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 - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 816 final} {SEC(2008) 2950}
Date: 2008-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, consumer protection, maritime transport, transport law, transport regulations

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2951 

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 

Summary of the Impact Assessment 

{COM(2008) 816 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2950} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
SUMMARY 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Organisation  

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  to 
establish  a  legislation  granting  passengers  general  rights.  It  focuses  on  the  main  areas  of 
concern highlighted by the Commission in its policy documents, namely: the rights of persons 
with  reduced  mobility  (hereinafter  referred  as  to  PRMs);  quality  of  service;  assistance  and 
compensation to passengers when a travel is interrupted in the event of delay or cancellation; 
the right to information; and non-discrimination issues. 

Consultation and expertise 

In 2005-2006, DG TREN commissioned an independent study that examined the current level 
of protection of passengers rights in the EU maritime transport sector that were being affected 
by disruptions. The European Commission also launched a public consultation in 2006. The 
conclusion  for  both  of  these  actions  was  that  there  should  be  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 border. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The problems for PRMs as passengers 

A  large  majority  (79%)  of  the  citizens  living  in  the  European  Union  consider  that  being 
disabled  is  a  disadvantage.  There  is  a  clear  consensus  across  all  Member  States  (91%)  that 
more  should  be  done,  and  more  money  needs  to  be  spent,  on  improving  accessibility.  In 
transport services, the rights of PRMs cannot be limited to accessibility of means of transport, 
as  they  also  include  non-discrimination,  seamless  assistance  throughout  their  journey  and 
information. 

The problems of the maritime sector for EU passengers 

Effective protection of the rights of the passengers when travelling by sea or inland waterway 
affects the  entire  maritime sector: i.e. national  traffic,  intra Community traffic, international 
traffic and cruise ship traffic. 

The  opening  up  of  the  market  has  not  had  the  anticipated  effect  of  raising  the  quality  of 
standards  and  services,  including  better  passenger  rights  and  user-friendly  means  of  settling 
disputes. Passengers, who have to cope with different procedures and deadlines, depending on 
the company, need to be able to avail themselves of common procedures in order to express 
their  dissatisfaction,  where  necessary.  The  lack  of  common  procedures  isolates  passengers 
and prevents them from expressing their dissatisfaction when they need to do so. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
The underlying drivers of the problem  

–  There is a lack of uniformity regarding the extent and depth of passenger rights protection.  

–  There is no common framework regarding immediate and predefined solutions in the cases 

of cancellation and delay.  

–  Passengers  in  general  and  PRMs  passengers  in  particular  are  not  informed  in  case  of  a 

critical event. 

–  Potential  discrimination  against  PRMs  exists  as  well  as  lack  of  dedicated  facilities  in 

maritime transport.  

Who is affected and how? 

The  number  of  passengers  using  maritime  transport  is  increasing  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. In 2006, the annual total number of maritime passengers for the countries 
considered  was  estimated  at  199  million,  of  which  nearly  60%  in  national  traffic,  35%  in 
intra-Community traffic and the remainder being split between international and cruise travel. 
The total number of PRMs in EU-27 was around 136.2 million persons in 20051.  

Does the EU have the right to act? 

Passenger  protection,  and  in  particular  the  protection  of  the  most  vulnerable  groups  of 
passengers, is part of the internal market and the common transport policies of the European 
Union.  The  single  market  is  deemed  to  be  established  when  consumers  and  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 transport and rail transport 
sectors2. Moreover, a proposal for a Regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by bus 
and coach is currently in inter-service consultation. 

Passengers and industry need a common set of principles governing liability across all modes 
of  transport:  liability  in  case  of  accidents;  information  and  quality  protection  of  disabled 
people and persons with reduced mobility; assistance and reimbursement in the event of delay 
and cancellation. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

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

1 

2 

PwC analysis of data from Eurostat and One-Stop-Shop for Accessible Tourism in Europe (OSSATE): 
“Accessibility Market and Stakeholder Analysis”.  
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 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

OPTIONS 

"Business as usual" (Option 1)  

No  action  whatsoever  is  being  undertaken  at  EU  level,  and  the  existing  situation,  with  its 
divergent national and international laws, is being perpetuated. 

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

Another option that could be envisaged is regulatory action at EU level, as this is binding and 
immediately  applicable.  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. Such an EU act would: 

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

board ships, and information requirements 

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

cancellation or delays 

•  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.  

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

In this scenario, the EU regulation is confined to promoting a common "soft-law" framework 
for the Member States. This soft-law framework would be based on best practices and would 
provide a benchmark for national laws to enforce the rights of passengers when travelling by 
sea and inland waterway. 

Voluntary agreements (Option 4) 

The efficiency of voluntary agreements in passenger transport is highly debatable: the 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 very limited success of agreements of this type.  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT 

Option 1: Business as usual  

Operators,  ports,  administrations  and  local  authorities  bear  no  additional  costs  under  this 
policy option. However, they could ultimately lose out, as no additional traffic would come 
their  way.  Without  measures  in  favour  of  passengers  travelling  by  boat,  passenger  numbers 
are not likely to increase.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
A  further  impact  on  operators,  ports,  administrations  and  local  authorities  in  the  EU  and 
outside the EU is the cost due to discrepancies between national laws. 

Option 2: Community legislative intervention 

(1) 

Cost of measures as regard PRMs 

An  acceptable  level  of  accessibility  in  ports  can  be  achieved  at  minimal  cost  to  operators 
whenever a terminal is subject to a major refurbishment, or is newly built. 

