

107 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2006 
concerning  the  rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  air, 
Text with EEA relevance. (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006 p.1) 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Air transport 

Rail transport 

Bus & coach 
transport 

Maritime 
transport 

DELAYS 

Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004 
establishing common rules on 
compensation  and  assistance 
to  passengers  in  the  event  of 
of 
denied  boarding 
cancellation  or  long  delay  of 
flights108 

and 

Reimbursement 

Re-routing 

Financial 
compensation 

Assistance 

Information 

x 

x 

- 

x 

x 

Regulation  (EC)  No 
1371/2007  

Draft Proposal 

- 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

- 

x 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Air transport 

Rail transport 

Bus & coach 
transport 

Maritime 
transport 

CANCELLATIONS  Regulation  (EC)  No 

261/2004  

Regulation  (EC)  No 
1371/2007  

Draft Proposal  

Reimbursement 

Re-routing 

Financial 
compensation 

Assistance 

Information 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

- 

- 

x 

- 

x 

x 

x 

- 

x 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Air transport 

Rail transport 

Bus & coach 
transport 

Maritime 
transport 

108 

Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  February  2004 
establishing  common  rules  on  compensation  and  assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied 
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text 
with EEA relevance) – (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1–8) 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
DENIED 
BOARDING 

Regulation  (EC)  No 
261/2004  

No 
provisions 

corresponding 

No  corresponding 
provisions 

Reimbursement 

Re-routing 

Financial 
compensation 

Assistance 

x 

x 

x 

x 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

NATIONAL 
ENFORCEMENT 
BODIES 

Enforcement 
complaint handling 

& 

Cooperation 

Reporting obligations 

Penal sanctions 

Air transport 

Rail transport 

Bus & coach 
transport 

Maritime 
transport 

Regulation  (EC)  No 
261/2004  

Regulation  (EC)  No 
1371/2007  

Draft Proposal  

x 

x 

- 

x 

x 

x 

- 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7 

Overview of the national legal framework for the maritime passenger transport sector 

All passengers (PRMs included) 

In order to measure the national level of protection of passenger rights, countries could be categorised 
according to the legislation in place: 

•  Lower level of protection: countries where there is only general law or consumer law establishing 

minimum general rights. 

•  Moderate level of protection: there are some rules concerning maritime passenger transport which 

include the carrier’s liability in the event of passenger death or injury 

•  Higher level of protection: countries where there is a regulation specifying the rights of maritime 

passenger users in cases of critical events  

Framework to categorise the existing legal regimes 

C o u n trie s  w ith  a  lo w e r 
le v e l o f p ro te c tio n

G e n e ra l L a w
C o n s u m e r L a w

C o u n trie s  w ith  a  m o d e ra te  
le v e l o f p ro te c tio n

T ra n s p o rt L a w
M a ritim e  T ra n s p o rt L a w

C o u n trie s  w ith  a  h ig h e r 
le v e l o f p ro te c tio n

S p e c ific  la w  re g a rd in g  
m a ritim e  p a s s e n g e rs  rig h ts  
in  c a s e  o f c ritic a l e v e n ts

Source: TiS Analysis (2006) 

According to the criteria explained above, the categorisation of the countries is given below. 

Countries with a lower level of 
protection 

Countries with a moderate level 
of protection 

Countries with a higher level of 
protection 

Malta 

Cyprus 

Source: Country Reports 

EN 

Estonia 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

109 

Denmark 

Finland 

Italy 

Poland 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Greece 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Once there is an overview of the national law of each of the countries mentioned above, Details could 
be given of the measures which respectively and typically derive from their legal framework: 

Specific Rules regarding maritime 
passenger rights in case of critical 
events 

Interruption,  delay  and  cancellation, 
denied boarding and refused carriage. 

General Law 

Transport Law 

Consumer Law 

Mostly  related  to  tour  operators 
and  travel  agents  liability  in 
cases  of  inaccurate  information 
or  misleading  advertising  on 
services  provided  and  failure  to 
meet  financial  or  contractual 
obligations towards consumers 

d
e
n
r
e
c
n
o
c

s
r
e
t
t
a
M

Maritime Transport 
Law 

about 

the 
Rules 
contract  of  passage 
where  liability  issues 
regarding 
death, 
injuries  of  passengers 
or 
damage 
and 
luggage 
are 
loss 
addressed in a detailed 
way. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
-  In  case  of  non  compliance  or 
lack  of  information  about  the 
services  provided:  indemnity  or 
compensation for the damages or 
loss  caused  to  consumers  (e.g. 
Malta) 

for 
-  Compensation 
the  damages  or  loss 
caused  to  passengers 
and their luggage (e.g. 
UK and Poland). 

