REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL REFIT Adjusting Course: EU Passenger Ship Safety Legislation Fitness Check
Date: 2015-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU law, carriage of passengers, inland transport, international convention, international standard, international transport, maritime safety, safety standard, vessel

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.10.2015  COM(2015) 508 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL REFIT Adjusting Course: EU Passenger Ship Safety Legislation Fitness Check {SWD(2015) 197 final}  
 
 
1. 

Introduction 

1.1.  Why a fitness check on Passenger Ship Safety legislation? 

Given  that  23  out  of  28  Member  States  are  coastal  countries,  with  four  being  island  states, 
passenger  ships  play  an  important  role  in  the  mobility  of  EU  citizens.  On  average,  it  is 
estimated  that more than 400 million people pass  through EU ports every year.  120 million 
passengers are transported by domestic passenger ships, i.e. ships sailing between ports of the 
same Member State.   

The EU legislation on Passenger Ship Safety has been put in place over a period of 15 years 
mainly in response to accidents. This has resulted in a set of Directives driven and shaped by 
the circumstances in which they were drafted. Although they serve the same overall purpose, 
i.e.  to  ensure  a  common,  high  level  of  passenger  ship  safety,  they  do  not  create  a  fully 
coherent  framework.  Each  Directive  has  a  different  scope  and  applies  to  different  types  of 
ships  and  voyages.  More  importantly,  the  past  decade  has  brought  about  technological 
development  that  rendered  some  of  the  existing  provisions  outdated  and  unnecessarily 
burdensome.  

Previous evaluations and consultations failed to gather sufficient evidence to shed light on the 
implementation and revealed poor data availability, especially in terms of national passenger 
ships fleet and safety records. The Commission, together with the European Maritime Safety 
Agency  (EMSA),  national  administrations  and  an  external  contractor,  has  therefore 
undertaken a more systematic and comprehensive fitness check of the legislative framework 
in  place.  While  more  data  became  available  over  time,  this  fitness  check  has  also  been  an 
occasion  to  collect  further  information  and  carry  out  additional  consultations,  desk  analysis 
and case studies.  

For  the  first  time,  extensive  quantitative  data  was  gathered  in  a  reliable  and  proportionate 
manner. Although the available data did not allow for the carrying out of a fully-fledged cost-
benefit  analysis  on  every  single  regulatory  requirement,  they  are  considered  to  provide  an 
informative  input  to  the  fitness  check  analysis;  and  a  sufficient  basis  for  the  subsequent 
review and monitoring processes the Commission proposes to undertake. 

1.2. 

Scope of the fitness check 

The  safety  of  passenger  ships  in  the  EU  is  regulated  at  three  levels:  international,  EU  and 
national. The EU passenger ship safety legislation has been set in place to address potential 
safety  risks  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  international  standards  do  not  apply  to  domestic 
voyages  or  that  they  are  insufficient.  It  addresses  the  difficulties  in  search  and  rescue  of 
passengers of ships in distress, aims at achieving a common safety level and ensures that the 
safety standards are correctly applied. 

For  ships  engaged  in  international  voyages  (i.e.  including  between  two  EU  Member  States 
and  therefore  subject  to  port  State  control1),  international  conventions  and  certain  EU  rules 

1  

Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (OJ L 131, 
28.5.2009, p.57–100) 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
apply.  For ships engaged in domestic voyages (i.e. between ports of the same Member State), 
EU and national rules apply.  
The  most  extensive  EU  legislative  instrument  is  Directive  2009/45/EC2,  which  covers 
passenger ships made of steel or equivalent material and high speed craft. Where applicable 
and  feasible,  it  is  based  on  internationally  agreed  standards,  namely  the  International 
Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Life  At  Sea  (SOLAS)3.  In  addition,  Directives  2003/25/EC, 
1999/35/EC  and  98/41/EC  provide  for  specific  EU  rules  that  apply  to  roll-on  roll-off 
passenger  ships  (known  as  ro-pax  ships)4,  high  speed  craft  (HSC)5  and  the  registration  of 
persons on board. 

