COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport
Date: 2021-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: bus, consumer protection, disabled person, equal treatment, indemnification, passenger rights, public transport, transport safety, transport user

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2021  SWD(2021) 415 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport {SWD(2021) 416 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 
1.1.  Overall context of passenger rights ..................................................................................................... 3 
Purpose and scope of the evaluation ................................................................................................... 5 
1.2. 

Background to the intervention ....................................................................................................... 6 
2. 
2.1. 
Specific context of passenger rights in bus and coach transport ......................................................... 6 
2.2.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................................................... 7 
2.3.  Baseline and points of comparison ................................................................................................... 17 

3. 
Implementation / state of play........................................................................................................ 18 
3.1.  Description of the current situation ................................................................................................... 18 
3.2.  Member States implementation and monitoring ............................................................................... 20 
3.3.  Member States’ exemptions .............................................................................................................. 24 
3.4.  Major recent developments ............................................................................................................... 26 

4. 
4.1. 
4.2. 

Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 27 
Short description of methodology ..................................................................................................... 27 
Limitations and robustness of findings ............................................................................................. 28 

Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions ........................................................................ 29 
5. 
Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 29 
5.1. 
5.2. 
Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................... 41 
5.3.  Relevance .......................................................................................................................................... 49 
5.4.  Coherence ......................................................................................................................................... 52 
EU added value ................................................................................................................................. 58 
5.5. 

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 61 
6. 
Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 63 
6.1. 
6.2. 
Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................... 64 
6.3.  Relevance .......................................................................................................................................... 65 
6.4.  Coherence ......................................................................................................................................... 66 
EU added value ................................................................................................................................. 66 
6.5. 

Annex 1: Procedural information ............................................................................................................. 68 

Annex 2: Synopsis report of stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................... 70 

Annex 3: Methods and analytical models ................................................................................................. 80 

Annex 4: Review of the intervention logic ................................................................................................ 96 

Annex 5: Costs – benefits identified in the evaluation (Overview) ......................................................... 98 

Annex 6: Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................... 100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

 Glossary 

ADR 

CPC 

EC 

ECC 

EEA 

EU 

EU27 

EU+4 

FTE 

NEB 

ODR 

PRM 

PSO 

PSC 

SCM 

SMS 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Consumer Protection Cooperation 

European Commission  

European Consumer Centre 

European Economic Area 

European Union 

The 27 Member States of the EU after 31 January 2020, excluding 
the United Kingdom 

The  EU27  plus  Iceland,  Norway,  Switzerland  and  the  United 
Kingdom 

Full Time Equivalent (employees) 

National Enforcement Body 

Online Dispute Resolution 

Persons with disabilities or reduced mobility 

Public Service Obligation 

Public Service Contract 

Standard Cost Model 

Short Message Service 

TFEU 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Overall context of passenger rights 

Collective transport services are vital to stimulate economic growth, to enable social and 
territorial cohesion and to preserve the environment in the EU, and their quality affects 
directly  their  attractiveness  and  the  satisfaction  of  passengers.  Traditionally  passenger 
rights  were  mandated  through  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  contract  between 
passengers and carriers. This approach proved insufficient as very often it turned out to 
be  costly,  cumbersome  and  frustrating  for  passengers  to  defend  their  rights  vis-à-vis 
carriers. It is the reason why the objective to introduce passenger protection rules in all 
modes of transport was set by the Commission twenty years ago.1 

Today the EU framework for passenger rights provides a minimum level of protection for 
citizens using collective transport services (either air, rail, waterborne or bus and coach 
transport). They promote quality and protect passengers during all phases of the journey 
(before,  during  and  after  the  service).  The  framework  consists  of  five  Regulations 
covering  air,  rail,  bus  and  coach,  as  well  as  waterborne  passenger  rights.  These 
Regulations were designed to minimise travel disruptions, improve information available 
to  passengers,  and  ensure  an  immediate  and  proportionate  assistance  when  required, 
including for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility (PRM).    

The EU passenger rights Regulations were mainly adopted between 2004 and 2011 and are 
the following:  

–  Regulation  (EC) No 261/2004  establishing common  rules on compensation  and 
assistance  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied  boarding  and  of  cancellation  or 
long  delay  of  flights,2  keeping  in  mind  that  denied  boarding3  and  carrier’s 
liability in the event of accident4 in aviation were already addressed in the 1990s. 
This  Regulation  was  complemented  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2006 
concerning  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons  with  reduced 
mobility when travelling by air;5  

–  Regulation  (EC)  No  1371/2007  concerning  rail  passengers’  rights  and 
obligations,6  which  will  be  replaced  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  2021/7827  as  of  7 
June 2023; 

1 White paper – ‘European Transport policy for 2010: time to decide’, COM(2001) 370 final, 12.09.2001. 
2  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  (OJ  L  46, 
17.2.2004, p. 1–8). 
3  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  295/91  of  4  February  1991  establishing  common  rules  for  a  denied 
boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (OJ L 36, 08.02.1991, p. 5-7). 
4 Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents 
(OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p. 1-3).  
5 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  (OJ  L  204, 
26.7.2006, p. 1-9). 
6 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). 
7  Regulation (EU)  No  782/2021 of the European Parliament and of the  Council of 29  April 2021 on rail 
passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 172, 17.5.2021, p. 1-52). 

3 

 
                                                      
–  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when 

travelling by sea and inland waterway;8 and 

–  Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and 

coach transport,9 whose ex-post evaluation is presented in this report. 

After  the  adoption  of  passenger  rights  Regulations  for  all  four  transport  modes,  the 
Commission  published  in  2011  "European  vision  for  passengers:  Communication  on 
passenger rights in all transport modes"10 where the three key principles for passenger rights 
were  identified:  the  non-discrimination  of  passengers;  the  availability  of  accurate,  timely 
and accessible information to all passengers; and an immediate and proportionate assistance 
when required, underpinned by the so-called ten core passenger rights (see Table A6.10 in 
Annex 6). The framework also intended to contribute to a level playing field for transport 
operators within and across modes, through creating a European standard for passenger 
protection. 

As a result, EU passenger rights apply to a growing market of around 450 million citizens 
performing several billions of journeys every year for private or business purpose.11 In this 
context,  the  passenger  protection  has  become  a  cornerstone  of  EU  transport  policy,12 
building on international conventions and the general consumer protection framework of the 
Union.  

In its recent Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy,13 the Commission observed that “EU 
passenger  rights  should  be  better  implemented,  clearer  for  both  carriers  and  passengers, 
offer  adequate  assistance,  reimbursement,  possibly  compensation  when  disruptions  arise, 
and appropriate penalties if the rules are not properly applied” and expressed its intention to 
take actions to achieve this aim.  

In line with the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the level of protection introduced by 
Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  on  bus  and  coach  passenger  rights  (hereafter  “the 
Regulation”)  ten  years  ago  is  now  evaluated  in  the  context  of  the  simplification  and 
consolidation of the EU framework on passenger rights. This exercise is also in line with the 

8  Regulation  (EU)  No 1177/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 November  2010 
concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation 
(EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 1-16). 
9  Regulation  (EU)  No 181/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 February  2011 
concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport  and  amending  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2006/2004 (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1-12). 
10 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘A European vision 
for passengers: Communication on passenger rights in all transport modes’. 
11  Analysis  of  EU  Transport 
figures,  Statistical  pocketbook,  European  Commission: 
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/media-corner/publications/statistical-pocketbooks_en  and  Eurostat  statistics 
explained: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Category:Passengers   
12 White Paper – ‘Roadmap to  a Single European Transport Area  – Towards a  competitive and resource 
efficient transport system’, COM (2011) 144 final. 
13  See  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy  –  putting  European  transport  on  track  for  the  future, 
paragraph 
final 
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/be22d311-4a07-4c29-8b72-d6d255846069. 

COM(2020) 

(Action 

Action 

Annex 

Plan) 

789 

63, 

92; 

in 

4 

 
                                                      
recommendations  presented  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  in  their  special  report  on 
passenger rights in November 2018.14 

1.2. 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The purpose of this ex-post evaluation is to assess whether the Regulation has delivered the 
intended  rights  to  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport,  in  accordance  with  the 
Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines.  The  evaluation,  initiated  in  2019,15  comes 
nearly eight years after the  adoption of the Regulation, and six years after it actually started 
to  apply  (1  March  2013),  and  also  considering  that,  from  1  March  2021,  the  exemptions 
regime provided for by the Regulation has come to an end (see Section 3.3 below). 

The  evaluation  covers  the  period  when  it  started  to  apply  (1  March  2013)  until  February 
2020. The scope of the study does not include the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 
2020  and  2021.  However,  when  stakeholders  have  made  specific  comments  or  where 
effects are already clear and unambiguous, these points are presented in the support study 
and also in this evaluation.  

This evaluation, building inter alia on the evaluation support study (hereafter “the support 
study”) carried out by an external contractor,16 and the 2016 Commission’s report on the 
application  of  the  Regulation17  assesses  the  actual  performance  of  the  Regulation  in 
terms of its: 

–  Effectiveness:  analysing  the  progress  made  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of 
the intervention, looking for evidence of why, whether or how these changes are 
linked to the EU intervention; 

–  Efficiency: looking closely at both the costs and benefits of the EU intervention 
as they accrue to different stakeholders, identifying what factors are driving these 
costs/benefits and how these factors relate to the EU intervention; 

–  Relevance: looking at the objectives of the EU intervention being evaluated and 

see how well they (still) match the (current) needs and problems; 

–  Coherence: looking at how well the intervention works: i) internally and ii) with 

other EU interventions and international obligations; and  

14  ECA  Special  Report  no  30/2018:  EU  passenger  rights  are  comprehensive  but  passengers  still  need  to 
fight for them. See https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47547. Recommendations from 
ECA  are  the  following:  (1)  improving  coherence  of  the  EU  passenger  rights  framework;  (2)  improving 
clarity  within  the  passenger  rights  framework;  (3)  increasing  passenger  awareness;  (4)  improving  the 
effectiveness of the passenger rights framework; and (5) further empowering the NEBs and enhancing the 
mandate of the Commission.  
15  See  Roadmap  on  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11879-Bus-&-
coach-transport-passenger-rights-evaluation-_en  
16 Study on the EU Framework for Passenger Rights - Part B - Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 
on  the  rights  of  passengers  travelling  by  bus  and  coach,  Steer  (2021).  Direct  link  to  main  report: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e26c9065-1b4d-11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en/format-PDF/source-231262490.    
17  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  application  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport  and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, COM(2016) 619 final. 

5 

 
                                                      
–  EU  added  value:  considering  arguments  about  the  value  resulting  from  EU 
interventions  that  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from 
interventions initiated at regional or national levels by both public authorities and 
the private sector. 

The geographic scope of the evaluation covers all 27 EU Member States, as well as the 
United  Kingdom,  Iceland,  Norway  and  Switzerland  (collectively  referred  to  as 
“EU+4”).18 

It is now appropriate to subject the Regulation to a full evaluation to determine whether it 
has reached its intended purposes and whether it continues to be justified in terms of the 
five criteria listed above.  

The evaluation of this Regulation has been carried out in parallel with the evaluation of 
Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 on waterborne passenger rights and Regulation (EC) No 
1107/2006  concerning  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons  with  reduced 
mobility when travelling by air. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1. 

Specific context of passenger rights in bus and coach transport 

Bus  and  coach  transport  is  an  important  mode  of  transport,  traditionally  for  short 
journeys and between points in rural areas that are not served by rail and more recently 
also  for  long-distance  journeys.  In  total  around  2.7  billion  passenger  journeys  are 
performed by bus and coach on a yearly basis in the EU.19 Bus and coach transport is also 
usually one of the cheapest forms of collective transport. Bus and coach users often tend 
to be ‘vulnerable’ passengers, in terms of income or age (i.e. students or elderly people) 
often  travelling  from/to  isolated  areas  where  buses  and  coaches  represent  the  only 
available mode of public transport. Bus and coach transport services are indeed able to 
pick  up  and  alight  passengers  virtually  anywhere,  with  minimal  arrangement  of  fixed 
infrastructures, and in this lies its main feature as flexible transport mode.20  

There  have  been  a  number  of  changes  in  the  EU  bus  and  coach  market  with  potential 
implications for passengers’ needs in the last decade. Liberalisation of domestic markets 
in  large  Member  States  led  to  a  significant  increase  in  passenger  traffic,  both 
domestically  and  internationally.  Liberalisation  was  followed  by  a  relatively  rapid 
consolidation of carriers and a significant increase in the number of routes offered. 

18  As  regards  the  EEA  countries,  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  was  incorporated  in  Annex  XIII  to  the 
EEA Agreement by way of Decision No 115/2015 of the EEA Joint Committee (OJ L 211, 4.8.2016, p. 72: 
EUR-Lex - 22016D1298 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).  In Switzerland, relevant rules have started to apply 
on 1 January 2021. The case of Liechtenstein, which is in the scope of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011, was 
not analysed, given the small size of the country. 
19 Estimation done in the context of the support study by Steer for 2018 of the total passenger journeys in 
bus and coach over long-distance services. 
20 See COM(2016) 619 final, p. 3. 

6 

 
                                                      
The  bus  and  coach  market  consists  of  ‘carriers’21  offering  transport  services  to  the 
general  public  and  ‘performing  carriers’22,  usually  small  or  medium-sized  enterprises 
(SMEs),  who  actually  perform  the  carriage  wholly  or  partially.23  The  range  of  services 
operated  are  defined  as  ‘regular  services’,  meaning  services  provided  at  specified 
intervals  along  specified  routes  with  predetermined  stopping  points  for  non-specified 
categories of passengers,24 and ‘occasional services’, where the groups of passengers are 
constituted on the initiative of the customer or the carrier himself.25  

While occasional services can be provided on a commercial basis only, regular services 
can additionally be provided under the framework of a Public Service Obligation (PSO), 
according  to  which  transport  operators  are compensated or  given exclusive  rights by 
public authorities to provide public transport services which are in the general interest but 
would  otherwise  not  be  commercially  viable.  The  latter  is  typically  the  case  of  urban, 
suburban and regional regular services. 