-  In  case  of  termination  of  the 
contract  by  the  tour  operator  or 
the  travel  agent:  the  consumer 
can  choose  between  the  total 
expenses 
reimbursement 
in 
made  or 
other 
(e.g. 
Portugal). 

of 
the  participation 

organized 

trip 

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
M

l
a
g
e
L

- In case of delay and cancellation the 
passenger  has  the  right  to  demand 
termination  of  the  contract  and  the 
only  compensation  to  be  given  is  the 
return  of  any  fare  the  passenger  has 
paid,  which  is  the  only  entitlement 
provided  for  by  the  national  law  of 
most of the countries (e.g. Spain, UK, 
Poland and Greece). 

-  In  case  of  interruption,  passengers 
are  entitled  to  terminate  the  contract 
and  to  be  reimbursed  for  that  part  of 
the  ticket  price  corresponding  to  the 
part  of  journey  the  carrier  did  not 
accomplish  (e.g.  Spain  and  Poland). 
However, in some countries the carrier 
is obliged to complete the journey and 
passengers are entitled to terminate the 
contract only if he has not fulfilled his 
obligation  within  a  reasonable  time 
(e.g. Nordic countries); 

- Even when passengers are entitled to 
some  other  compensation  the  amount 
will  equal  the  economic  loss  (if  any) 
caused by the critical event. Generally, 
the  passenger's  right  to  compensation 
depends  on  the  carrier's  or  master's 
fault or neglect (e.g. Spain and Nordic 
countries). 

- In cases of refused carriage or denied 
boarding without reasonable grounds , 
the  carrier  is  liable  for  the  economic 
loss  suffered  by  passengers,  who  are 
entitled  to  compensation  if  the  carrier 
has 
(Nordic 
countries) 

negligently 

acted 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
PRMs National Legislation 

Overview of some Member States legislation concerning PRM 

Greece: Ministerial directive for the transport of PRM on passenger sea vessels; 

Ireland and UK: National Disability Act; 

Italy: Law indicating carrier obligations to provide special access facilities to PRM; 

Malta: voluntary practices recommended by Ministry of Social Affairs regarding PRM; 

Netherlands: Act on Equal Treatment on the Grounds of Handicap or Chronic Illness; 

Spain:  Law  on  Equality  of  Opportunities,  Non  Discrimination  and  Universal  Accessibility. 
LIONDAU  (Law  51/2003,  2  December),  sets  deadlines  to  ensure  compliance  with  certain  "basic 
conditions" of accessibility regarding goods, services, transport, buildings and public places. 

Other EU countries: EU legislation: Article 6(b) Directive 2003/24/EC on safety rules and standards 
for passenger ships is crucial when it comes to securing access to maritime transport 

Anti-discrimination  laws  are  present  in  some  countries  such  as  Sweden,  UK,  Ireland  and 
Netherlands. These rules are mainly administered by a public authority and, to a certain extent, cover 
PRM  access  to  maritime  transport.  It  is  uncertain,  however,  to  what  extent  these  regulations  give  a 
PRM  the  right  to  demand  access  to  maritime  transport  and  assistance  if  this  is  necessary. 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
Policy option 2: Illustrative list of measures to be taken for accessibility in ports 

Annex 8 

The aim of this annex is to show a non-exhaustive sample of possible measures,  

•  The  approach  to  the  terminal  should  be  free  of  steps  and  wheelchair-accessible.  When 

needed, ramps and handrails should be provided. 

•  The  approach  to  the  check-in  should  be  designed  to  be  accessible  to  passengers  with 
reduced mobility. For instance, clear signage should indicate a designated parking area or 
a pathway. 

•  The entrance(s) should be clearly identifiable by means of appropriate lighting, signage 

etc. Entrance doors should be automatic and side-sliding. 

•  The  reception,  ticket  office  and  check-in  should  be  well-signposted  and  wheelchair-
accessible. Induction loops should be provided at desks and in terminals. It is essential for 
all counters to include at least one position at a lower level. 