This  is  a  complex  architecture  that  requires  the  use  of  modern,  comprehensive  better 
regulation tools such as fitness checks. The following table provides an overview of the four 
EU  Directives  that  have  been  chosen  for  this  fitness  check  and  that  represent  a  set  of  key 
safety standards and requirements for passenger ships sailing in the EU waters:   

Table 1: EU passenger ship safety legal framework: Directives in scope of the fitness 
check  

Content 

Voyage 

Ships 

Application 

Scope 

Directive 

Safety standards  

Domestic  

2009/45/EC 

Surveys 

(general) 

Directive 
2003/25/EC8 

Safety standards  

(specific: stability 
requirements for 
ro-pax) 

Domestic 
and 
international 

(a) Passenger ships 
made of steel and 
equivalent 
material6;  

(b) HSC 

All ships irrespective 
of size (flexibility for 
ships below 24 m of 
length) 
Classes (A, B, C, D)7 

Ro-ro passenger 
ships 

International: Regular 
service 

Domestic: Class A, B 
and C  

2  

3  

4  

5  
6  
7  

8  

Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council  on safety rules and standards for 
passenger ships (OJ L 163, 25.6.2009, p.1) 
This Convention was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and ratified by all EU 
Member States 
Roll-on/roll-off  vessels  are  designed  to  carry  wheeled  cargo,  such  as  trucks,  trailers  and  cars  that  are 
driven on and off the ship on their own wheels or using a platform vehicle. If they carry more than 12 
passengers in addition to vehicles they are called ro-pax vessels 
As defined in SOLAS Chapter X Reg. 1.3 
For the sake of simplicity, referred to hereinafter as "steel ships" 
Passenger ships are classified in four different classes according to the sea areas where they can operate, 
depending on parameters such as the distance to coast. While Class A ships do not have any limitation 
with regard to distance to coast in which they can operate, for Class D ships the distance is limited to 3 
nautical miles (ca. 5,6 km) 
Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific stability requirements 
for ro-ro passenger ships (OJ L 123, 17.05.2003, p.22) 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Directive 
1999/35/EC9 

Surveys  

(specific: ro-pax 
and HSC in regular 
service) 

Domestic 
and 
international  

(a) Ro-ro passenger 
ships;  

Regular service only 

Domestic: Class A  

(b) HSC 

Directive 
98/41/EC10 

Safety standards 

Surveys  

Domestic 
and 
international 

(specific: 
registration of 
persons on board) 

Source: Commission, 2015 

All passenger ships  Length of the voyage 

(below 20 nautical 
miles only counting of 
persons on board) 

1.3.  What do stakeholders say? 

Stakeholders  agree  that  the  passenger  ship  safety  legislative  framework  is  important  in 
improving safety while facilitating a level playing field. In the most recent public consultation 
on  maritime  strategy,  59%  of  stakeholders  agreed  that  the  existing  international  and  EU 
legislative framework on ship safety is adequate (with 26% expressing no opinion).  

Nevertheless, stakeholders highlighted a set of problems related to the varied implementation 
of  the  passenger  ship  safety  legal  framework,  pointing  to  the  complexity  and  the  lack  of 
clarity  in  a  number  of  definitions  and  requirements,  overlaps  and  outdated  reporting 
requirements.  

Stakeholders  also  questioned  the  proportionality  and  adequacy  of  safety  requirements  for 
small  steel  ships  and  unintended  consequences  concerning  ships  outside  the  scope  of  the 
current legal framework. This has led to a plea to improve the current regulatory framework 
by  simplifying  rules,  thereby  facilitating  administration  and  enforcement  and  eliminating 
unnecessary costs. 

2. 

Key evaluation questions 

2.1. 

Is the EU passenger ship safety legal framework fit for purpose? 

The  EU  passenger  ship  safety  legal  framework  is  largely  fit  for  purpose.  It  has  resulted  in 
improved safety of life on passenger ships sailing in EU waters and contributed to developing 
internal market in maritime transport. There is however scope for further enhancing the level 
of safety as well as the efficiency and proportionality of some of the regulatory requirements. 
The domestic passenger ships governed by EU safety standards11 account for around 30% in 
terms of number of vessels engaged in domestic traffic in EU waters, but more than 60% of 

9  

10  

11  

Council Directive 1999/35/EC on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro 
ferry and high-speed passenger craft services (OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p.1) 
Council Directive 98/41/EC on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships operating to 
or from ports of the Member States of the Community (OJ L 188, 2.7.1998, p.35) 
I.e. under Directive 2009/45/EC 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
total passenger capacity. The majority of passengers therefore travel on ships complying with 
common safety standards which ensure a common safety level. One third of passengers travel 
on ships certified according to national standards, these are in the main, smaller, tailor-made 
ships made of composite materials or wood (ca. 12% and 18% respectively).  