The  Regulation  introduced  a  specific,  enforceable  framework  of  rights  for  passengers 
when travelling by bus and coach in the European Union, which is applicable also in the 
EEA and Switzerland.  

2.2. 

Description of the intervention26 and its objectives 

The  situation  before  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  was  complex  and  determined  by  the 
minimum of: 
  Rights required under national law, if any; 

 

 

 

For  Public  Service  Obligations  (PSO)  services  only,  rights  specified  by  competent 
authorities; 

For PSO services only, rights over and above the PSO requirement offered voluntarily 
by carriers as part of their proposal to win the PSO contract; 

For all services, rights granted voluntarily by a carrier to preserve its reputation in the 
market, whether formally included in its conditions of carriage or not. 

Certain bus and coach passenger rights existed at EU level already before the adoption of 
the Regulation: 
1.  Passengers are since 27 October 2009 eligible for some protection in the event of an 
accident.  Directive  2009/103/EC27  specifies  minimum  cover  of  EUR  5  million  per 
claim  whatever  the  number  of  victims  (or  EUR  1  million  per  victim),  whilst  the 

21  ‘Carrier’  means  a  natural  or  legal  person,  other  than  a  tour  operator,  travel  agent  or  ticket  vendor, 
offering transport by regular or occasional services to the general public (Article 3(e) of the Regulation). 
22 ‘Performing  carrier’  means  a  natural  or  legal  person  other  than  the  carrier,  who  actually  performs  the 
carriage wholly or partially (Article 3(f) of the Regulation). 
23 See COM(2016) 619 final. 
24 See Article 3(a), Regulation (EU) No 181/2011. 
25 See Article 3(b), Regulation (EU) No 181/2011. 
26 The ex-ante intervention logic is based on the legislative proposal of 2008 (COM/2008/0817 final) and is 
modelled in Figure A4.1, in Annex 4. 
27 Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to 
insurance  against  civil  liability  in  respect  of  the  use  of  motor  vehicles,  and  the  enforcement  of  the 
obligation to insure against such liability (OJ L 263, 7.10.2009, p. 11–31). 

7 

 
                                                      
Regulation  provides,  in  Article  7(2),  that  any  maximum  limit  for  the  amount  of 
compensation  provided  by  national  law  shall  not  be  less  than  EUR  220 000  per 
passenger and EUR 1 200 per item of luggage. Under the Directive of 2009, there was a 
potential issue that compensation might be exhausted after 22 passengers, if everyone 
on  the  bus  was  awarded  the  maximum  compensation  for  death  or  injury.  In  case  of 
death, Regulations (EC) No 864/200728 and (EC) No 593/200829 were also applicable 
prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/200930  on 
common  rules  for  access  to  the  international  market  for  coach  and  bus  services  also 
specifies  in  the  case  of  cabotage  that  carriers  are  subject  to  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative provisions in force in the host Member State. 

2.  As far as information is concerned, Regulation (EC) No 684/9231 previously required 
operators to provide passengers with their conditions of carriage when travelling by bus 
and coach. However, it covered international journeys only, while domestic itineraries 
were excluded.  

3.  With  regard  to  the  rights  of  PRM,  prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation, 
legislation was already in force at national level in nine Member States at the time (e.g. 
Austria,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Spain,  Sweden  and  United 
Kingdom) and could be interpreted as protecting them when travelling long distance by 
bus. No legislation protecting the rights of PRM was available in other Member States.32 

4.  In the event of cancellation or delay, passengers were required to rely on legislation at 
the  Member  State  level,  where  available,  or  on  carrier’s  terms  and  conditions.  For 
services  provided  under  PSO,  competent  authorities  may  have  chosen  to  request 
passenger rights in a number of areas.  

The  Commission’s  impact  assessment  (IA)33  accompanying  the  2008  legislative 
proposal34 identified three main areas in which rights needed to be strengthened, namely: 
(1) the rights of persons with disabilities and reduced mobility, (2) liability issues related 

28 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law 
applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40–49). 
29 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law 
applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6–16). 
30 Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on 
common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation 
(EC) No 561/2006 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 88–105). 
31 Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage 
of passengers by coach and bus (OJ L 74, 20.3.1992, p. 1–9). 
32 See Impact Assessment Study on the Legislative Proposal on the rights of passengers in International bus 
and coach transports, Final Report, July 2007. Commissioned by DG Energy and Transport, and carried out 
by PwC. 
33 Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the proposal for a regulation of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport  and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the 
enforcement of consumer protection laws - Impact assessment, SEC(2008) 2954 final. 
34 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights of passengers in 
bus  and  coach  transport  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  on  cooperation  between  national 
authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, COM(2008) 817 final. 

8 

 
 
                                                      
to insurance systems in the event of death or injury, and (3) compensation and assistance 
in the event of delay or cancellation.  

The specific objectives35 of the intervention included: 

–  asserting  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  and  assistance  to  persons  with 

disabilities and persons with reduced mobility; 

–  asserting the principle of liability of operators in the event of death or injury of 

passengers; 

–  ensuring a level of quality standards of services, defining information obligations 
and asserting the principle of assistance in the event of cancellations, delays, etc.; 

–  setting up a procedure for handling complaints; and 

–  ensuring appropriate enforcement. 

The IA highlighted a number of main problems within the bus and coach sector affecting 
both passengers and operators:   

  Unequal  footing  with  other  modes  of  transport.  Passengers  in  other  modes  of 
transport, particularly air, already enjoyed rights established at EU level providing for 
adequate passenger rights protection since 2004. For bus and coach, an international 
convention36  had  been  ratified  by  only  two  Member  States,  Germany  and  Latvia. 
There was no EU legislation establishing passenger rights; 

  Fragmentation  of  legislation.  Protection  of  bus  and  coach  passengers  varied  from 
one Member State to another. Passengers had to rely on national liability schemes, fair 
trading legislation and voluntary customer care commitments by operators. Operators 
in  some  countries  had  developed  extensive  voluntary  agreements,  including 
appropriate  complaint  handling  and  dispute  resolution  mechanisms,  but  this  was  not 
the  case  for  the  majority  of  Member  States,  preventing  fair  competition  between 
operators from different Member States and with other modes of transport.  

  An  "atomized"  market.  Many  enterprises  provided  bus  and  coach  services  and 
offered  different  levels  of  passenger  care  and  service  quality,  while  passenger  care 
varied  between  operators  and  depended  largely  on  national  legislation  and  the 
voluntary  agreements  referred  to  above.  This,  coupled  with  a  lack  of  information, 
often  prevented  passengers  from  making  informed  choices  as  to  the  level  of  service 
they were likely to receive. As a result, the existing legislative framework created real 
problems  for  international  and  domestic  passengers.  National  legislation  varied, 
creating different levels of passenger protection, and bus and coach transport was on 
an unequal  footing with  air and rail,  where passengers already  benefitted  or were to 
benefit from a high and uniform level of protection.  

35 For each of these objectives, a principle was presented: Principle of non-discrimination and assistance to 
people with disability; Principle of liability of the operators in the event of death or injury of passengers; 
Establishment  of  basic  quality  standards  and  monitoring;  Cancellation,  denied  boarding  and  delays; 
Complaint handling service and monitoring. 
36  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  Convention  on  the  Contract  for  the  International 
Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Road (CVR), of 1 March 1973. 

9 

 
                                                      
  Persons  with  disabilities  and  ageing  population.  Passengers  using  bus  and  coach 
transport  tended  to  be  ‘vulnerable’  (low  income  or  geographically  isolated),  with 
limited availability of bus and coach services, potentially hampering their integration 
into society. PRM include persons with  disabilities, and  regarding reduced mobility, 
the  elderly  and  those  with  temporary  disabilities.  These  did  not  get  appropriate 
assistance when travelling or appropriate access to transport services.  

  Insufficiency  of  the  current  legislative  framework.  At  the  time  of  the  proposal, 
legislation  at  national  level  differed  from  one  Member  State  to  another,  creating 
different  levels  of  protection  for  passengers.  In  particular,  the  national  legislative 
framework was considered insufficient in relation to four areas: effective protection of 
passengers in the event of death or injury, limited liability in case of loss or damage of 
luggage  or  mobility  equipment,  accessible  coach  travel  for  PRM  passengers,  the 
elderly,  with  a  temporary  disability,  and  other  vulnerable  groups,  and  consistent 
complaint handling.37  

The  final  text  of  the  Regulation  was  adopted  on  16  February  2011.38  The  balanced 
approach found takes into account the rights of passengers, as well as the need to ensure 
the  economic  viability  of  the  operators  of  the  bus  and  coach  industry,  which  consists 
largely of small and medium-sized undertakings. This is why, in terms of scope, urban, 
sub-urban  and  regional  transport  were  deemed  to  fall  within  the  framework  of 
subsidiarity,  and  the  possibility  to  exempt  the  application  of  the  Regulation  from  these 
was further discussed and eventually made more concrete with the compromise found on 
the 250km threshold as explained below. 

Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  on  bus  and  coach  passenger  rights,  like  other  passenger 
rights  Regulations,  was  meant  to  contribute  to  reducing  the  negative  impact  of  travel 
disruption  on  users  of  collective  transport  modes  and  to  improving  service  quality  for 
passengers.  The  Regulation  was  also  intended  to  contribute  to  the  creation  of  a  level 
playing field for bus and coach operators in the EU and a European standard of passenger 
protection. 

It established new protections for passengers when travelling by bus or coach and created 
obligations  for  carriers,  terminal  managing  bodies,  travel  agents,  tour  operators  and 
Member  States.  These  rights  provide  for  non-discriminatory  transport  conditions 
especially  for  PRM39,  information  to  passengers  (including  PRM),  compensation  and 

37 There was no common system for complaint handling across the EU prior to the Regulation. There was 
no clear information regarding how complaints were dealt with, and how passengers were able to escalate 
their complaints if they were not satisfied with the response received from the carriers. 
38 The text was adopted in 1st reading by the European Parliament on 24 April 2009, the Council adopted 
its position on 11 March 2010, the text was adopted in 2nd reading by the European Parliament on 6 July 
2010,  but  the  EP’s  amendments  were  rejected  by  the  Council  on  25  November  2010.  A  meeting  of  the 
Conciliation Committee took place on 30 November 2010, leading to the adoption of the text in 3rd reading 
by the European Parliament on 15 February 2011. The main points of the agreement reached in conciliation 
concerned the scope, time derogations, compensation and assistance in the event of accidents, passengers’ 
rights in the event of cancellations or delays, rights of PRM. 
39 There are approximately 87 million people in the European Union that live with a visible or non-visible 
disability on a daily basis. It is important that these people have the same possibilities and opportunities as 
persons who do not have any disabilities. This also applies to travel. People with disabilities and reduced 
mobility  (PRM)  should  not  experience  limitations  because  of  their  disability  and  they  should  not 

10 

 
                                                      
 
assistance in the event of accidents, compensation, re-routing and reimbursement in case 
of cancellation or long delay, assistance in  case  of cancelled or delayed  departures and 
submission of complaints to NEBs.  

The  Regulation  started  to  apply  on  1  March  2013.  Exemptions  from  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation  were still used by several  Member States until  the end of  February 2021 in 
relation to two types of services (domestic regular services where the distance is equal or 
above 250 km and regular services of which a significant part of the service is operated 
outside the EU (see Section 3.3).40 

The Regulation applies to passengers travelling with regular services where the boarding 
or  alighting  point  of  the  passengers  is  situated  in  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  and 
where the scheduled distance of the service is  250 km  or more,  as stated  under Article 
2(1). 41 In addition, a set of ‘basic’ rights applies to intra-EU regular services although the 
scheduled distance of the service is below 250 km, as defined under Article 2(2)42 of the 
Regulation. 

The  protection  of  these  ‘basic’  rights  as  provided  for  by  the  Regulation,  which  is  not 
subject to the scope restriction of the 250 km referred to above, relate to: 

  Article 4(2) on non-discriminatory transport conditions including tariffs; 
  Articles  9  and  10(1)  on  access  to  transport  for  people  with  disabilities  or  reduced 

mobility at no extra cost; 

  Article 16(1)(b) on disability-related training for drivers (possible exemptions were set 

out in Article 16(2) but are no longer possible); 

  Article  17(1)  and  (2)  on  compensation  in  respect  of  wheelchairs  and  other  mobility 

equipment; 

  Articles 24 and 25 on minimum rules on travel information provided to all passengers 

before and during their journey including information on their rights; 

  Articles  26  and  27  on  a  compliant  handling  mechanism  that  carriers  must  make 

available to all passengers; and 

  Article 28 on independent national enforcement bodies (NEBs) in each Member State, 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  as  regards  regular  services  and  to  take  the 
measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation. 

experience  any  discrimination  when  travelling  by  air  as  well  as  by  any  other  transport  mode.    Data:  EU 
SILC  (Statistics  on  Income  and  Living  Conditions)  and  EU  LFS  (Labour  Force  Survey): 
https://www.disability-europe.net/downloads/1046-ede-task-2-1-statistical-indicators-tables-eu-silc-2018; 
According  to  this  data,  24.7%  of  EU  population  who  are  more  than  16  years  old  are  limited  in  their 
activities as a result of a disability: 17.7% having moderate, 7% severe limitations. 
40 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c471f60f-a8cd-41d9-b6af-62c14a8f57cd  
41 “This Regulation shall apply to passengers travelling with regular services for non-specified categories 
of passengers  where the boarding or the alighting point of the passengers is situated in  the territory of a 
Member State and where the scheduled distance of the service is 250 km or more.” 
42  “As  regards  the  services  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  but  where  the  scheduled  distance  of  the  service  is 
shorter than 250 km, Article 4(2), Article 9, Article 10(1), point (b) of Article 16(1), Article 16(2), Article 
17(1) and (2), and Articles 24 to 28 shall apply.” 

11 

 
                                                                                                                                                              
In practice, under Article 2(5), the application of the entire Regulation may be exempted 
for up to eight years in relation to services of which a significant part including at least 
one scheduled stop  is  operated outside the  Union. Under Article 18, all or some of the 
provisions  of  Chapter  III  related  to  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  reduced 
mobility (PRMs) may be exempted, provided that the level of protection of persons with 
disabilities and persons with reduced mobility under national rules is at least the same as 
under the Regulation. 