•  Waiting areas should be adapted. Seats should be designed to meet the safety and comfort 

needs of elderly and disabled passengers. 

•  Unisex  wheelchair-accessible  toilets  should  be  provided.  Unisex  wheelchair-accessible 

baby-care facilities, for feeding and nappy changing, should also be provided. 

•  Assistance dogs should be permitted in restaurants and other catering areas; 

•  Emergency alarm systems should be both audible and visual. Means of egress should be 

designed at least to the same standard as other circulating routes and facilities. 

•  The  walkway  from  the  terminal  to  vessels  should  be  free  of  steps  and  wheelchair-

accessible. When needed, ramps and handrails should be provided. 

•  When courtesy bus services are provided, these should be accessible to passengers 
with  reduced  mobility  or  substitute  services  should  be  made  available.

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
 
 
Minimum information Requirements to be provided by maritime undertakings and/or ticket 
vendors109 

Annex 9  

Pre-journey 

a. Conditions applicable to contract 

b. Time schedules and conditions for the fastest trip 

c. Time schedules and conditions for the lowest fares 

d. Accessibility and access conditions for PRM 

e. Availability of seats for different patterns (smoking, classes) 

f. Any activities likely to disrupt or delay services 

g. Availability of on board services 

h. procedures for complaining in case of failure 

During the journey  

a. On board services 

b. Delays 

c. Connecting services 

d. Security and safety issues 

After journey 

a. Procedures for complaining 

Ticket information 

a. Operator carrying out the service 

b. Validity of tickets (dates, services, classes) 

c. Conditions of use of the ticket (i.e. Validation) 

d. Price, including taxes and other charges 

Specific Information for PRMs 

a. Availability of information in Braille (this can be a print version) 

b. Availability of staff to provide oral information 

109 

These requirements have been taken from Regulation EC 1371/2007. OJ L 315/14, 3, December 2007 
on rail passengers rights and obligations, and they have been adapted to the necessities of the maritime 
sector.  

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  addition  to  the  information  requirements  mentioned  above:  Placards  in  port  terminals  making  passengers 
aware that they have rights when they choose a certain mode of transport and that they could complain in the 
event  of  non  compliance  with  the  contract  established  (i.e.  a  ticket),  whether  or  nor  there  is  any  method  of 
compensation .  

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
Annex 10 

IMO STCW95 Code 

The  IMO  STCW95  Code  specifies  standards  for  training  for  seafarers,  including  with  regard  to  the 
specific needs of persons with reduced mobility.  

The  Code  is  the  result  of  the  1995  International  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training,  Certification 
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which was signed by all European Member States. Unfortunately so 
far, only a few European Member States, which include the UK, Ireland and Italy, have taken effective 
steps to comply with the Code.  

Sections A-V/2 and A-V/3 of the STCW95 IMO Code set mandatory minimum requirements for the 
training and qualifications of masters, officers, ratings and other personnel on Ro-Ro passenger ships 
and on other passenger ships. The relevant requirements here are: 

•  Crowd management training (including training in the evacuation of disabled persons and 

persons needing special assistance). 

•  Safety training for personnel providing direct services in passenger spaces with a focus on 

communication skills. 

•  Passenger  safety  training  (including  embarking  and  disembarking  passengers,  with 

special attention to disabled persons and persons needing assistance). 

Case Study: Training for assistance to PRMs in Italy  

On 4th January 2007, Italy adopted Circular No.10/SM that sets out specific provisions for the training 
of seafarers as regards assistance to PRMs. The Circular was based on the requirements laid down by 
STCW95 and on previous UK experience on the same matter. 

According to letter (f) of the new Circular, the training to familiarize seafarers with PRMs issues has 
to cover the following topics: 

•  information on PRMs problems and type of disabilities; 

•  information on obstacles and barriers faced by PRMs; 

•  procedures to remove obstacles and barriers; 

•  methods  available  for  evacuation  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  needing  special 

assistance; 

•  procedure for providing assistance to PRMs by means of specific facilities; 

•  procedure for the utilization of mobility devices for PRMs. 

•  training course developed by CONFITARMA 

Following  the  adoption  by  Italy  of  the  above-mentioned  Circular  n.10/SM,  Confitarma  -  the  Italian 
Ship  owners’  Confederation  -  has  developed  a  specific  training  course  for  seafarers  employed  on 
passenger ships of its members. 