Out  of  the  408  accidents  registered  as  involving  domestic  passenger  ships  during  the  last  4 
years,  only  one  has  resulted  in  a  fatality  of  a  passenger12.  The  corresponding  risk  per 
passenger hour is lower than for international passenger ships. Although the consequences of 
accidents of the EU domestic fleet were less serious than for international passenger ships, the 
accident frequency was higher. This comes as no surprise given that in the coastal areas the 
traffic is more intense and there are more shallow waters where grounding can occur.  

The EU passenger ship safety legislation also facilitated the free movement of ships between 
EU  Member  States.  The  evidence  demonstrates  that  the  change  of  flag  increased  by  400% 
since  199813.  While  acknowledging  that  there  were  other  reasons  for  this  increase  (such  as 
increased  demand  for  and  availability  of  vessels  on  the  second  hand  market),  the  EU 
legislation certainly contributed to this trend.  

Although some national administrations alluded to the fact that the EU legislation may have 
led  to  increase  in  the  building  of  non-steel  ships  driven  by  less  stringent  national  safety 
standards, no evidence has been demonstrated that this was the case14. On the contrary, other 
stakeholders suggested the opposite and called for the development of harmonised EU safety 
standards  for  ships  currently  outside  the  scope  of  EU  legislation  (i.e.  ships  built  from  non-
steel or equivalent materials such as composite). 

2.2.  What  drives  and  hinders  the  effectiveness  of  the  EU  passenger  ship  safety 

legislation? 

Given that ship safety standards are subject to continuous improvement, the effectiveness of 
the EU passenger ship safety legislation is driven by regular updates in view of lessons learnt 
and of scientific progress. Regular review also ensures that safety standards are applied in a 
common manner and remain commensurate to the level of risk.  

The  effectiveness  of  the  EU  passenger  ship  safety  legislation  has  been  hindered  by  its 
complexity and ambiguity of application (namely as regards the ships falling within its scope 
of  application);  outdated  reporting  obligations  (which  do  not  exploit  current  digital 
monitoring and information systems); unclear presentation of the technical safety  standards; 
and  low  speed  and  difficulty  of  the  update  and  exemption  procedures.  These  weaknesses 
rendered  monitoring,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  safety  standards  suboptimal  and 
unnecessarily difficult.  

12  

13  
14  

It should be noted that these statistics do not include such high profile cases as (for example) the Costa 
Concordia  (2012)  or  the  Norman  Atlantic  (2014)  casualties  as  these  relate  to  ships  engaged  in 
international  voyages  (and  therefore  not  falling  under  safety  requirements  harmonised  by  Directive 
2009/45/EC, applying to domestic voyages only) 
I.e. the entry into force of Directive 98/18/EC, a predecessor of Directive 2009/45/EC 
I.e.  the  choice  of  building  a  ship  in  steel  or  other  material  is  primarily  driven  by  the  price  and 
characteristics of the chosen material  

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
Furthermore, the awareness of passengers about the EU passenger ship safety legislation and 
its  benefits  remain  lower  than  expected.  This  may  be  linked  to  the  relatively  low  level  of 
organisation of passengers in maritime transport.  

2.3. 

Have the risks been managed in an efficient and proportionate manner?  

As  evidenced  by  the  accident  statistics,  the  existing  legislation  has  achieved  a  high  level  of 
passenger  safety.  The  regulatory  cost  related  to  EU  safety  standards  have  not  proved  to  be 
substantial in comparison to national standards that would have been needed otherwise. The 
estimated  differences  in  regulatory  costs  represent  merely  a  minor  fraction  compared  to  the 
total construction, operation and maintenance costs.  

For example, the sum of the additional costs for the quantifiable part of firefighting measures, 
life-saving  appliances  and  initial  surveys  can  be  as  low  as  EUR  100.000  for  a  larger  ship, 
while construction costs are measured in tens if not hundreds of millions. In relative terms the 
same applies for smaller ships. 

The difference in costs of updating safety standards at national level against EU level is also 
remarkable.  An  update  of  national  legislation,  if  done  individually  by  every  concerned 
Member  State,  would  entail  a  cumulative  assessment  cost  for  national  administrations  of 
between EUR 150.000 - 200.000. This is some ten times more than at present, when standards 
are updated at the EU level. 