The  remaining  ‘extended’  rights,  which  may  also  be  subject  to  some  exemptions  by 
Member  States,  include  compensation  and  assistance  in  the  event  on  an  accident, 
additional  rights  to  assistance  for  passengers  with  PRM  requirements,  and  passenger 
rights in the event of cancellation or delay. 

The Regulation was designed to provide an increased level of protection for passengers 
when travelling by bus or coach, in terms of improvements brought to passenger rights, 
including PRM’s rights, and new obligations introduced for carriers, terminal managing 
bodies,  travel  agents,  tour  operators  and  Member  States.  It  requires  NEBs  to  take  the 
measures  necessary  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  Regulation.  These  measures  include 
imposing  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  penalties  on  operators  in  case  of 
infringements.  Other  measures  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  Regulation  could  for 
example also include the promotion of passenger rights, the inspection of operators and 
monitoring of their websites, as well as regular contact with the industry and passenger 
(incl. PRM) organisations.   

The  Regulation  addresses  these  issues  as  described  in  more  detail  in  Table  1.  It 
summarises the structure of the Regulation, the subject of its articles, the types of service 
to which it applies and the possibility of exemptions. Core passenger rights are marked in 
bold. See further explanations in Sections 3.1 and 3.3. 

Table  1:  Content  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011,  applicability  and  possibility  of 
exemptions  

Chapter 

Subject of articles 

Applicability 

Possibility of exemptions 

I  General 

provisions 

1 

2 

3 

Subject matter 

Scope 

Definitions 

4(1)  Carriers  shall  issue  a  ticket  to  the 
passenger.  A  ticket  may  be  issued 
in electronic format. 

4(2)  Contracts  and  tariffs  may  not 
the 
of 
the 

discriminate 
nationality 
establishment 
carrier/ticket vendor. 

on 
place 
of 

based 
or 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

km or more 

–  Occasional 
services  

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Occasional 
services  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 

Subject of articles 

Applicability 

Possibility of exemptions 

carrier/travel 

agent/tour 
The 
operator  is  liable  for  the  acts  and 
omissions  of  the  performing  party 
(other carrier, ticket vendor etc.) 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services  

km or more 

–  Occasional 
services 

–  Services  of  which 

a  
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

5 

6 

Obligations  to  passengers  shall  not 
be limited or waived. 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services  

km or more 

–  Occasional 
services 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services  

km or more 

–  Occasional 
services 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services  

km or more 

–  Occasional 
services 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

II  Compensatio

7 

n 
assistance 

and 

Compensation  for  death,  personal 
to 
injury, 
luggage due to accidents. 

loss  of  or  damage 

III  Rights 

of 
persons  with 
disability  and 
Persons  with 
reduced 
mobility 
disability 
(PRMs) 

or 

8 

9 

In  case  of  an  accident,  the  carrier 
shall 
proportionate 
assistance  related  to  passengers’ 
immediate practical needs. 

provide 

to 

transport: 

Right 
A 
reservation,  provision  of  a  ticket 
or  taking  on  board  may  not  be 
refused  or  subject  to  additional 
cost. 

10(1)  Right 

to 

transport  may  be 
refused 
if  necessary  to  meet 
safety requirements or the design 
the 
of 
vehicle 
the 
it 
infrastructure 
physically impossible. 

or 
makes 

10(2) 

10(3) 

In  case  of  refusal,  carriers,  travel 
agents  and  tour  operators  shall 
inform  the  person  concerned  about 
any  acceptable  alternative  services 
operated by the carrier. 

the  person 
In  case  of  refusal, 
the 
concerned  shall  be  offered 
choice  between 
reimbursement, 
continuation  of  the  journey  or  re-
routing. 

13 

 
 
 
Chapter 

Subject of articles 

Applicability 

Possibility of exemptions 

10(4) 

10(5) 

11 

12 

13 

14 

the  person 
In  case  of  refusal, 
to  be 
concerned  may 
accompanied  by  another  person, 
who  shall  be  transported  free  of 
charge. 

request 

the  person 
In  case  of  refusal, 
immediately  be 
concerned  shall 
informed  of  its  reasons  and,  upon 
request, 
in  writing  within  5 
working days. 

Non-discriminatory 
access 
conditions  for  transport  shall  be 
established,  made  available  and 
physically distributed at the request 
of the passenger. 

coach 

Member  States  shall  designate  bus 
terminals  where 
and 
assistance  for disabled persons and 
persons with reduced mobility shall 
be provided. 

Carriers  and 
terminal  managing 
bodies shall provide assistance free 
of  charge  at  designated  terminals, 
as  well  as  carriers  shall  provide  it 
on board buses and coaches. 

Carriers  and 
terminal  managing 
bodies  shall  cooperate  to  provide 
assistance, if the request is notified 
in advance and the person presents 
herself on time. 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 

Subject of articles 

Applicability 

Possibility of exemptions 

15 

16(1)
a 

16(1)
b 

a 

notification, 

If  travel  agents  or  tour  operators 
the 
receive 
information  shall  be  transferred  to 
the  carrier  or  terminal  managing 
body as soon as possible. 

Carriers  or 
terminal  managing 
bodies  shall  establish  disability-
procedures, 
training 
related 
including 
their 
instructions,  for 
personnel other than drivers. 

Carriers  or  managing  bodies 
shall  establish  disability-related 
training  procedures, 
including 
instructions, for drivers. 

16(2)  Exemption  from  the  application 

of Article 16(1)b. 

17(1) 
and 
(2) 

17(3) 

Compensation  for 
loss  of  or 
damage  to  mobility  equipment 
its 
cost 
equal 
replacement or repair. 

the 

to 

of 

provide 

Every effort shall be undertaken to 
rapidly 
temporary 
replacement  equipment  or  devices, 
and 
with 
functional features. 

technical 

similar 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Occasional 
services 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Exemption  from  training 
for  a  maximum  period  of 
5 years 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Domestic  regular  services 
if  the  level  of  protection 
in  national  law  is  at  least 
as high 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

18 

Exemptions from Chapter III 

I
V 

Passenger 
rights  in  the 
event 
of 
cancellation 
or delay 

19  Where  a  service  is  expected  to  be 
cancelled or delayed for  more than 
120  minutes  or  in  the  case  of 
overbooking,  the  passenger  shall 
immediately  be  offered  the  choice 
between 
reimbursement, 
continuation or re-routing. 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services 

km or more 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 

Subject of articles 

Applicability 

Possibility of exemptions 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services 

km or more 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services 

km or more 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services 

250 

–  Domestic regular services 

km or more 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services 

250 

km or more 

–  Services  below 

250 km 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

–  Services  of  which 

a 
significant part is operated 
outside the EU 

20 

21 

22 

23 

In the event of cancellation or delay 
in  departure  of  a  regular  service, 
passengers shall be informed of the 
situation as soon as possible and in 
any event no later than 30 minutes. 

In case of cancellation or delay, the 
carrier  shall  offer  the  passenger 
free  of  charge  snacks,  meals  or 
refreshments and accommodation. 

Passengers  may  seek  damages 
before national courts as to the loss 
resulting 
from  cancellation  or 
delay. 

Exemptions  for  open  tickets  and 
cancellations  and delays  caused  by 
weather or natural disasters. 

V  General  rules 

24 

on 
information 
and 
complaints 

Passengers  shall  be  provided 
with 
information 
throughout the travel. 

adequate 

25 

26 

27 

Passengers  shall  be  provided 
with  information  regarding  their 
rights at the latest on departure. 

Carriers  shall  set  up  or  have  in 
place  a 
complaint  handling 
mechanism. 

A  passenger  shall  submit  a 
complaint  within  3  months,  and 
reply  within  3 
receive 
months.  

the 

28 

V
I 

Enforcement 
and  national 
enforcement 
bodies 
(NEBs) 

Provisions 
national 
on 
enforcement  bodies.  A  passenger 
may  submit  a  complaint  to  the 
NEB 
appropriate 
other 
or 
designated body. 

29 

Report on enforcement 

30 

Cooperation between NEBs 

31 

Penalties 

V Final 

32 

Report 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 

Subject of articles 

Applicability 

Possibility of exemptions 

II  provisions 

33 

Amend Regulation 2006/2004 

34 

Entry into force 

Source: Regulation (EU) No 181/2011, analysis based on Support study, Table 1.6.  

2.3. 

Baseline and points of comparison 

The  purpose  of  the  analysis  of  the  evaluation  baseline  was  to  model  and  analyse  the 
impact  of  policy  changes  brought  by  the  Regulation.  As  such,  it  captures  how  bus  and 
coach passenger rights and the industry would have evolved, had the Regulation not been 
adopted. The analysis aims at capturing the change that the intervention of the Regulation 
has brought over time, by comparing the actual recorded performance against a potential 
scenario that would have happened without policy intervention.   

As explained in the support study,43 in order to evaluate the situation before and after the 
introduction of the Regulation, data was collected for the 2010-2018 period. Where data 
extending before 2010 was readily available from the same sources, it was also collated. 
Data for 2019 had not been published by all sources, thus 2018 was selected as the final 
year in the baseline to ensure that all Member States are represented equally. This is also 
a very relevant year as the first period for exemptions expired in 2017.44 This assessment 
only focuses on the impact of the Regulation from when it started to apply until the start 
of the support study (February 2020).  

The reference year is 2013 for the Regulation, as it started to apply then. To show “from 
2013  until  today  what  the  situation  would  have  been,  had  the  Regulation  or  any  other 
EU-level legislation not been implemented”, the following elements were considered: 

(1)  the  situation  regarding  passenger  rights  in  2013  in  the  EU+4,  i.e.  the  27  Member 
States, as well as Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and the UK, for passengers within 
the scope of the Regulation; 

(2)  the assumption that the legal framework in each Member State would have remained 

intact if the Regulation had not been in place; and 
(3)  the application of consumer law in each Member State.  

The  situation  before  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation  was  analysed.  Only  a  small 
number  of  Member  States  had  some  kind  of  bus  and  coach  passenger  and  PRM  rights 
legislation  before  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation  and,  among  other  assumptions,  it 
was  assumed  that  the  resulting  level  of  passenger  rights  in  each  Member  State  would 
have  been  constant  in  the  no  policy  intervention  scenario,  i.e.  the  framework  in  each 
Member  State  would  have  remained  intact  if  the  Regulation  had  not  been  in  place.  
Section 5.5 on EU added value provides further insights on whether the needs that drove 
the intervention would remain without the current EU framework (see Table 5).   

43 See detailed explanations in Appendix F of the support study. 
44 See under Section 3.3 on Member Sates’ exemptions. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The situation across both scenarios –with and without policy intervention- between 2011 
and  2018  was  then  evaluated.  More  information  on  the  methodology  is  provided  in 
Chapter 4. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY  

3.1. 

Description of the current situation  

As  introduced  above,  the  Regulation  is  expected  to  have  led  to  an  increased  level  of 
protection for passengers when travelling by bus or coach. However, as shown in Chapter 
5, there remain obstacles to ensuring an equivalent level of protection while the criterion 
of  the  length  of  services  (250  km  or  more  or  below  250km),  which  is  explained  in 
Section 2.2, has considerably restricted the implementation of extended rights to a small 
group of bus and coach passengers.  

In  bus  and  coach  transport,  passenger  rights  are  protected  by  different  pieces  of 
legislation, including: 

  Passenger rights legislation, including Regulation (EU) No 181/2011  concerning 

the right of passengers when travelling by bus and coach (see above); 

  Other  rights  stemming  from  transport  related  regulations,  including  Regulation 
(EC)  No  661/2009,45  which  sets  out  technical  requirements  for  buses  with  a 
capacity exceeding 22 passengers in addition to the driver, while establishing that 
these vehicles shall be accessible for PRM, including wheelchair users;46 

  Consumer  rights  in  the  broader  perspective,  distinguishing  between  instruments 
regulating substantive rights, including in particular Directive 2015/2032/EU (the 
“Package  Travel  Directive”)  applicable  where  carriage  of  passengers  by 
bus/coach is combined with other travel services, and  enforcement mechanisms, 
set  out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  2017/2394  on  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation 
(CPC)  which  has  applied  since  January  2020,  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2006/2004 on enforcement of consumer protection laws.  

In  addition,  bus  and  coach  passenger  rights  legislation  interfaces  with  horizontal 
consumer  protection  rules  or  schemes  such  as  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR) 
bodies,  Online  Dispute  Resolution  (ODR)  bodies  and  European  Consumer  Centres 
(ECCs).47  

45 Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning 
type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components 
and separate technical units intended therefor (OJ L 200, 31.7.2009, p. 1-24). 
46 See Article 7(4), Regulation (EC) No 661/2009. 
47 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-
consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-consumers_en  and  https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-
travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-consumer-centres-
network-ecc-net_en. 

See 

18 

 
                                                      
In 2016, pursuant to Article 32 of the Regulation, the Commission reported to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the operation and effects of the Regulation.48 In this report, 
the Commission did not identify evidence supporting any amendment  of the Regulation’s 
provisions.  The  report  identified  some  issues  and  put  forward  a  list  of  non-legislative 
initiatives to improve the application and enforcement of the Regulation. 

In this context, the Commission decided to take the following measures: (1) actions to raise 
awareness  of  passengers’  rights  and  operators’  obligations,  (2)  actions  to  improve 
enforcement through regular contacts with NEBs and monitoring of their activities, and (3) 
actions  to  ensure  the  uniform  application  of  the  Regulation,  including  by  providing  non-
binding  guidance  and  clarifications  during  the  annual  EU-level  meetings  with  NEBs  and 
stakeholders, and through written correspondence.  