As regards  the  cost of assistance in ports, the only costs that may need to be borne  by  ship 
operators will be for training courses. Carriers are already required to provide training courses 
for their personnel on “assistance on ships”. The estimated yearly cost for training front office 
employees is about €2.9m. Nevertheless, in the in terest of improving awareness, back office 
personnel  might  also  be  required  to  attend  these  training  courses.  In  this  specific  case,  the 
additional cost has been calculated at about €1m.  

Information obligations can be considered to be a minor cost, as this item can be added as part 
of other information already produced / disseminated by operators.  

(2) 

Cost of measures when travel is interrupted in the event of delay or cancellation 

The  actions  oriented  towards  defining  compensation  schemes  and  towards  providing 
information to make passengers aware of their rights are unlikely to involve excessive costs, 
although this is hard to predict. Nevertheless, the effects on revenue and profits are likely to 
be  insignificant;  moreover  the  impact  on  the  competitiveness  of  Community  companies 
should be slight, as all operators involved in the sector would be covered. 

(3) 

Costs deriving from the obligations to provide information 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  obligation  to  provide  information  will  give  rise  to  any  particular 
additional costs for the operators. 

(4) 

Cost of complaint handling service and monitoring 

The  process  of  managing  the  settlement  of  disputes  is  not  expected  to  lead  to  any  major 
additional economic burdens for the operators.  

(5) 

Impact on maritime passengers  

The increased costs may lead either to a reduction in operating margins for ship operators or 
to an increase in passenger fares. Any impact on ticket fares would depend on the additional 
costs that ship operators would have to face.  

(6) 

Impact on the tourism industry  

The measures proposed are likely to have a beneficial impact on the competitive position of 
EU businesses.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

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

The  anticipated  benefits  and  costs  deriving  from  the  proposed  measures  will  depend  on  the 
extent to which EU Member States commit to adopting national rules, and to enforcing them. 
A  positive  impact  on  the  tourism  industry  is  expected  where  national  measures  apply. 
However,  potential  additional  revenues  from  tourism  would  be  lower  than  under  option  2, 
since  services  would  be  fully  accessible  only  in  Member  States  that  fully  adhere  to  the  EU 
recommendations.  

Option 4: Voluntary agreements 

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

6. 

ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT 

Option 1: Business as usual 

Passengers'  confidence  in  other  modes  of  transport,  based  on  rights  already  approved  at 
Community level, would turn into mistrust if maritime transport refuses to provide passengers 
with  this  minimum  level  of  uniformity,  clarity  and  effectiveness  as  regards  their  rights. 
Negative social consequences could eventually lead to job losses and a lack of integration of 
the elderly and the disabled.  

Option 2: Community legislative action 

Passengers  travelling  by  sea  and  inland  waterways  will  benefit  as  a  result  of  an  improved 
quality  of  service.  They  will  also  have  the  benefit  of  assistance  if  they  experience 
inconvenience during the journey.  

As regards additional employment in ports, an increasing number of passengers travelling by 
ship  may  necessitate  extra  staff  in  ports  and  passenger  terminals.  The  potential  number  of 
additional  employees  to  be  hired  in  ports  would  be  approximately  176  400  in  the  most 
conservative  case.  Additional  employment  in  the  tourism  sector  could  vary  from  nearly  12 
000 to over 24 000 FTEs. 

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

Under this option, the likely benefits and costs will depend on the level of commitment on the 
part of the EU Member States in adopting and enforcing the new rules. 

Option 4: Voluntary agreements 

The likely benefits and costs will depend on the level of commitment by operators in adopting 
passenger rights, accepting them if they are adopted collectively, and in any event respecting 
them in practice. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
7. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

Option 1: Business as usual 

If  maritime  transport  fails  to  meet  passenger  expectations  passengers  are  likely  to  express 
their  dissatisfaction  by  opting  for  an  alternative  mode  of  transport  where  one  is  available. 
Freight  transport  by  ship  is  eight  times  less  polluting  than  transport  by  air,  which  can  be 
considered  to  be  the  only  alternative  transport  solution.  The  environmental  cost  of  the  "no 
action" option is therefore considerable.  

Option 2: Community legislative intervention 

A  significantly  better  quality  of  services  for  passengers  would  increase  the  demand  for 
maritime transport. If the number of passengers were to increase, the main effects would be to 
increase average load factors and to allow better management of the existing European fleet. 
However,  if  the  number  of  maritime  transport  services  was  to  increase,  this  would  have  a 
marginal positive impact on the environment, as most new passengers would be coming over 
from other (more polluting) modes of transport.  

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

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

Option 4: Voluntary agreements 

Maritime  services  are  not  expected  to  improve.  The  outcome  would  be  similar  to  Option  3 
above. 

8. 

ADMINISTRATIVE COST 

The entity responsible for enforcement and monitoring of the proposed rules and for dealing 
with complaints would be very similar in terms of the scope of its activity, tasks and structure 
to the one designated by each Member State to enforce the “Regulation on International Rail 
Passengers’  Rights  and  Obligations”3  or  the  “Regulation  on  Air  Passengers’  Rights”.4  The 
experience  already  gained  in  air  transport  is  therefore  very  valuable  in  this  case.  The  total 
predictable cost would be some €568 000 for the EU.  

3 

4 

COM(2004) 143. 
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. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

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.  

Judging  by  the  example  of  other  transport  modes,  it  is  apparent  that  a  real  improvement  in 
passenger  protection  can  only  be  achieved  at  EU  level.  While  the  benefit  for  passengers  is 
evident,  harmonising  basic  rights  also  confers  a  considerable  advantage  on  the  transport 
industry  operating  in  a  single  market.  Piecemeal  national  rules  enshrined  in  disconnected 
pieces  of  legislation  and  contracts  tend  to  generate  adaptation  costs  and  restrict  the 
geographical flexibility of operators to make use of staff and means of transport. 

EN 

8 

   EN