On the other  hand, the overlaps and inconsistencies  between the various inspection regimes 
applicable to ro-ro passenger ships in the EU (i.e. ro-pax inspections, flag State surveys and 
port  State  controls)  prevent  national  administrations  from  fully  optimising  their  inspection 
efforts. They also prevent the maximisation of the time during which the ship is commercially 
exploited. If the different kinds of inspections were combined to the extent possible, 770 self-
standing  ro-pax  inspections  could  be  saved  every  year  for  the  entire  EU  (if  the  same 
routes/ships continued in service as today). 

The  approval  of  passenger  registration  systems,  generating  significant  workload  for  some 
national administrations (e.g. 4250 working hours in Greece compared to 100 working hours 
in Italy), has proven very burdensome. Such workload and the corresponding cost have been 
evaluated as excessive. 

Finally,  the  complexity  of  the  regime  and  overlapping  requirements  spread  across  different 
pieces of legislation constitutes an important irritant and cost factor for all actors. 

2.4. 

Has the principle of subsidiarity been complied with, ie. can the objectives be better 
achieved by Member States acting alone? 

In general, EU passenger ship safety legislation complies with the principle of subsidiarity. It 
is however proven that the existing safety standards for small steel ships below 24 m in length 
have to be further assessed against the identified safety and internal market objectives. Given 
that small ships are built mainly from materials other than steel, the vast majority of this fleet 
is currently not covered by the harmonised EU safety standards (96%). This implies that most 
of vessels below 24 m are already certified under national legislation.  

The accidents recorded for small ships outside the scope of EU standards do not demonstrate 
any  specific  safety  concern  (5  fatalities  over  the  last  4  years,  all  of  them  occupational 

6 

 
 
 
 
accidents). Furthermore, even for those ships covered by EU standards, there are practically 
no flag changes between Member States.  

The wide range of services that these vessels  are built for (e.g. daily or overnight  passages, 
touristic daily cruising, calling to ports with specific constrains or infrastructures) produces a 
very broad range of designs and technical solutions. This makes identifying a common set of 
detailed  rules  fitting  such  a  variety  of  services  for  smaller  vessels  extremely  challenging. 
Member States should be therefore in a better position to assess the sensitivity of these ships 
to  the  local  operational  conditions  that  vastly  differ  throughout  the  EU.  On  the  other  hand, 
some  shipyards15  highlighted  that  developing  EU  standards  for  all  small  ships  (i.e. 
irrespectively  of  the  material  they  are  built  from)  would  allow  them  to  sell  their  products 
smoothly and quickly in all EU Member States.  

2.5.  Would  international  safety  standards  have  been  more  effective  or  efficient  than the 

current EU standards? 

As  regards  domestic  voyages,  it  is  unlikely  that  international  standards  would  be  more 
effective or efficient than the current EU standards. International IMO standards do not apply.  
In  the  absence  of  EU  standards,  Member  States  would  have  either  to  develop  their  own 
legislation or to adopt international rules, which are however not fully adequate for domestic 
voyages  and  would  need  to  be  adapted  accordingly.  This  would  also  necessitate  regular 
updates to keep track of new developments in shipbuilding technology.16 In any case, neither 
a  common  safety  level  would  be  achieved,  nor  internal  market  facilitated.  In  addition,  EU 
standards  provide  for  access  for  persons  with  reduced  mobility,  an  element  which  is 
recommended, but not mandatory in international standards. 

The situation for international voyages is different. Full reliance on the relevant international 
standards  would  be  more  effective  and  efficient,  provided  that  they  guarantee  an  adequate 
level  of  safety.  However,  this  may  not  always  be  the  case.  Therefore,  having  for  example 
more stringent damage stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships sailing to or from EU 
ports17  is  considered the best  solution.  This  is  currently  delivering the  adequate  safety  level 
for this type of ship, prevalent in the EU.  

Finally, in the  absence of an enforcement  mechanism at international level, the existing  EU 
inspection  regimes  applicable  to  both  domestic  and  international  passenger  ships  remain  a 
pre-requisite  for  maintaining  a  high  standard  of  safety  of  life  for  passenger  ships  and 
eliminating substandard shipping. 

3. 

Results of the fitness check 

This fitness check showed that the key objectives of the EU passenger ship safety legislation 
related  to  passenger  safety  and  internal  market  remain  highly  relevant.  However,  it  also 

15  

16  

17  

Namely  in  Denmark  and  Portugal.  National  experts  from  Croatia  and  Sweden  expressed  a  similar 
opinion 
To note that the relevant national legislation in some Member States is based on international standards 
that are no longer in force 
As defined by Directive 2003/25/EC in the aftermath of the Estonia accident in September 1994 

7 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
revealed  that  these  objectives  can,  in  some  instances,  be  delivered  in  a  simpler  and  clearer 
manner. 