Regarding  the  awareness  of  passengers’  rights,  the  Commission  started  carrying  out 
information  campaigns  aimed  at  raising  awareness  among  citizens  in  2009.  The  first 
campaign (2010-2012) was organised for air and rail passenger rights, while a second one 
launched  in  2013  concerned  all  modes.  Online  communication  campaigns  (online 
advertising) have proven the most cost-effective means during the last years (campaigns in 
2016-2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021), which was reflected in a steep increase of visits of the 
relevant Your Europe passenger rights webpages.49 

The Commission also regularly conducts Eurobarometer surveys on passenger rights. The 
results of the latest survey50 showed that nearly one third only (32% of respondents) of EU 
citizens  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  EU  passenger  rights,  while  39%  of  actual  bus  and 
coach  passengers  are  aware  of  EU  passenger  rights,  which  is  lower  than  in  other  modes 
(49% in air, 43% in rail and 45% in waterborne). 

The Commission holds regular meetings with the NEBs to exchange experiences and clarify 
the interpretation of the Regulation. The main points of discussion concerned: the state of 
play with the enforcement and legal interpretation of the Regulation, including on issues of 
the 250km threshold, the proof of PRM awareness training, and the definition of terminals. 
Other issues of attention included: addressing the low awareness of passengers about their 
rights,  improving  the  processing  of  complaints  through  a  new  standard  complaint  form, 
having a common approach in dealing with pan-European carriers and supporting the NEB-
NEB cooperation further. 

In  2019,  the  Commission  published  a  second  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council51 concluding that, since 2017, fewer Member States granted exemptions under the 
Regulation  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport,  but  those 
exemptions still deprived many passengers of the full enjoyment of their rights.  

48 COM(2016) 619 final. 
49 See  https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/index_en.htm and its content pages on 
Air  passenger  rights,  Rail  passenger  rights,  Bus  and  coach  passenger  rights,  Ship  passenger  rights,  and 
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/transport-disability/reduced-mobility/index_en.htm.  
50  Special  Eurobarometer  485  on  Passenger  Rights  (survey  carried  out  in  the  EU28,  incl.  the  UK,  in 
February/March  2019)  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6814;  Eurobarometer 
on passenger rights awareness (December 2014). 
51 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the exemptions granted by 
Member States under Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach 
transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, COM(2019)179 final. 

19 

 
 
                                                      
In the context of COVID-1952, the Commission published Interpretative Guidelines on the 
passenger  rights  Regulations53  and  a  Recommendation  on  vouchers.54  It  also  updated the 
websites of Your Europe55 and added information on the Coronavirus Response website.56   

In  July  2020,  the  Commission  launched  infringement  proceedings  against  two  Member 
States  for  failure  to  comply  with  EU  rules  protecting  passenger  rights  but  only  in  one 
Member  State  bus  and  coach  passenger  rights  were  concerned.  The  procedure  has  been 
closed in October 2020 because the Member State concerned amended its law.57 

In August 2020, the Commission started informal dialogues via EU Pilot58 with all Member 
States and the United Kingdom regarding the application of passenger rights in all modes of 
transport including bus and coach in the context of COVID-19 and the obligations of NEBs 
to report on their activities. These dialogues are still ongoing.  

3.2.  Member States implementation and monitoring 

the 

the  extent  of 

The choice to intervene at EU level in this policy area through a Regulation had a direct 
implementation  obligations  for  Member  States.  
impact  on 
Member  States  are  required,  under  Article  28(1)  of  the  Regulation,  to  designate  or 
establish  one  or  more  national  enforcement  bodies  (NEBs).  Pursuant  to  Article  31, 
Member  States  have  to  lay  down  rules  on  penalties  that  have  to  be  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive, in view of addressing infringements of the provisions of the 
Regulation.  

Member States are required to inform the Commission of the body or bodies designated 
in line with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 and the most recent list was 
published  based  on  this  information  by  the  Commission  in  November  2021,  when  it 
included the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK.59 It could 
be highlighted in particular that: 

• 

In total 98 NEBs were notified to the Commission.  

52  See  the  EMSA  Report  of  2021,  EMSA-Impact-Of-Covid-19-On-The-Maritime-Sector-In-The-EU-
2021_06.pdf (safety4sea.com). 
53  Commission  Notice  Interpretative  Guidelines  on  EU  passenger  rights  regulations  in  the  context  of  the 
developing situation with Covid-19 - 2020/C 89 I/01 (OJ C 89I, 18.3.2020, p. 1-8). 
54 Commission  Recommendation (EU) 2020/648 of 13 May 2020 on vouchers offered to passengers and 
travellers  as  an  alternative  to  reimbursement  for  cancelled  package  travel  and  transport  services  in  the 
context  of 
the  COVID-19  pandemic  C/2020/3125,  OJ  L  151,  14.5.2020,  p.  10–16, 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2020/648/oj  
55 https://europa.eu/youreurope/index_en.htm. 
56  https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response_en 
57  Letter  of 
INFR(2020)1212.  
Infringement  decisions  of  2 
See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_20_1212. On 1 October 2020, it was decided 
to close the infringement procedure against Italy. 
58  EU  Pilot  is  a  procedure  for  cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  on  issues 

formal  notice: 

July  2020, 

related  to  potential  non-compliance  with  EU  law. 

59  https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/46c02909-95c7-4bdf-a571-29f3b7694356_en  The 
following 
NEBs: 
of 
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/46c02909-95c7-4bdf-a571-29f3b7694356 

regularly 

includes 

updated 

link 

list 

20 

 
                                                      
•  Most  States  have  a  single  national  NEB  for  all  bus  and  coach  services,  while 
some  have  designated  more  than  one  NEB,  at  the  national,  regional  and  local 
level  or  dealing  with  international/domestic  affairs:  e.g.  there  are  two  or  three 
responsible  bodies  in  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland  and  Sweden,  but  ten  regional 
bodies  in  Czechia,  sixteen  in  Poland  and  nineteen  in  Spain,  combined  with  a 
national body.  

•  Many NEBs are bodies performing NEB functions for bus and coach passengers 
exclusively;  nevertheless,  in  17  States,  the  NEB  for  the  Regulation  is  also  the 
NEB  for  one  or  several  other  modes  of  transport  (Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Iceland,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland).    

•  Most NEBs for the Regulation are transport or road authorities, meaning that they 
would have the required expertise to make technical judgements on bus and coach 
passenger rights and to challenge technical justifications given by bus and coach 
operators.  In  seven  Member  States  (Estonia,  France,  Finland,  Luxembourg,60 
Malta, Slovakia and Sweden), NEBs for the Regulation are a consumer protection 
authority. 

•  Few  NEBs  for  the  Regulation  also  act  as  an  ADR  (Austria,  Croatia,  Estonia, 

Finland and Slovakia).     

The  Regulation  requires  that  passengers  have  the  possibility  to  submit  complaints  to  a 
NEB  or  to  another  body  designated  by  a  Member  State,  although  Member  States  may 
require that the passenger must, as a first step, submit the complaint to the carrier. This 
means  that  the  role  of  complaint  handling  may  be  performed  by  the  carrier,  a  NEB,  a 
dedicated  complaint-handling  body,  a  body  providing  alternative  dispute  resolution 
(ADR), or any other body. 

Complaint handling 

Passenger rights, including their application and enforcement, are specific to each mode 
of  transport  separately,  meaning  that  when  a  passenger  faces  a  disruption  in  one  mode 
while  travelling  multimodal,  they  can  only  turn  to  the  competent  NEB  for  that  mode, 
while the latter would not be in a position to deal with the possible consequences of this 
disruption  onto  subsequent  legs  in  other  modes.  As  shown  in  a  recent  study61,  when 
travelling  in  a  multimodal  context,  passengers  may  not  fully  exercise  their  rights 
throughout their journey (in particular when changing modes). 

NEBs competent for bus and coach deal with varying numbers of complaints. In general, 
these numbers are very low. Figure 1 shows the average number of complaints reported 

60 The Commission was informed in October 2021 that the Bus and Coach NEB of Luxembourg has moved 
from  a  mode-specific  body  to  a  consumer  protection  body,  which  demonstrates  that  adjustments  in  the 
organisation of enforcement bodies in the Member States are still possible and/or required. 
61  Exploratory 
2019), 
context 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f176da6f-d9ca-11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1.  

the  multimodal 

passenger 

rights 

study 

(EY, 

on 

in 

21 

 
                                                      
by  NEBs  over  the  period  2015-2019.  The  average  number  of  complaints  related  to  the 
Regulation varied from almost 300 in Italy to none in Ireland, on a yearly basis. 

Figure 1: NEB reports of complaints 2015-2019, in years provided, by NEB 

Source: NEBs providing data for at least one year 2015 to 2019, Support study, Para. 3.29, Figure 3.2. 
Note: Logarithmic scale.  The high numbers reported in Portugal, Cyprus and Slovenia include complaints 
related to passenger rights in all modes of transport, rather than only those specifically related to bus and 
coach. 

As  presented  in  Figure  2,  the  complaints  submitted  concern  primarily  delays  (30%), 
cancellations  (19%),  compensation  issues  (11%),  followed  by  handling  of  complaints, 
ticket issues and compliance with timetable (7% each). 

Figure 2: Nature of complaints received by NEBs 

22 

 
 
 
Source: Support study, Para. 3.33, Figure 3.4. 

The multi-layer character of enforcement, as well as arrangements as to  whether or not 
the  carrier  must  be  contacted  before  the  NEB  is  seized,  may  be  confusing  for  some 
stakeholders  and  passengers  in  particular.  However,  the  overall  number  of  complaints 
appears to be growing, but is still rather low (in 2018, NEBs received 1.5 complaints per 
million of bus and coach journeys as explained in Section 5.2.1 (f) below), which might 
be  due  to  an  increase  in  the  number  of  passengers  travelling,  more  breaches  of  the 
Regulation,  better  awareness  of  the  right  to  complain,  or  more  willingness  to  do  so.  
The exact reasons are impossible to identify due to limited data available, in particular as 
regards the motivation for a passenger decision to/not to complain. 

There  has  been  no  emergence  of  claim  agencies  to  handle  complaints  from  passengers 
against  bus  and  coach  companies  on  the  basis  of  the  Regulation,  contrary  to  what  has 
been observed for instance in air transport.  

Monitoring 

Article  28(1)  of  the  Regulation  sets  a  general  obligation  upon  the  NEBs  to  take  the 
measures  necessary  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  Regulation.  The  Regulation  offers 
flexibility  in  the  way  the  NEBs  would  take  action  and  how  they  would  perform  their 
monitoring of the implementation of the rules by carriers and/or infrastructure managers 
in practice.  

In concrete terms, and in addition to the handling of complaints submitted by passengers, 
some NEBs are used to performing a wide range of monitoring activities such as in-depth 
audits, targeted inspections, either on the ground at terminals/stations or at the carriers’ 
headquarters. Some NEBs take a proactive approach to the protection of passenger rights 
and  the  monitoring  of  how  the  Regulation  is  applied,  while  others  do  little  beyond 
complaints  handling.62  This  confirms  the  observations  of  the  Commission  made  in  the 
report of 2016.63 It is worth recalling that, in the context of the support study, the NEBs 
have provided information about their monitoring activities for the period 2013-2019, as 
summarised in Table A6.3 in Annex 6. 

rights  are 

Some  NEBs  perform  monitoring  activities  such  as  checks  of  the  carriers’  websites  to 
verify that information to users comply with the rules and provide adequate and correct 
information on passenger rights and on complaints handling. Some also engage in regular 
or punctual dialogues with carriers (either oral or in writing) to verify whether and how 
stakeholders 
passenger 
representatives are  also  consulted  to  complement data available and enlarge the limited 
sample  of  complaints  they  have  directly  received  from  passengers.  A  key  issue  is  then 
whether NEBs have sufficient resources (human and financial) to perform the monitoring 
task adequately. Based on their monitoring activities, the NEBs are supposed to be able 
to  identify  carriers’  recurrent  non-compliance  with  the  applicable  rules  and  to  take  the 
necessary measures ensuring compliance with the Regulation, as appropriate. 

implemented.  Passengers’  and  consumers’ 

62 Support study Para. 3.39 and see examples in support study’s Appendix D. 
63 COM(2016) 619 final, p. 10.  

23 

 
                                                      
Penalties 

Only a small proportion of NEBs have issued sanctions, also referred to as penalties, in 
the sense of Article 31, which have generally been infrequent and of low value. 

Court proceedings  

No  significant  volume  of  litigation  before  national  courts  based  on  the  Regulation  has 
been noted. Moreover, there have been no national courts or tribunals asking the Court of 
Justice of the EU (CJEU) to give a preliminary ruling, asking to clarify any provisions of 
the Regulation.  

However, the CJEU delivered its judgment on 2 September 2021 in Case C-570/19 Irish 
Ferries64,  which  is  the  first  ever  preliminary  ruling  on  the  interpretation  of  Regulation 
(EU)  No  1177/2010  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when  travelling  by  sea  and 
inland waterway. Despite the fact that it concerns travelling by sea and inland waterway 
and  not  bus  and  coach,  it  may  as  well  have  relevance  for  the  interpretation  of  certain 
provisions of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011. For instance, the CJEU ruled that a situation 
of late delivery of a passenger transport vehicle which led to the cancellation does not fall 
within  the  concept  of  ‘extraordinary  circumstances’  or  that  the  rights  of  re-routing  and 
compensation  apply  also  in  case  a  carrier  cancels  a  passenger  service  giving  several 
weeks’  notice  prior  to  the  originally  scheduled  departure  due  to  late  delivery  of  a 
transport vehicle. 

3.3.  Member States’ exemptions 

The  Regulation  provides  for  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  use  four  types  of 
exemptions from application of its provisions: 

–  Exemption from application of provisions related to the rights of PRM, provided 
that Member States ensure that the level of their protection under national rules is 
at  least  the  same  as  under  the  Regulation.  This  exemption  has  no  time-limit 
(Article 18(1)). 

–  Exemption  from  application  of  provisions  other  than  “basic”  rights,  on  a 
transparent  and  non-discriminatory  basis,  to  domestic  regular  services,  which 
may be granted for 4 years, renewable once (Article 2(4)). 

–  Exemption  from  application  of  the  Regulation  to  particular  regular  services  of 
which a significant part, including at least one scheduled stop, is operated outside 
the Union (Article 2(5)). The exemption may be granted for 4  years, renewable 
once.  