The main characteristics of the course are presented below: 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
•  duration: 8 hours; 

•  the maximum number of participants for class is 20 and the minimum is 10; 

•  the course was developed in collaboration with AIAS – Italian Association for Assistance 

to Spastics. 

•  cost of the course per person: 100 Euro 

•  if the course is not held in Naples, additional costs for travelling and hotels for instructors 

have to be taken into account: estimate of 1.000 Euro per class. 

•  average total estimated cost per person: 150 Euro 

•  seafarers that should undertake the course and estimation of costs 

•  According to the STCW95 code, the training on assistance to PRMs should be aimed at 
deck personnel such as masters, officers, ratings and other personnel (stewards, etc) that 
may have direct contact with passengers. 

•  The  following  table  gives  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  persons  employed  in  deck  and 

hoteling mansions on board Italian ships. 

Table 1 Estimated jobs on board Italian ships of more than 100 GT (2005) 

Ship Categories 

Deck and Hoteling 

Engineering 
department 

Total 

Cruise 

Ferries 

Fast Units 

Other RoPax 

RoRo Cargo Ferries 

All Passenger Ships 

6.250

5.500

650

430

600

13.430

1.250

1.560

50

430

600

3.890

7.500

7.060

700

860

1.200

17.320

Source: PwC elaboration Confitarma estimations (2007) 

Based  on  this  estimation,  the  number  of  seafarers  that  should  be  trained  for  providing  on  board 
assistance to PRMs totals 13.430. Thus in Italy, for the first year, the total estimated cost for training is 
estimated to be 2.014.500 Euro. For the following years, the cost will be considerably lower since the 
training will be limited only to the newly employed persons. 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
Annex 11 

Calculation of the administrative costs to the Member State authorities 

The  national  enforcement  body  (NEB)  designated  by  each  Member  State  will  also  have  to 
process complaints received in connection with maritime passenger issues. According to the “Review 
of  Regulation  261/2004”110  on  air  transport,  the  25  NEBs  reported  they had  received  around 32 000 
complaints  under  the  Regulation  since  it  came  into  force,  which  is  equivalent  to  44  complaints  for 
every million passengers departing from EU airports. 

The resources available to NEBs to handle such complaints vary significantly. However, the average 
number of staff working in the EU on the enforcement of Regulation 261/2004, expressed in terms of 
full-time  equivalents  (FTEs),  is  0.09  per  million  departing  passengers.  In  order  to  estimate  the 
potential number of complaints from passengers in maritime and inland waterway (IWW) transport, is 
been  assumed  that  the  rate  of  complaints  in  maritime  and  IWW  transport  will  be  similar  to  that 
reported for air transport. 

Given that the number of passengers embarking and disembarking in European sea ports or IWW ports 
is calculated between 398 million (Eurostat), and 511 million (ShipPax information)111, the number of 
complaints from passengers is estimated below.  

A 

B 

D 

E 

Passenger port 
accesses 

No of trips  
(60% of A) 

398 000 000 

238 800 000 

511 000 000 

306 600 000 

1st scenario 
(Eurostat) 

2nd scenario 
(ShipPax) 

Complaints 
per passenger 

Total number of 
complaints 

0.0044% 

10 507 

13 490 

Source: PwC analysis of Eurostat (2005), NEB (2007) 

Accordingly,  we  expect  that  the  number  of  PRM complaints  to  be handled per  year will be 
between 10 507 to 13 490. We further estimate that the designated NEBs will have to employ 
at  most  7.6  FTEs  to  handle  these  complaints  (not  even  one  employee  per  Member  State). 
Given  that  the  average  labour  cost  of  an  FTE  employee  in  the  public  administration  in  the 
EU-27  was  €32 600  per  year  in  2004112,  the  total  cost  of  employing  7.6  extra  FTEs  will  be 
€249 800.