The potential to simplify, clarify and repeal a number of ambiguous, outdated or overlapping 
requirements has been identified in certain areas: 

 

 

 

Complexity and administrative burden: Mandatory surveys for the safe operation 
of regular ro-ro ferries have been found to significantly overlap with other types of 
surveys  and  inspections  (namely  flag  State  surveys  and  port  State  control 
inspections).  Member  States  have  implemented  these  requirements  in  a  pragmatic 
way,  which  means  that  the  current  legal  framework  no  longer  reflects  the  state  of 
affairs. The complexity of the EU passenger ship safety legislation is aggravated by 
an outdated format of the safety standards for domestic passenger ships18 that have 
become  over  time  extremely  difficult  to  compare  against  the  existing  international 
requirements.  

Ambiguity and lack of transparency: The fitness check revealed that a number of 
provisions, definitions and requirements are ambiguous to such extent that in certain 
cases they may hinder an effective implementation of the legislation. These relate in 
particular to the scope and application of the harmonised EU standards, such as the 
type of ships covered or regularity of inspections.  

Disproportionate  requirements:  Small  ships  are  defined  as  less  than  24m  long. 
This definition is considered the most appropriate in defining commonly applicable 
technical  safety  standards.  As  small  ships  are  more  sensitive  to  local  operational 
conditions, Member States should be in a better position to assess the concrete risks 
and  to  define  the  corresponding  safety  standards.  Furthermore,  unlike  for  bigger 
ships, small ships tend to be operated in the same Member State until the end of their 
operational life and their transfer between Member States is limited. The prescriptive 
EU  standards  applicable  to  small  steel  ships  only  (i.e.  covering  ca.  70  out  of  1950 
small  ships)  have  been  evaluated  as  disproportionate  and  do  not  provide  sufficient 
EU  added  value  to  be  retained.  However,  in  order  to  facilitate  access  for  EU 
manufacturers  to  the  wider  EU  market,  some  stakeholders  raised  the  possibility  of 
developing guidelines or a code for all small vessels. 

In addition to the identified simplification potential, the fitness check also revealed a number 
of issues that unnecessarily reduce the effectiveness of search and rescue operations: 

 

18  
19  

Outdated support for search and rescue operations: While experience has shown 
that  an  effective  search  and  rescue operation  requires  immediate  access  to  accurate 
data  as  regards  the  persons  on  board,  this  is  not  always  the  case.  According  to  the 
current requirements, this information has to be stored in the company's system and 
be  –  at  all  times  –  readily  available  for  transmission  to  the  competent  authority 
responsible  for  search  and  rescue.  This  requirement,  dating  to  1998,  ignores  the 
development of systems such as SafeSeaNet19 and the National Single Window20 and 

I.e. the Annex to Directive 2009/45/EC 
Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community vessel 
traffic monitoring and information system (OJ L 208 of 5.8.2002, p.10-27) 

8 

 
 
                                                 
necessitates that the national competent authority contacts the shipping company in 
the event of an emergency. Furthermore, the recorded data does not always include 
information  on  nationality  (i.e.  besides  name,  age  and  sex),  making  the  assistance 
provided  to  victims  and  their  relatives  unnecessarily  burdensome.  Operators  that 
already transmit such data to SafeSeaNet or the National Single Window are exposed 
to double reporting regime.  

Finally,  the  fitness  check  identified  a  number  of  other,  substantial  issues  related  to  the 
adequacy and proportionality of existing safety standards:  

 

issues  necessitating  further  assessment:  These 

Safety-related 
issues  will 
necessitate  further  assessment  and  consultations  with  experts.  They  include  the 
differences  in  safety  requirements  between  the  different  classes  of  ships  and  the 
corresponding sea areas; the broader application of ro-pax inspection regime and the 
possibility  to  develop  harmonised  standards  for  ships  built  from  non-steel  or 
equivalent materials, currently not covered by the EU regulatory framework. 

Importantly,  some  of  these  issues  may  be  better  first  dealt  with  at  the  international 
level, before further action at the EU level can be envisaged, particularly as regards 
the review of applicable damage stability requirements. 

4. 