–  Exemption from the application of the provision on disability-related training for 

driver, for a maximum period of 5 years (Article 16(2)). 

The only type of services on which passengers benefit from all “basic” and “extended” 
rights have been, since the Regulation came into force, all regular intra-EU cross border 
services and, since 1 March 2021, also all domestic services, of 250 kilometres or more. 

64 Case C-570/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 26 July 2019  — 
Irish Ferries Ltd v National Transport Authority, ECLI:EU:C:2021:664. 

24 

 
                                                      
 
The Regulation provided for the option of exemptions for domestic regular services and 
particular  regular  services  of  which  a  significant  part  is  operated  outside  the  EU  for  a 
period of 4 years (until 28 February 2017), renewable once.  In other words, as of 2018 
until  the  end  of  February  2021,  only  7.4%  of  passengers  were  in  scope  for  the  full 
benefits  of  the  Regulation  (including  rights  in  the  event  of  cancellation  or  delay, 
compensation  and  assistance  in  the  event  on  an  accident,  and  additional  rights  to 
assistance  for  PRM),  while  the  remaining  92.6%  only  received  limited  protection 
encompassing  simply  non-discriminatory  contract  conditions,  right  to  information  and 
right  to  transport  for  PRM.65  Passengers  on  occasional  services  also  face  significant 
issues  as  they  are  in  scope,  but  there  are  no  provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  their 
rights.66 

The actual use of exemptions by national authorities is presented in Table 2. 

Table 2. The use of exemptions by countries.  

Article 18(1) – 
Provisions on PRM 
protection 

Article 2(4) - Domestic 
regular services 

Article 2(5) - Services of 
which a significant part 
is operated outside the 
EU 

Article 16(2) - Exemption from 
disability-related training for 
drivers 

Expired 
2017 

Expired 
2021 

Expired 
2017 

Expired 
2021 

Expired 2018 

Not used by any country 

CZ, EL, FR, 
NL, RO 

EE, HR, 
LV, HU, 
PT, SI, SK, 
UK 

DE, FR, IT, 
NL, AT 

EE, EL, 
HR, LV, 
HU, SI, SK, 
FI, UK 

some MS made use of it67  

Source: Commission analysis based on support study, Para. 3.47, Table 3.5. 

It should be noted that, even if exemptions were used by some countries, their time-limit 
expired at the latest in March 2021. Consequently, while the use of exemptions is useful 
for further analysis of the effectiveness of the Regulation, it shall be borne in mind that 
none  of  them  are  applicable  anymore.  There  was  one  condition  to  the  possibility  of 
exemptions,  namely,  PRM  rights,  for  which  Member  States  had  to  ensure  under  their 
national rules at least the same level of protection.  

Figure 3 shows the impact of the exemptions adopted by Member States on the level of 
protection  guaranteed  to  those  passengers  who  experienced  delays  of  more  than  90 
minutes on departure,68 taking into account the time-limit of 4 years, renewable once. As 
data  illustrate,  in  2013    about  50%  of  the  affected  passengers  were  eligible  to  receive 
assistance, while in 2018 the rate increased to 95%. This peak may reflect an extended 
coverage to more passengers resulting from the removal of the exemptions under Articles 
2(4) and 2(5) registered in some Member States in 2018. 

65 Support study, Para. 4.6. 
66 See conclusions on the evaluation questions (Effectiveness) of the support study. 
67  The  Commission  does  not  have  data  from  all  countries,  but  some  reported  to  have  made  use  of  the 
exemption as for example Germany and Finland.  
68  According  to  Article  21  of  the  Regulation,  passengers  are  entitled  to  receive  assistance  in  case  of 
cancellation or delayed departures of more than 90 minutes for journeys of a scheduled duration of more 
than 3 hours.   

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3: Passengers protected from delays of more than one and a half hours – EU+4 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.49, Figure 3.5.  

3.4.  Major recent developments  

As  mentioned  above,  since  the  Regulation  started  to  apply  from  1  March  2013,  there 
have  been  a  number  of  changes  to  the  EU  bus  and  coach  market  with  potential 
implications for passengers’ needs. In addition to the liberalisation of domestic markets 
in large Member States and a significant increase in passenger traffic, accompanied by a 
relatively  rapid  consolidation  of  carriers  and  emerging  pan-European  carriers,  such  as 
FlixBus and Blablacar, along with the increasing digitalisation in the sector, the carriers 
sell almost all tickets and provide almost all information online or via an app, rather than 
at terminals.  

FlixBus,  for  instance,  was  founded  in  Germany  in  2011,  supported  by  further 
liberalisation of passenger transport by bus and coach in the EU.69 It has since become - 
at  least  before  the  COVID-19  pandemic  -  the  dominant  operator  across  Europe.  The 
business model adopted, i.e. the ‘platform’ carrier, has clear implications for passengers. 
Under  this  model,  platform  carriers  act  as  the  coach  companies  offering  the  service, 
while  the  service  is  in  fact  operated  in  cooperation  with  ‘bus  partners’,  which  are 
subcontractors.  These  local  bus  operators  employ  the  drivers,  own  the  vehicles  and 
operate the routes, whereas the ‘platform’ carriers sell the tickets and provide almost all 
information  online,  or  via  an  app,  rather  than  at  terminals.  The  ‘platform  carriers’  are 
able  to  provide  a  standardised  range  of  services  and  information  to  customers  at 
relatively low cost, reducing the demand for higher-cost  channels such as ticket offices 
and  information  desks,  telephone  book,  help  and  complaint  lines,  and  information 
screens and announcements for real-time information. In addition, platform carriers such 

69 See Support study, Appendix C.  

26 

 
  
 
                                                      
as  FlixBus  appear  to  accept  the  reponsibility  in  relation  to  passenger  rights  where 
services have been carried out by their bus partners.70  

This  trend  towards  increasing  digitalisation  and  greater  use  of  online  and  app-based 
services  by  consumers  reflects  global  developments  in  information  and  communication 
technology affecting the EU economy as a whole. In many industries, including the bus 
and coach market, digitalisation has improved services for the majority of passengers but 
has resulted in the exclusion of a minority who have no access to new technologies or for 
which the digital information is not provided in an accessible format. This was confirmed 
by many stakeholders, including operators, NEBs and passenger groups.  

Furthermore,  the  unexpected  outbreak  of  COVID-19  caused  disruptions  in  traffic  and 
made  the  health  aspects  of  travel  much  more  important  for  passengers.  It  also  forced 
national  authorities  to  take  swift  action  with  regard  to  the  provision  of  information  to 
passengers and ensuring effective reimbursements via the NEBs.  

4. 

METHODOLOGY  

Short description of methodology 

4.1. 
The evaluation of the Regulation started in 2019 with the publication of the roadmap71 on 
11 July 2019 and was overseen by an Inter-service Steering Group (see details in Annex 
1). It builds on the outcome of a  public consultation conducted from 3 July 2020 to 23 
October  202072  and,  to  a  large  extent,  the  support  study  carried  out  by  an  external 
contractor for the Commission between February 2020 and July 2021.  

The  support  study  relied  on  a  combination  of  sources  and  methods,  including  desk 
research and extensive stakeholder consultation. Its findings and their analysis cover the 
period from 1 March 2013 until February 2020. The results of this support study therefore 
do not specifically consider the impact of COVID-19. Nevertheless, where information has 
been collected and was assessed relevant on this topic, it has been included. 

The  study  findings  are  supplemented  by  additional  information  gathered  by  the 
Commission  during  its  monitoring  of  the  Regulation’s  implementation  across  Member 
States, from the bi-annual reports received from the NEBs, from issues raised by NEBs at 
the  Commission’s  annual  expert  group  meetings  or  at  various  meetings  with 
stakeholders, in Brussels or during missions in Member States, as well as from individual 
complaints received from citizens.  

This  evaluation  is  also  based  on  the  collection  and  detailed  analysis  of  published  pan-
European data and information from stakeholders and other industry sources over a two-
year period.  

70 Support Study, Para. C.163. 
71  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11879-Bus-&-coach-transport-
passenger-rights-evaluation-_en  
72  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11879-Evaluation-of-rights-of-
passengers-in-bus-and-coach-transport-in-the-EU/public-consultation_en  

27 

 
                                                      
The support  study  referred to  above was based on the analysis of the results of the 16-
week-long  public  consultation  and  the  targeted  stakeholders  consultation.  In  total,  28 
interviews (including 4 pilot interviews) were performed and 87 stakeholders replied to 
the survey (out of the 270 stakeholders who were contacted) and 29 selected stakeholders 
attended  the  participatory  workshop.  In  addition,  the  support  study  relied  on  desktop 
research  to  identify  and  collect  up-to-date  information  on  experience  of  the  legislation 
and  three  case  studies  (addressing  the  following  topics:  re-routing  of  bus  and  coach 
passengers  facing  disruption;  provision  of  information  to  passengers  in  the  event  of 
disruption  of  bus  and  coach  services;  and  the  rights  of  passengers  when  the  ticket  was 
issued  by  a  party  other  than  that  operating  the  service).  In  the  context  of  the  support 
study,  country  fiches  were  developed  for  all  EU+4  countries  within  the  scope  of  the 
support study. The evaluation included a baseline position representing the situation that 
would  have  been  observed  if  the  legislation  had  not  been  adopted,  as  a  basis  for 
quantifying the impact of the Regulation, along with a cost-benefit analysis.  

The  stakeholder  consultation  targeted  the  following  six  stakeholder  groups:  passenger 
organisations  and  representatives  of  persons  with  disabilities,  NEBs,  bus  and  coach 
carriers and their associations, terminal management bodies and their associations, ADR 
bodies and ECCs, and other relevant industry associations (e.g. travel agents). 

An  overview  of  the  stakeholders’  engagement  is  presented  by  stakeholder  group  in 
Figure A2.1, in Annex 2. 

Relying on the defined baseline (see Section 2.3), a cost-benefit assessment was carried 
out to estimate the costs and benefits accrued as a result of the Regulation. The targeted 
questionnaires  formed  a  good  basis  for  the  collection  of  information  for  this  task, 
supplemented by estimations where necessary to fill the gaps. The methodology that was 
applied for this assessment is the Standard Cost Model (SCM), which allowed to address 
the costs of the Regulation for Member States (especially NEBs), industry  stakeholders 
and  passengers,  including  PRM.  It  allowed  for  the  quantification  of  actual  costs  (i.e. 
financial  or  monetised  time  costs)  resulting  from  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation.  
The outcome of the cost-benefit analysis is further developed in Annex 5.  

The  SCM  was  originally  designed  for  the  assessment  of  the  administrative  burdens  of 
competent  authorities,  individuals  and  organisations.  However,  the  following  features 
were used to reinforce and complete the approach chosen:  

–  Estimation  of  benefits  derived  in  better  quality  of  travel  for  bus  and  coach 

passengers; 

–  Administrative burdens are estimated based on the assumption that legislation is 
100% complied with, though, in practice, not all businesses comply (fully) with 
all of the legislation. While this assumption has been held for the great majority 
of  information  obligations,  whenever  there  was  certainty  that  a  specific 
information requirement was not met, it was not considered. 

4.2. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

Whilst a range of stakeholders (including consumer organisations, carriers, terminals and 
NEBs) recognised the importance of the rights for passengers when travelling by bus and 

28 

 
coach, there is relatively little analysis of related issues in publicly available literature. In 
particular,  there  is  little  accurate  and  up-to-date  information  on  the  overall  size  of  the 
market  covered  by  the  Regulation,73  the  number  and  profile  of  passengers  benefitting 
from  it.  There  is  also  no  systematic  recording  of  the  number  and  nature  of  complaints 
received  by  carriers,  and  data  regarding  enforcement  actions  and  sanctions  remains 
limited  too.  Consequently,  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  benefits  of  the  Regulation  with 
any precision, although costs and benefits have been quantified where possible. This is an 
important limitation of the analysis.  

During the evaluation, input from a range of stakeholders was gathered,  including from 
NEBs,  in  addition  to  the  information  collected  from  their  biennial  reports,  major 
European carriers groups and bus and coach carriers, together with data from recognised 
industry sources. Access to these sources allowed to collate a balanced set of inputs on 
which to base the analysis and conclusions presented in the evaluation report. 

Appropriate  assumptions,  based  on  information  provided  during  the  stakeholder 
consultation and from various industry sources, were used to make up for a relatively low 
availability  of  data.  When  data  directly  related  to  the  bus  and  coach  industry  were  not 
sufficient  to  build  these  assumptions,  e.g.  as  no  consistent  dataset  containing  all  long-
distance  bus  passengers  in  Europe  was  available,  passenger  data  was  sourced  from 
national statistics in the first instance, with many publishing datasets stating the number 
of  ‘long  distance’  bus  passengers  travelling  in  and  from  each  country;  on  PRM,  more 
robust  data  from  the  support  study  to  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1107/2006 was incorporated. 

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This  chapter  presents  the  findings  as  to  whether  the  Regulation  has  delivered  the 
expected benefits at a proportionate cost. The Regulation is evaluated against the five key 
criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. 

5.1. 

Effectiveness 

Evaluation questions 

5.1.1.  What  progress  has  been  made  towards  the  general  objective  of  ensuring  an 
equivalent  level  of  protection  to  passengers  travelling  by  bus  and  coach  transport 
throughout Member States?  

Many stakeholders welcomed the existence of a consistent framework of rights across the 
EU. However, progress towards achievement of its objectives was slowed down because, 
until the end of February 2021, Member States could exempt a considerable part of the 
services from most of the rules of the Regulation, as outlined above.74  

The number of Member  States using exemptions  has decreased over the  years. Since 1 
March  2021  the  Regulation  applies  also  to  domestic  services  of  250  km  and  more. 

73 For 2018, the total passenger journeys in bus and coach over long-distance services was estimated to 2.8 
billion, based on a number of assumptions, which are presented in Annex F “Evaluation  baseline” of the  
support study. 
74 see above Section 3.3 on Member States’ exemptions.    