110 

111 

112 

European Commission DG TREN: “Review of Regulation 261/2004”. The report was prepared by Steer 
Davies Gleave (February 2007). 
Source: DG TREN. These figures duplicate trips by considering both embarking and disembarking. It 
has  therefore  been  assumed  that  the  actual  number  of  passenger  trips  could  be  60%  of  the  estimated 
traffic figures (60% rather than 50% because extra-EU transport is not double-counted). 
Eurostat Labour Market Survey (2004) 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 12 

Monitoring and evaluating system process 

Table 2 Monitoring and evaluation process 

(cid:131) Identification of the actions
(cid:131) Identification of the actions
(cid:131) Identification of the actions
(cid:131) Identification of the actions
the Member States should
the Member States should
the Member States should
the Member States should
undertake to achieve the 
undertake to achieve the 
undertake to achieve the 
undertake to achieve the 
settled objectives
settled objectives
settled objectives
settled objectives

(cid:131) Gap analysis between
(cid:131) Gap analysis between
(cid:131) Gap analysis between
(cid:131) Gap analysis between

objectives and reports’ results
objectives and reports’ results
objectives and reports’ results
objectives and reports’ results

(cid:131) Identification of possible
(cid:131) Identification of possible
(cid:131) Identification of possible
(cid:131) Identification of possible

causes
causes
causes
causes

(cid:131) Definition of necessary
(cid:131) Definition of necessary
(cid:131) Definition of necessary
(cid:131) Definition of necessary

interventions in order to fill the 
interventions in 
interventions in order to fill the 
interventions in 
gaps and realign results to the 
gaps and realign results to the 
gaps and realign results to the 
gaps and realign results to the 
objectives
objectives
objectives
objectives

(cid:131) Activities planning adjustment
(cid:131) Activities planning adjustment
(cid:131) Activities planning adjustment
(cid:131) Activities planning adjustment

11
11

22
22

Action plan
Action plan

Implementation
Implementation

(cid:131) Translation of the Commission’s 
(cid:131) Translation of the Commission’s 
(cid:131) Translation of the Commission’s 
(cid:131) Translation of the Commission’s 
Policy into operative  actions to
Policy into operative  actions to
Policy into operative  actions to
Policy into operative  actions to
be undertaken by single Member
be undertaken by single Member
be undertaken by single Member
be undertaken by single Member
States
States
States
States

(cid:131) Carrying out of the  actions
(cid:131) Carrying out of the  actions
(cid:131) Carrying out of the  actions
(cid:131) Carrying out of the  actions

above
above
above
above

CONTROL SYSTEM
CONTROL SYSTEM
CONTROL SYSTEM
CONTROL SYSTEM

5
5
5
5

Evaluation
Evaluation

Monitoring
Monitoring

3
3
3
3

Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting

4
4
4
4

Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning

Control
Control
Control
Control

(cid:131) Systematic and 
and 
and 
(cid:131) Systematic and 
(cid:131)
(cid:131)

continuous monitoring of 
continuous monitoring of 
continuous monitoring of 
continuous monitoring of 
Member States’ actions in 
Member States’ actions in 
Member States’ actions in 
Member States’ actions in 
order to evaluate to what
order to evaluate to what
order to evaluate to what
order to evaluate to what
extent policy’s objectives
extent policy’s objectives
extent policy’s objectives
extent policy’s objectives
are being pursued
are being pursued
are being pursued
are being pursued

(cid:131) Periodic elaboration of 
(cid:131) Periodic elaboration of 
(cid:131) Periodic elaboration of 
(cid:131) Periodic elaboration of 

reports based on the key
reports based on the key
reports based on the key
reports based on the key
indicators identified in 
indicators identified in 
indicators identified in 
indicators identified in 
the Impact  Assessment
the Impact  Assessment
the Impact  Assessment
the Impact  Assessment

(cid:131) Transmission of the 
(cid:131) Transmission of the 
(cid:131) Transmission of the 
(cid:131) Transmission of the 

reports to the 
reports to the 
reports to the 
reports to the 
Commission
Commission
Commission
Commission

Source: PwC analysis of EU Impact Assessment guidelines 

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 13 

The influence of PRM measures on ticket fares: The United Kingdom experience 

UK Disability Discrimination Act 1995 

In 1995 the UK adopted the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which aims to eliminate discrimination against 
disabled people. The duties on service providers under Part 3 of DDA 1995 have been introduced in three stages: 

Since 1996 it has been unlawful for service providers to: 

treat disabled people less favourably than other people for reasons related to their disability.  

Since October 1999 service providers, have been required to take reasonable steps to: 

change any practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people 
to use a service; and 

provide an auxiliary aid or service which would enable disabled people to use a service. 

Since 1 October 2004 service providers have been required by law to take reasonable steps: 

to ensure that any physical feature that makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a 
port should be removed or altered or a reasonable means of avoiding it should be provided. 

1. 

2. 