Follow-Up Actions  

4.1. 

First step 

The  Commission,  supported  by  EMSA  and  in  cooperation  with  Member  States  and 
stakeholders,  will  consider  proposing  a  simplified  regulatory  framework  for  EU  passenger 
ship safety and will promote the upgrade of damage stability standards at international level. 

Simplifying EU passenger ship safety regulatory framework: Without changing its policy 
objectives and the key delivery mechanisms, the Commission envisages to consider proposals 
in  view of removing  the outdated, ambiguous or  overlapping requirements identified in  this 
fitness check, most notably by: 

 

 

 

 

20  

Removing  overlaps  between  the  specific  surveys  under  Directive  1999/35/EC,  the 
expanded port State control inspections and the annual flag State surveys 

Clarifying that for the purposes of Directive 2009/45/EC: (a) aluminium is a material 
equivalent  to  steel  (under  clarified corresponding  fire  insulation  requirements);  and 
(b)  offshore  service  vessels  and  traditional  ships  fall  outside  the  scope  of  the 
Directive 

Clarifying  the  definitions  of  passenger  registration  requirements  in  Directive 
98/41/EC, such as length of the voyage  

Simplifying the sea areas definition in Directive 2009/45/EC  

Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting 
formalities  for  ships  arriving  in  and/or  departing  from  ports  of  the  Member  States  (OJ  L  283, 
29.10.2010, p.1-10) 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 

Simplifying the Annex of Directive 2009/45/EC to increase its readability 

The Commission will also consider proposals for removing the disproportionate requirements, 
in particular by: 

 

 

Excluding  passenger  ships  built  of  steel  or  equivalent  material  of  below  24  m  in 
length from the scope of Directive 2009/45/EC 

Eliminating  the  requirement  for  the  formal  approval  of  the  passenger  registration 
system  currently  provided  for  in  Directive  98/41/EC,  while  focusing  on  its  proper 
functioning 

In order to eliminate double reporting requirements and to improve the effectiveness of search 
and rescue operations, the Commission will consider providing for: 

 

 

Recording the information on the persons on board in an existing electronic system 
that in the event of an emergency or accident allows for an immediate transmission 
of data to the competent authority  

The  nationality  of  passengers  to  be  registered  and  transmitted  to  the  competent 
authority, using the same means and criteria as the ones in place for registering and 
transmitting the already required information on the persons on board 

Promoting the upgrade of international standards: At international level, the Commission, 
supported by EMSA and in cooperation with Member States and stakeholders, will promote 
the upgrade of international damage stability standards for passenger ships and will consider 
proposing the following to the International Maritime Organisation: 

 

 

Technical  submission  to  the  Formal  Safety  Assessment  expert  group  meeting  in 
November 2015 

EU  proposal  for  a  new  damage  stability  standard  (the  so  called  "R  index")  to  the 
Sub-Committee  on  Ship  Design  and  Construction  meeting  in  January  2016,  with  a 
view  of  finding  an  agreement  on  a  higher  standard  by  the  Maritime  Safety 
Committee in 2016 

4.2. 

Second step 

The  Commission  will  further  assess  a  number  of  other  safety  and  internal  market  related 
issues. In particular, it envisages to: 

 

 

 

Review the adequacy of differences in  safety  requirements between Class  C and  D 
ships under Directive 2009/45/EC and the corresponding sea areas 

Promote  the  application  of  specific  surveys  under  Directive  1999/35/EC  to  Classes 
B, C and D of ro-pax vessels engaged in regular services 

Assess  the  possibility  to  propose  amending  or  repealing  the  specific  EU  damage 
stability  requirements  for  ro-ro  passenger  ships21,  on  the  basis  of  international 
standards, if these will have been upgraded in a satisfactory manner for the EU   

21  

I.e. Directive 2003/25/EC 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
 

Consider developing guidelines or a code for small vessels and vessels built in non-
steel or equivalent materials, based on functional requirements 

This will require assistance, exchange of best practices and continuous monitoring of existing 
legislation. The Commission, in cooperation with EMSA, therefore envisages to:  

 

Establish  an  appropriate  framework  for  exchange  of  views  with  national 
administrations, industry stakeholders  and passenger  associations in  the area  of EU 
passenger ship safety 

Finally,  taking  well  into  account  the  identified  simplification  potential,  the  Commission 
envisages stepping up the enforcement of existing requirements with the assistance of EMSA 
and invites national administrations to join these efforts. 

11