29 

 
                                                      
Passengers  have  now  an  equivalent  level  of  protection  to  passengers  travelling  by  bus 
and coach transport throughout Member States for domestic intra-EU services of 250 km 
and more. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  core  passenger  rights75  have  not  been  included  in  the 
Regulation. Passengers, in particular, have no right to compensation in case of delay in 
arrival. The Regulation defines a “delay” by reference to the time of departure, leaving 
aside delay en-route and on arrival. This has to do with the fact that drivers should not be 
incentivised  to  drive  too  fast,  for  obvious  safety  reasons.  Other  issues  include  the  fact 
that  some  rights  are  not  clearly  defined  (e.g.  re-routing  to  other  routes  on  competitor’s 
services, right to information in the absence of an obligation to pass on contact details, 
etc.), or very limited (e.g. luggage liability). 

5.1.2. What progress has been made towards the specific objectives of ensuring that:  

a.  passengers receive tickets and non-discriminatory contract conditions?  

The  right  to  non-discrimination  related  to  contract  conditions  (Article  4)  has  benefited 
from the massive development of the use of online and app-based sales in the last decade.  

Such  a  kind  of  overt  discrimination  has  become  rare,76  but  there  are,  however,  some 
recent issues raised on different tariffs for citizens and for non-residents on local and bus 
services.77 

Several stakeholders pointed out that discrimination was impossible if passengers booked 
on the website or via an app, because the process was wholly electronic and there was no 
basis on which to discriminate. A Spanish operator acknowledged that fares could vary 
by sales channel, but pointed out that multiple languages on many operator websites were 
a clear sign of intent not to discriminate and reduced the barriers to accessing services in 
other languages.  

In  addition,  both  carriers  and  terminal  managing  bodies,  supported  by  associations 
representing PRMs, are required to establish, or have in place, non-discriminatory access 
conditions for the transport of PRMs (Article 11, see also paragraph c below). 

b. passengers are protected in the event of an accident? 

Accidents  leading  to  injury  or  death  remain  extremely  rare  in  the  sector.  Based  on  the 
limited  evidence  available,78  it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Regulation on the appropriate protection of passengers in the event of an accident.  

75 See list of the ten core passenger rights presented in COM(2011) 898 final, pages 3 and 4. 
76 See support study Para. 3.3.  
77  Currently  the  Commission  is  investigating  five  complaints  regarding  higher  tariffs  on  local  and  bus 
services for non-residents in comparison to citizens. 
78 According to the support study, accidents are extremely rare and stakeholders made few comments on 
this issue. See Paragraphs 3.5 and following, as well as Appendices F and H. 

30 

 
                                                      
Stakeholders pointed out that, while Directive 2009/103/EC specified minimum levels of 
insurance  cover,  the  Regulation  specified  minimum  levels  of  compensation.  Several 
NEBs noted their responsibility to ensure that cover was in place. 

No  cases  of  death  or  injury  were  mentioned,  but  a  number  of  NEBs  commented  on 
baggage: in Austria, for instance, national law provides for a broad liability of the carrier 
for  luggage,  but  only  if  the  passenger  has  been  issued  a  luggage  receipt.  Several 
stakeholders referred to the issue of passengers taking the wrong bags but did not explain 
how they were returned to their owner or what compensation, if any, was paid. 

c.  PRM  have  opportunities  for  bus  and  coach  travel  comparable  to  those  of  all  other 
passengers? 

Certain elements prevent the Regulation from reaching a high level of protection of PRM 
passengers,  while  their  number  has  increased  through  the  years  (see  Figure  A6.1  in 
Annex 6), in particular from providing them with comparable travel opportunities.  

The  requirement  to  provide  assistance  to  PRM  passengers  is  limited  only  to  terminals 
explicitly  designated  under  Article  12.  At  the  same  time,  while  there  may  be  over  one 
million bus stops as a whole in the EU+4, only 250 terminals are currently designated.79 
In  addition,  their  geographical  distribution  is  not  optimal,  many  Member  States  (e.g. 
Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands)  designating  only  a  single  terminal.  The 
practical  consequence  is  that  protection  provided  for  by  the  Regulation  applies  in  a 
limited number of terminals, where facilities for PRMs do not always meet the standards, 
raising  concerns  for  stakeholders.  This  situation  has  had  a  negative  impact  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  as  the  level  of  accessibility  and  assistance  provided  to 
PRMs varies significantly depending on the facilities they use. It is very often impossible 
to make a journey on which assistance would be available at both ends. 

It  nevertheless  appears  that  the  Regulation  relies  on  an  unrealistic  assumption  that  a 
network of designated terminals exists, offering facilities to support passengers seeking 
to  exercise  their  rights.  In  reality,  however,  only  a  minority  of  them  are  appropriately 
equipped  or  have  terminal  managing  bodies.  For  instance,  many  terminals,  or  even 
designated terminals, may not have any of the features that supposedly define them, such 
as  a  check-in  counter  or  ticket  office,  except  typically  a  waiting  room.  In  addition, 
terminals  with  limited  opening  hours,  or  limited  levels  of  staffing,  do  not  provide  a 
guarantee that all services will be available at least from before the first service each day 
until after the last one. This fact differentiates them from airport terminals, which provide 
better accessibility guarantees. 

The  right  to  information  for  PRM  passengers  also  seems  not  be  fully  effective,  as 
information concerning accessibility or possibility to be accompanied by an assistant or a 
guide dog is often difficult to find during the online booking. Another related issue is that 
of audio information at stops and on board buses that are not accessible for deaf or hard 

79  https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/designated_bus_terminals_0.pdf    The  following  link 
includes 
terminals: 
list 
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4c41b26b-da15-44ca-9116-06a751a86bbc 

designated 

regularly 

updated 

of 

31 

 
                                                      
of hearing passengers (which need tactile surfaces) as well as PRM who do not speak the 
local language. 

On  the  carriers’  side,  the  disability-related  training  procedures  are  inconsistent  across 
Europe, as to when the training is delivered and how often it shall be renewed, as to its 
content  as  well  as  who  has  the  supervisory  role.  At  times,  it  forms  part  of  the  training 
required  by  Directive  2003/59/EC  on  the  initial  qualification  and  periodic  training  of 
drivers  of  certain  road  vehicles  for  the  carriage  of  goods  or  passengers.  The  topic  of 
trainings on disability was raised in the discussions with the NEBs. Further guidance was 
requested  from  the  Commission  but  due  to  COVID-19,  the  topic  has  not  yet  been 
followed up but it is envisaged in the near future. 

Finally, although cases of denied boarding are less prevalent in bus and coach transport 
than  in  other  modes,  the  reason  for  that  appears  to  be  that  PRM  realise  that  only  a 
minority  of  vehicles  and  stations  are  accessible.  They,  therefore,  decide  to  cancel  the 
travel once they receive information on inaccessibility, or do not plan a bus travel at all.80 
This  shows  how  the  issue  of  inaccessibility  can  prevent  PRM  from  even  considering 
coach travel, even if they enjoy the right to travel according to the Regulation. 

d. inconvenience to passengers due to cancellation or significant delay is reduced? 

Passengers have rights to information and assistance in case of delays and cancellations 
under  certain  conditions.  These  rights  reduce  the  inconveniences.  The  lack  of  reliable 
systems and procedures for data collection and monitoring, as well as the small number 
of  complaints  that  reach  the  NEBs,  make  it  difficult  to  estimate  the  scale  of 
inconveniences caused by cancellations, the number and duration of delays, as well as the 
scale and type of re-routing. This lack of data prevents passengers also from selecting a 
transport service based on information on expected reliability.  

Despite these general shortcomings in terms of available data, it has been reported on that 
most carriers do not re-route passengers using other carriers or carriers of other transport 
modes.81 This can lead to an increased inconvenience for the passenger. This issue may 
stem  from  the  fact  that  bus  and  coach  networks  are  typically  denser  than  rail  and  air 
networks  and  many  points  accessible  by  bus  and  coach  cannot  be  reached  by  other 
modes. Often, only one carrier is able to offer a service with the same itinerary, resulting 
in  obstacles  for  bus  and  coach  carriers  to  re-route  passengers  on  services  provided  by 
competitors.  Besides,  the  bus  and  coach  industry  does  not  have  systems  by  which 
bookings, passenger identification, destinations and other information could be stored in 
a  common  data  format  and  transferred  between  carriers.  Moreover,  as  departure  time 
approaches,  air  and  rail  services  can  become  fully  booked  and  fares  for  the  remaining 
seats can rise to many times the fare originally paid for the coach journey. Finally, it is 
often  easier  for  large  coach  operators  to  provide  a  replacement  coach,  enabling  all 
passengers  to  continue  on  a  replacement  service,  than  to  attempt  to  re-route  them 
individually to their destinations. 

80 See support study, Para. 3.18 and 3.275. 
81  See  case  study  on  re-routing  of  bus  and  coach  passengers  facing  disruption,  Appendix  C  of  the 
evaluation study. 

32 

 
                                                      
e. passengers are informed of their rights and are able to exercise them by complaint 
procedures set up by carriers (all regular services)? 

The text of the Regulation is generally available on the internet via operators’ and NEBs’ 
websites as well as  on the dedicated website of  Your Europe.82  In  addition,  passengers 
can  access  information  related  to  cancellations,  delays,  re-routing,  complaint  handling 
and reimbursement more easily thanks to increasing reliance by operators on information 
technology which leads to a more effective contact with passengers in case of disruption. 

On the other hand, passengers  are often unaware of their rights  to  complain and of the 
applicable  process,  as  evidenced  by  the  Special  Eurobarometer  Survey  No  485  on 
passenger rights.83  

Carriers’ websites are not always clear on how complaints should be lodged: some offer 
only a general “contact” point, whereas in other countries, there is a consistent national 
system  by  which  complaint  forms  must  be  made  available  on  each  vehicle.  Also  the 
information  available  on  carriers’  and  NEBs’  websites  is  not  always  comprehensive, 
accessible  or  well-presented,  which  actually  prevents  passengers  from  getting  clear 
explanations on their rights. As a consequence, in some countries, passengers complain 
to the wrong NEB, or to a general consumer complaints body.84 

Some operators, such as the pan-European carriers referred to in Section 3.4 above, act as 
ticket vendors or travel agents selling travel services provided by other carriers. This can 
possibly  cause  confusion  to  passengers  to  understand  with  which  party  they  are 
contracting and whom to complain to in case of an issue. 

f.  Member  States  and  national  enforcement  bodies  take  the  measures  necessary  to 
ensure the enforcement of the Regulation (all regular services)?  

The Regulation relies heavily on NEBs fulfilling their roles effectively, as enforcement is 
delegated  to  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  the  Regulation  allows  flexibility  to  the 
Member  States  to  design  the  enforcement  mechanism  in  the  national  legislation.  As  a 
result, the legal powers and practical capabilities of NEBs towards the enforcement of the 
Regulation  as  well  as  their  approach  to  monitoring  implementation  and  enforcement 
(which implies, inter alia, imposing penalties) vary significantly from one Member State 
to another, as mentioned above under Chapter 3. While most NEBs deal with individual 
complaints, most of those who provided information on the nature of their decisions said 
they were non-binding. The support study indicates that not all NEBs seem to proactively 
monitor the implementation and application of bus and coach passenger rights.85  

A  number  of  issues  have  been  observed  in  that  regard,  including  the  difficulty  to 
ascertain  the  precise  number  of  bodies  fulfilling  (part  of)  the  tasks  of  a  NEB  across 
Europe, be it at the national, regional and local level, while their official number is 98. 
Member  States  have  taken  different  approaches  to  meeting  the  relevant  requirements 
enshrined in the Regulation, ranging from establishing a single national multimodal NEB 

82 Bus passenger rights - Your Europe (europa.eu): https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-
rights/bus-and-coach/index_en.htm  
83 See above under Section 3.1 on the description of the current situation.  
84 See examples in Support study, Appendix D. 
85 See  the support study, Para. 3.39 and theCountry fiches in Appendix D. 

33 

 
                                                      
to  designating  up  to  16  in  Czechia,  17  in  Poland  or  20  NEBs  in  Spain,  with 
responsibilities divided by location, type of journey and/or type of complaint. Also, other 
bodies,  such  as  those  responsible  for  consumer  protection  or  alternative  dispute 
resolution (ADR), may also have, on a regular basis or in specific cases, competence in 
the area of enforcement of passenger rights. Stakeholders indicated that the public list of 
NEBs  would  not  record  all  the  bodies  dealing  with  bus  and  coach  passenger  rights, 
suggesting that additional bodies may have at least some enforcement role. Presumably, 
stakeholders refer to these other bodies dealing also with passenger rights without being 
appointed as a NEB, for example consumer protection authorities. 

There is an overall upward trend in the number of complaints, which was multiplied by 
4 between 2015 and 2019. The volume of complaints remains, however, extremely low 
(less than 1,000 in 2019 at EU+4 level).86 On the basis of the analysis of the complaints 
data  from  12  NEBs  compared  to  the  total  bus  and  coach  traffic  for  scheduled  and 
occasional services regardless of distance, it was estimated that in 2018, NEBs received 
1.5 complaints per million bus and coach journeys.87  

These findings do not allow for a complete picture of compliance with the Regulation. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  the  low  level  of  complaints  to  NEBs,  as  mentioned 
above, represents “the tip of the iceberg” or the actual level of concern among passengers 
about the service they receive. 

The following reasons  contribute to the fact that bus and coach passengers submit very 
few complaints, indicating that the extent of the issues is not necessarily reflected by the 
volume of complaints:  

  Many passengers are still unaware of their rights; 
  Bus and coach services are perceived as cheap transport services and therefore many 
passengers may not expect high quality service and they may not seek a redress when 
their rights are not respected;  

  Bus and coach services within the scope of this Regulation are often not well equipped 

with consumer complaint services; 

  NEBs in certain countries only deal with the systemic enforcement of the Regulation 

and do not handle the complaints of individual passengers; 

  Many  passengers  consider  that  submitting  a  complaint  to  a  NEB  might  not  be 
beneficial to them as in most countries NEBs do not have the power to issue a binding 
decision  in  the  event  of  a  breach  of  the  Regulation.  When  NEBs’  decisions  are  not 

86 For comparison, NEBs dealing with air passenger rights received more than 128 000 complaints in 2018. 
87  See  support  study:  NEBs  dealing  with  waterborne  passenger  rights  received  around  1  complaint  per 
million  passengers  in  2018;  NEBs  dealing  with  air  PRM  received  around  14  complaints  per  million 
passengers; NEBs  dealing  with air passengers received around 114 complaints per million passengers on 
the same year (meaning a total of 128 complaints per million passengers for air transport as a whole). See 
also the information on the number of complaints received by Member State and the nature of complaints 
in Figures 1 and 2 above in Section 3.2. 