As  indicated  in  the  table  above,  most  of  the  investment  by  industry  operators  to 
comply with DDA 1995 was needed by the end of 1999 and by October 2004. 

Table  below  and  Figure  1  show  the  fluctuation  in  the  consumer  price  index  for 
passenger  transport  services  by  sea  and  inland  waterway  in  the  UK  and  EU-27, 
taking 2000 as the reference year.  

Consumer price index for “Passenger transport by sea and inland waterway” in the UK and EU-27 (2000 = base 
year) 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

United Kingdom 

EU-27  

100 

100 

108.1 

104.9 

111.8 

109.6 

122.1 

112.6 

118.1 

110.4 

109.3 

110.1 

116.9 

116.9 

Source: PwC analysis of Eurostat harmonised indices of consumer prices (2007) 

3. 

As shown in Figure 1, prices for these types of transport services increased more in 
the  UK  than  in  the  EU-27  for  the  period  until  2003.  After  2003,  prices  decreased 
more rapidly in the UK than in the EU-27. Finally, it is very interesting to note that 
in 2006 the prices for maritime passenger transport services were 16.9% higher than 
in 2000, with no difference between the UK and the EU-27. 

Figure 1 Consumer price index for “Passenger transport by sea and inland waterway” in the UK and EU-27 (2000 = 
base year) 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
  
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80

United Kingdom

EU 27 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Source: PwC analysis of Eurostat harmonised indices of consumer prices (2007) 

4. 

Price variations for a specific transport service can be explained by many exogenous 
factors  such  as  inflation,  oil  price  fluctuation,  labour  cost,  or  development  of  new 
technologies. However, over the six-year period considered, all the above factors are 
likely to have had a similar influence on both the EU-27 market and the UK market, 
which is a part of it. Therefore, it can be deduced that the extra costs borne by UK 
terminal and ship operators in order to comply with DDA 1995 did not result in any 
significant increase in ticket fares. 

EN 

121 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 14 

Bibliography and documentation used for this impact assessment 

Deloitte Touche. Tourism for All in Europe. 1993. 

European  Commission.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament 
and 
the  European  Union. 
COM/2005/0046 final. 

the  Council  —  Strengthening  passenger  rights  within 

European  Commission.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European 
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 
—  Situation  of  disabled  people  in  the  enlarged  European  Union:  the  European  Action  Plan 
2006-2007. COM/2005/0604 final. 

European  Commission.  A  Single  Market  for  Citizens  —  interim  report  to  the  2007  Spring 
European Council. Brussels. COM (2007) 60, 21.2.2007. 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Transport:  COST  335  —  Passengers’ 
Accessibility of Heavy Rail Systems. 1999. 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Transport  and  Energy.  Evaluation  and 
monitoring of trends with regard to passenger needs on the level of service and treatment of 
passengers (“EU Service Guarantees — EUSG”). December 2006. 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Transport  and  Energy.  Maritime  and  inland 
waterway  transport,  Intermodality,  Short  Sea  Shipping,  Inland  Waterway,  and  Ports  “Public 
Financing and Charging Practices of Seaports in the EU”. Bremen. 2006b. 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Transport  and  Energy.  Maritime  passenger 
traffic in Europe: a picture of the ferry and RoRo sector. 2007. 

IMO. Circular MSC/735: “Recommendation on the design and operation of passenger ships to 
respond to elderly and disabled persons’ needs”. June 1996. 

INFRAS/IWW. External costs of transport. 2004 

PricewaterhouseCoopers.  Analysis  of  data  from  Eurostat  and  One-Stop-Shop  for  Accessible 
Tourism  in  Europe  (OSSATE):  “Accessibility  Market  and  Stakeholder  Analysis”  (October 
2005). 

PricewaterhouseCoopers.  Preparatory  study  in  view  of  an  impact  assessment  on  a 
Commission  proposal  on  the  rights  of  passengers  with  reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by 
sea and inland waterway. October 2007. 

SEER,  Barry  R.  “Discrimination  begins  at  home:  The  case  for  universal  design  of  private 
housing”. 2002. 

TiS.pt.  Analysis  and  assessment  of  the  level  of  protection  of  passenger  rights  in  the  EU 
maritime transport sector. Lisbon, October 2006. 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
Steer  Davies  Gleave.  Assessment  of  contract  conditions  and  preferential  tariff  schemes, 
September 2008 

EN 

123 

   EN