34 

 
                                                      
binding  on  operators,  passengers  must  seek  another  instrument  to  obtain  redress, 
resulting in passenger rights not being effectively enforced;88 

  Compensation  thresholds  dealing  with  a  percentage  amounting  to  50%  of  the  ticket 
price have less incentive than in case of long delays or cancellation of a flight, where 
passengers may receive a financial compensation up to EUR 250, 400 or 600; 

  Passengers  may  be  confused  by  the  existence  of  several  NEBs  and  additional  other 

bodies dealing with passenger rights in bus and coach transport.    

Monitoring  activities  of  operators,  terminals  and  other  parts  of  the  industry’s  supply 
chain carried out by the NEBs , are therefore essential to ensure the enforcement of the 
Regulation.  This  may  help  improve  the  effectiveness  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation. In monitoring compliance, some NEBs are reactive and some proactive (for 
example, they carry out inspections in addition to conducting investigations based on the 
complaints they receive).  

However,  whether  the  approaches  taken,  especially  the  approach  based  mainly  or 
exclusively  on  responding  to  complaints,  have  been  efficient  and  effective  to  ensure 
compliance  and  consistency  in  enforcement  across  Member  States,  carriers,  routes  and 
PSO and non-PSO services, cannot be assessed firmly, given the scarcity of data on this 
question as explained above when analysing the number of complaints. In addition, there 
is no requirement of enforcement in relation to occasional services, even though Member 
States may give NEBs or other bodies powers in that area. 

As  regards  enforcement  measures,  only  a  small  proportion  of  NEBs  have  issued 
penalties,  which  were  generally  infrequent  and  small.  Moreover,  none  of  the  penalties 
reported by NEBs  exceeded EUR 4,000.89 These amounts depend on the circumstances 
of the case at hand. Data on how effectively these sanctions led to a change of behaviour 
by  the  operators  are  not  available.  The  low  amounts  of  penalties  could  raise  doubts 
whether  these  penalties  are  proportionate  and  more  importantly  dissuasive,  while 
providing  a strong incentive to  comply  with  the  Regulation,  especially  when combined 
with  no  pro-active  monitoring  and  a  low  level  of  awareness  of  passengers  about  their 
rights. Given the data available, no firm conclusion on effectiveness, proportionality and 
dissuasiveness of the sanctions can be drawn.  

In addition, the NEBs are obliged to publish bi-annual reports on their activities as of 
1 June 2015. These reports are a valuable source for data.90 If not foreseen under national 
law, the NEBs cannot rely on reports of carriers, because these are not obliged to report 
annually on certain service quality standards as it is the case for rail passenger rights.91 
The  reports  of  the  NEBs  have  to  contain  in  particular  a  description  of  actions  taken  in 

88  As  shown  by  Special  Eurobarometer  Survey  No  485  on  Passenger  Rights  the  share  of  those  who 
experienced a disruption, which say that remedial action was taken was relatively low in respect to other 
modes: 38% in bus and coach, compared to 53% in air, 43% in rail, 38% in waterborne. 
89 See Annex 6, Table A6.3 Enforcement approach of selected NEBs. 
90 See also Annex III point 3. 
91 Regarding rail passenger rights, railway undertakings are  obliged to report annually on certain  service 
quality  standards  (Article  28  and  Annex  III  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1371/2007)  and  Article  29  of 
Regulation (EU) 2121/782. 

35 

 
                                                      
order  to  implement  this  Regulation  and  statistics  on  complaints  and  sanctions  applied 
(Article 29).  

Without sufficient monitoring activity and enforcement measures, backed up by effective 
penalties, there is a risk that the protection of bus and coach passenger rights is and will 
remain seriously limited.   

In order to assess the effectiveness of the enforcement of passenger rights by the NEBs in 
the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  it  has  to  be  considered  that  until  the  end  of 
February 2021 in ten Member States the rules on refunds in case of cancellation have not 
been applicable for domestic services.92 As mentioned above, the Commission started in 
August  2020  informal  dialogues  via  EU  Pilot  with  all  Member  States  regarding  the 
application of passenger rights in all modes of transport including bus and coach in the 
context  of  COVID-19  and  the  obligations  of  NEBs  to  report  on  their  activities.  These 
dialogues are still ongoing. 

As Recital 27 of the Regulation underlines, the protection of the bus and coach passenger 
rights is complemented by wider public enforcement mechanisms established under the 
Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation. So far, this Regulation has not been 
used yet for bus and coach passenger rights.93 

Passengers may also seek individual redress by turning to Alternative Dispute Resolution 
(ADR)  bodies  or  national  courts.  Turning  to  ADR  bodies  can  be  a  comparatively 
efficient and effective way to seek redress for bus and coach passenger rights complaints.  

However, based on information provided by NEBs and ADR bodies themselves, not all 
Member  States  are  equally  equipped  in  that  respect:  a  number  of  them  do  not  have 
specific  ADR  bodies  for  the  sector  and  direct  the  disputes  to  a  generic  ADR  body.  In 
addition,  in  some  Member  States  where  NEBs  are  entitled  to  adjudicate  on  passenger 
rights claims, the participation of carriers in the procedure is voluntary. Finally, certain 
ADRs lack transport sector specific expertise. The Commission has supported the launch 
of  Travel-Net,94  an  association  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR)  and  Online 
Dispute  Resolution  (ODR)  bodies  for  transport  and  travel  disputes,  to  facilitate 
networking and exchanges between them. 

5.1.3.  Which  factors  have  contributed  to/hindered  the  achievement  of  the  above 
objectives? 

92  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Slovenia.  
The  ten  Member  States  listed  above  include  the  ones  where  the  exemption  from  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation in accordance with Article 2(4) was granted until the end of February 2021, excluding the UK 
(see  Table  2  on  the  use  of  exemptions  by  countries  in  section  3.3)  along  with  the  three  Member  States 
where the exemption was not applicable due to the scheduled distance of services below 250 km (namely, 
Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta).  
93 Recently the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation has been used for the better enforcement of 
air 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-
complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/coordinated-actions/air-travel_en.   
94  Launch  event  for  TRAVEL-NET,  a  network  of  ADR  entities  handling  consumer  disputes  in  the 
passenger transport and travel sectors (Berlin, 10 November 2017); https://www.adrpoint.gr/travel-net (the 
Greek ADR hosts the website with an application form). It has more than 20 members. 

passenger 

rights, 

see: 

36 

 
                                                      
The  scope  of  the  Regulation,  which  offers  only  limited  protection  to  passengers  on 
services  below  250  km  as  well  as  on  occasional  services,  deprives  many  passengers  in 
Europe  of  a  high  level  of  protection.  The  specific  protection  established  for  PRM 
passengers  is  also  not  guaranteed  in  practice  in  most  Member  States  due  to  the  low 
number of designated terminals. 

Moreover,  effective  enforcement  is  needed  to  achieve    the  objectives  set  out  in  the 
Regulation.  Different  organisational  structures,  powers  and  procedures  in  NEBs  and 
other enforcement bodies add to the lack of awareness of passengers about their rights. 
Consequently, a low number of complaints reported could be interpreted as evidence for 
a  high  level  of  compliance,  but,  combined  with  weak  monitoring  activities,  low 
passengers’ awareness of their rights, it could also mean that there is a rather low level of 
compliance.  Importantly,  the  current  system  does  not  effectively  allow  overseeing  and 
measuring  the  quality  of  enforcement,  due  to  the  variety  of  levels  at  which  rights  are 
enforced combined with lack of comprehensive reporting from the carriers to the NEBs, 
as well as lack of reliable procedures for data collection and monitoring. 

5.1.4. To what extent have the measures adopted in the Regulation ensured the same 
level of passenger rights protection across the EU?  

The Regulation anchored the varying levels of national protection of passenger rights in a 
minimum  “floor”  level.  Before  its  adoption,  that  protection  differed  according  to  the 
consumer and transport law in each Member State.  

However, the practical  effect is  complex to  identify  and  almost  impossible to  measure. 
Indeed, passenger rights vary depending on the length of the journey, whether domestic, 
international  or  extending  outside  the  EU.  In  case  of  a  service  operated  in  accordance 
with a Public Service Obligation (PSO), the effective passenger rights may also depend 
on  the  conditions  of  carriage  offered  by  the  competent  authority.  The  issues  related  to 
enforcement further prevent the Regulation from ensuring the same level of protection of 
passengers across the EU. 

In  case  of  disruption,  the  effective  level  of  protection  is  additionally  affected  by  the 
extent to which information can be communicated to passengers in accessible languages 
or media. On board vehicles, and even at many terminals, the availability of information 
may be limited by the language skills of the driver, reduced staff, or the media by which 
information is provided.  

5.1.5. Has the Regulation led to any positive or negative unexpected effects? 

On the operators side,  entering  a new national  market  in  the absence of the Regulation 
required  a careful study  of all relevant  domestic  legislations, the  requirements  it would 
impose  on  them,  and  the  means  and  costs  of  compliance.  In  some  cases,  this  would 
require  local  adjustments  to  their  business  models  and  operating  procedures,  to  ensure 
that  they  reflected  local  requirements.  Uniformity  brought  by  the  Regulation  in  that 
regard  may  be  assessed  positively,  although  hampered  by  unequal  enforcement  at  the 
national level. 

Nevertheless,  compliance  with  the  Regulation  may  be  difficult  for  some  SMEs,  since 
some  provisions  require  services  that  are  difficult  to  provide  by  small  operators,  who 

37 

 
have  a  limited  number  of  coaches,  drivers,  head  office  staff  and  commercial 
agreements.95  

Both  new and  existing operators have  chosen to  deliver many  aspects  of  their business 
model through email, SMS, websites and apps. Those means not only have low operating 
costs  but  also  allow  operators  to  “push”  general  or  tailored  information  direct  to 
passengers in real time.96 

5.1.6.  Did  the  Regulation  lead  to  legal  clarity?  Does  the  Regulation  leave  gaps  that 
might hamper its effectiveness?  

Several gaps which hampered the effectiveness of the Regulation have been identified:  

Distance threshold of 250 kilometres  

The  most  significant  of  the  gaps  can  be  identified  with  regard  to  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation,  which  affects  the  level  of  protection  granted  to  passengers:  pursuant  to 
Article 2(1) and 2(2), the Regulation in its entirety only applies to regular services if the 
scheduled distance of the service is 250 kilometres or more, and only limited rights apply 
to  regular  services  with  shorter  distance  and  to  occasional  services.  In  practice, 
passengers other than those travelling on regular services where the scheduled distance of 
the service is at least 250 kilometres do not benefit for example from assistance in case of 
cancellation or delays of the service, and they cannot benefit from assistance granted for 
PRM passengers. 

Moreover, the application of the 250 km threshold was not clear for all stakeholders, as it 
refers to the “scheduled distance of the services”. Nevertheless, the European Parliament 
and  the  Council  both  understood  it  as  follows:  “The  Regulation  applies  to  all  regular 
services  for  non-specified  categories  of  passengers  with  a  scheduled  distance  of  more 
than 250 kilometres, which means that passengers only travelling a part of such a long-
distance  service  are  also  covered”.97  The  Commission  clarified  this  issue  also  with  the 
NEBs  that  in  cases  where  the  scheduled  distance  of  a  service  is  250  km  or  more,  the 
provisions  of  the  entire  Regulation  should  apply  to  all  passengers,  even  if  they  travel 
with the service on a journey which is shorter than 250 km.98 However, as supported by a 
range of stakeholders participating in the consultation exercise, it has in many instances 
been misinterpreted in the sense that the passenger has to travel at least 250 km.  

This  threshold  can  also  lead  to  unfair  results,  as  it  differentiates  between  passengers 
travelling  between  the  same  points,  those  travelling  on  a  service  of    250  km  or  more 
enjoying  the  full  range  of  rights  and  being  treated  equally,  unlike  those  travelling  on 
services  of  less  than  250  km  for  whom  only  the  “basic”  rights  apply.  This  double 

95 See Support study, Para. 3.93. 
96  See  the  case  study  on  passenger  rights  when  the  ticket  was  not  issued  by  the  operator  of  the  service 
(analysing the EU  major bus and coach business  models of FlixBus and BlaBlaBus), Appendix C of the 
support study. 
97 Report of the European Parliament  A7-2011-0020; Council press release of  31 January  2011, 5808/11 
PRESSE 14, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/118995.pdf 
98 See the Report to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2016)619, 27.9.2016, footnote 30. 

38 

 
                                                      
standard  is  independent  of  the  length  of  their  individual  journey.  For  instance,  if  a 
passenger travels with a regular service scheduled only between the two terminus stations 
in  Bratislava  and  Vienna,  64  kilometres  away  from  each  other,  only  the  basic  rights 
apply, while the full Regulation will apply if this journey between Bratislava and Vienna 
is  part  of  a  service  where  the  two  end  stations  are  distant  by  at  least  250km  (e.g.  line 
from Munich to Budapest). 

Liability for stolen luggage 

A number of stakeholders, notably passengers and consumers’ organisations, argued that 
further improvement is also required in relation to the provisions on operator’s liability in 
the case of damaged, lost or stolen luggage. In particular, the latter is not covered by the 
Regulation as compensation is only granted for lost or damaged luggage in the event of 
accidents pursuant to Article 7. Nevertheless, this does not represent the typical case for 
bus  and  coach  passengers.  What  they  may  be  most  exposed  to  in  that  regard  is  having 
their  baggage  stolen  at  terminals  or  bus  stops,  as  confirmed  by  many  stakeholders 
participating in the consultation exercise. This consistitutes a significant gap in terms of 
passengers’ protection.  

Interpretative uncertainties  

Interpretative doubts, as expressed by many stakeholders participating in the consultation 
exercise,99  may  also  concern  notions  such  as  re-routing  under  “comparable  conditions” 
and “at the earliest opportunity” as laid down under Article 19(1)(a)100 or the exact scope 
of information to be provided in case of disruption. This uncertainty is exacerbated by the 
absence of case-law by the CJEU. Case-law in the area of other modes of transport such 
as Case C-570/19 Irish Ferries101 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by 
sea and inland waterway  could  provide  guidance in  interpretation  of some concepts  set 
out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011,  for  instance  the  interpretation  of  the  notion  
‘extraordinary  circumstances’  or  the  rights  of  re-routing  and  compensation  in  case  a 
carrier cancels a passenger service giving several weeks’ notice. 

Submission of complaints 

Furthermore, Articles 27 and 28(3) related to submission of complaints contain no rules 
regarding  the  question  as  to  who  can  be  empowered  to  represent  the  passenger  in  this 
process,  as  it  is  a  matter  of  national  law.  Cases  mentioned  by  stakeholders  are  for 
example:  the  carer  of  a  passenger  with  learning  difficulties,  or  a  non-passenger 
complaining about  lack  of information  about  a service on which  a passenger (e.g.  their 

99 See support study Table 4.5, proposal 4; also see case study Para. C.19. 
100 “1. Where a carrier reasonably expects a regular service to be cancelled or delayed in departure from a 
terminal  for  more  than  120  minutes  or  in  the  case  of  overbooking,  the  passenger  shall  immediately  be 
offered the choice between: (a) continuation or re-routing to the final destination, at no additional cost and 
under comparable conditions, as set out in the transport contract, at the earliest opportunity;”  
101 Case C-570/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 26 July 2019  — 
Irish Ferries Ltd v National Transport Authority, ECLI:EU:C:2021:664. 

39 

 
                                                      
relative) is travelling.102Moreover, a passenger might wish to complain about a terminal 
managing body, which is currently not possible according to the Regulation. 

Enforcement of the provisions on occasional services 

Finally,  there  remain  gaps  in  the  Regulation  in  relation  to  the  enforcement  of  the 
provisions on occasional services as Chapter V on complaint handling and Chapter VI on 
the  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  do  not  apply  to  occasional  services  as  stated  under 
Article 2(3).  

5.1.7.  To  what  extent  can  the  changes  observed  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Regulation be attributed to its application?  

In the absence of the Regulation, passengers would have faced a patchwork of passenger 
rights  varying  between  Member  States  and,  within  Member  States,  with  local 
arrangements  including  the  contracts  and  conditions  of  carriage  of  individual  PSO 
contracts.  Bus  and  coach  carriers  would  probably  not  have  strong  incentives  to 
implement  rights  for  passengers  and  to  address  complaints.  Therefore,  the  Regulation 
created a consistent and standardised framework of passenger rights, which it is doubtful 
would emerge spontaneously otherwise. 

However, data on complaints lodged with NEBs does not allow to establish whether the 
increase in the volume of complaints is driven by changes in travel within the scope of 
the Regulation, the number of the breaches of the Regulation, passengers’ awareness of 
the right  to  complain,  or their willingness  to  do so. Similarly, there is  little data on the 
number of services, or passenger journeys distinguishing regular and occasional services, 
PSO and non-PSO  services, or services of 250 kilometres or more. Second, the precise 
number  of  services  and  passengers  benefitting  from  each  element  of  the  Regulation  is 
unclear, so that its impact is difficult to assess through a counterfactual scenario.103 

5.1.8. Are passengers easily granted the rights to which they are entitled?  

According  to  special  Eurobarometer  485  survey,  at  EU  level,104  38%  of  bus  and  coach 
passengers  who  experienced  a  disruption  received  some  form  of  ‘remedial  action’. 
Across  Member  States,  the  proportions  vary  greatly,  with  87%  of  passenger  in  Poland 
but  only  3%  in  the  United  Kingdom  answering  that  they  received  remedial  action  (see 
Figure A6.4 in the Annex 6). However, this data does not account for whether passengers 
were  eligible  for  basic  or  extended  rights  nor  for  the  type  and  duration  of  disruption 
experienced by passengers, the reason for which is not conclusive for the assessment of 
the effectiveness of the Regulation. 

Moreover, and according to the same survey, many passengers are still unaware of their 
rights:  only  39%  of  bus  and  coach  users  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  EU  passenger 
rights,  which  is  the  lowest  rate  among  all  transport  modes.105  Based  on  these 

102  Legal  unclarity  regarding  the  right  to  represent  a  passenger  in  the  complaint  procedure  has  been 
identified not only in relation to Regulation (EU) No 181/2011, but overall in the EU regulatory framework 
on passenger rights. See support study Para. 3.192. 
103 See Support study, Paragraphs 3.97 and following. 
104 Special Eurobarometer 485 Report. 
105 49% for air passengers, 43% for rail passengers and 45% for ship or ferry passengers. 

40 

 
                                                      
observations,  it  is  probable  that,  in  many  instances,  passengers  would  probably  not 
understand  that  passenger  rights  vary  between  modes,  Member  States  and  routes  of 
different  lengths.  Importantly,  bus  and  coach  passengers’  expectations  of  their  rights 
seem to be based on what they know, or think they know, about other services or modes, 
rather  than  on  an  informed  view  that  there  is  a  consistent  minimum  level  of  protection 
specifically available for bus and coach travel. 

5.2. 

Efficiency 

Evaluation questions 

5.2.1. What were the actual negative impacts and costs the Regulation has given rise to 
and how high were they? Who did they fall upon?   

As  far  as  passengers  are  concerned,  the  total  net  costs  (difference  between  costs  and 
benefits)106 associated with the Regulation was estimated107 to EUR 122 million over the 
2013-18 period (in 2018 prices). These costs, referring to the time spent by passengers in 
making  complaints  and  claims  due  to  disruptions,  takes  into  consideration  the  total 
number  of  complaints  made  in  the  scope  of  the  Regulation,  the  2  hours  time  taken  to 
address each complaint on average and passenger’s value of time.  

In  the  absence  of  the  Regulation,  bus  and  coach  carriers  would  probably  not  have  had 
strong  incentives  to  implement  rights  for  passengers  and  address  complaints  as  the 
additional  costs  imposed  by  the  Regulation  can  be  significant  to  carriers.  This  is  also 
demonstrated by the fact that the majority of Member States had not been able to develop 
appropriate  complaint  handling  and  dispute  resolution  mechanisms  before  the  adoption 
of the Regulation. On the other hand, while some costs under the Regulation may not be 
burdensome, and may be bundled together with other compliance tasks, such as quality 
and  safety,  enforcement  costs  –  including  those  associated  with  complaints  handling, 
may be substantial. This is the case when legal advice is necessary, although it remains 
unclear how often carriers need to do so as a result of the Regulation.  In conclusion, it 
was  estimated  that  costs  for  carriers  amounted  to    EUR  571  million  over  the  2013-18 
period (2018 prices, see Table A5.1, in Annex 5).  

Financial compensation does not represent a relevant cost here. As compensation is not a 
basic right, it applies to a very limited share of passengers; besides compensation is due 
only  if  the  carrier  fails  to  offer  passengers  the  choice  between  rerouting  and 
reimbursement; and as most bus or coach tickets cost EUR 100 or less, the net value of 
the compensation is negligible, given the time needed to submit the complaint.  

As regards the costs of providing compensation or assistance in the event of accidents, no 
evidence  or  comments  have  been  provided  by  stakeholders.  However  a  European-wide 
carrier  explained  how  its  traffic  control  department  would  operate  in  the  event  of  an 
accident or emergency by calling ambulance and police, providing technical assistance or 
advice, as well as providing assistance with regard to the passengers’ immediate practical 

106  Stakeholders’  views  on  specific  regulatory  costs,  including  in  relation  to  complaint  handling, 
monitoring and enforcement,  are analysed in detail in  the cost-benefit analysis part of the  support  study, 
see Appendix H.  
107 Making use of assumptions, to deal with the data limitations referred to in the methodology. See Section 
4.2. 

41 

 
                                                      
needs. As far as compensation and assistance are concerned, it did not identify any costs 
stemming from compliance. 

It should be noted that, on the one hand, passengers may be reluctant to complain unless 
they  expect  reimbursement  or  compensation,  while,  on  the  other,  penalties  applied  to 
carriers  and  terminal  managing  bodies  do  not  directly  benefit  the  passenger  who  made 
the complaint.  

Passengers may also find that the Regulation added complexity to the process of lodging 
a complaint making it more difficult. For example: 

–  For  passengers  it  may  be  difficult  to  understand  whether  a  complaint  relates  to 

the Regulation, or to national law, or is not valid. 

–  Passengers  may  be  confused  over  which  body  should  be  approached  regarding 

the complaint. 

–  Passengers  may  face  a  procedure  of  several  steps  until  they  can  enforce  their 
right: they may need both, to complain and to appeal, which may further need to 
be followed by action in courts. 

PRM may still encounter difficulties when travelling by bus and coach because they need 
to notify their travel in advance, they have different needs depending on their  disability 
and, for PRM who are wheelchair users, different technologies of wheelchair may further 
restrict their possibilities to access a bus or a coach. 

The  additional  costs  of  the  Regulation  to  date  may  be  limited,  as  carriers  may  have 
granted some elements of the rights, whether legally required or not, by other means; and 
passengers might not demand all their rights, either because they are not fully aware of 
them or because they do not wish to demand them. 

Higher  costs  may  stem  from  the  fuller  delivery  of  the  rights  and  associated  benefits, 
which may in turn also result in additional costs for passengers, as they still have to take 
action to obtain their rights, even if they are more aware of them. 

In  terms  of  administrative  costs  for  NEBs,  they  reported  a  relatively  small  number  of 
full-time  equivalents  (FTEs)  assigned  to  monitoring  and  enforcement  tasks,  including 
complaint  handling.  However,  the  existence  of  NEBs  may  have  led  to  carriers  dealing 
with more complaints themselves, increasing costs to carriers but resulting in less work 
and  costs  for  both  NEBs  and  passengers.  No  stakeholders  suggested  that  more  than  a 
small  proportion  of  complaints  were  passed  to  a  NEB.  None  of  the  NEBs  consulted 
clearly  distinguished  costs  associated  with  their  responsibilities  under  national  law  and 
the additional costs associated with their responsibilities as a NEB under the Regulation. 
It  was  nevertheless  estimated  in  the  cost-benefit  analysis  that  NEB  costs  associated  to 
fulfilling their enforcement role pursuant to the Regulation amounted to EUR 32 million 
over the 2013-18 period (2018 prices).  

Table  3  summarises  the  recurring  costs  of  monitoring  and  enforcement  processes 
reported  by  stakeholder  group  including,  for  clarity,  the  costs  of  complaints  by 
passengers  to  NEBs.  Tables  A6.6  and  A6.7  in  Annex  6  present  an  overview  of  the 
running costs for NEBs, and of running costs and benefits for carriers, respectively. 

42 

 
The  overall  total  net  cost,  adding  up  the  sub-totals  referred  to  above,  amounts  to  EUR 
725 million over the 2013-18 period (2018 prices).  It can be used as a basis to estimate 
the cost of the Regulation borne by each passenger. Indeed, dividing these costs by the 
total number of passengers who travelled on long-distance bus lines in EU+4 during the 
same  period  (namely  13.8  billion),  it  was  estimated  that  the  Regulation  costs  each 
passenger EUR 0.05. Moreover, if all the costs are apportioned to the bus passengers who 
travel on services of 250 km or more, the cost of the Regulation results in an additional 
EUR 0.40 per journey. 

43 

 
 
 
Table 3: Recurring regulatory costs by stakeholder group, monitoring and enforcement 

Group 

Description of recurring costs 

Passengers including 
PRMs 

Time required: 

 

to research rights, collect evidence and write communications to stakeholders 

Inconvenience and risk: 

  Some NEBs only accept complaints in writing (Luxembourg), or in the local language  
  Complaints-handling charges in some Member States: Denmark’s ADR charges EUR10-
20 (DKK80-160) per complaint which is refundable only if the complaint is upheld or 
withdrawn. 

  Sweden’s ADR handles complaints with a value greater than EUR50 (SEK500). This 

appears to comply with the Article 28(3) requirement that complaints may be submitted. 
If nothing else, this may mean that many complaints which are valid under the 
Regulation are not submitted by passengers. 

Legal fees: 

  where passengers go to court or a consumer ombudsman, particularly where NEBs’ 

decisions are non-binding 

NEBs 

Monitoring, including inspections: 

  Communication with stakeholders, including translation costs where applicable 
  Collection and verification of evidence 
  NEBs assess whether operators’ procedures are compliant, including their conditions of 

carriage and information on their websites 

  NEBs carry out open and hidden monitoring of compliance, as in Ireland 
  NEBs request evidence of compliance, as in Italy 

Enforcement: 

  Weighing of evidence and judgment (Denmark’s appeal board consists of five members 

and a high court judge, which meets six times per year) 

  Penalties 
  Constructive discussions with operators 
  Administration costs relating to enforcement penalties 
  Escalation of enforcement action where non-binding judgments have not been acted 

upon 

  Legal advice, where procured 

Reporting: 
  Biannual activity reports 

coach 

Monitoring: 

  Collection and submission of evidence of compliance to authorities, as in Italy 
 

Internal quality audits 

and 

Bus 
carriers 

Terminals  including 
terminal  managing 
bodies 

Enforcement: 

  Additional staff training 
  Updating company policies, operating procedures and general conditions of carriage 

Source: Commission’s analysis based on Support study. 

44 

 
 
 
5.2.2. Were the positive impacts for passengers achieved at a "reasonable" cost? Could 
the  same  results  have  been  achieved  with  less  funding/lower  cost?  Is  there  any 
potential for the reduction of the regulatory costs for any of the stakeholders groups?   

Passengers  have  benefited  from  the  overall  positive  impact  of  the  Regulation  which 
increased  their  rights.  Passenger  and  PRM  representatives  were  mostly  positive,  with 
around  half  stating  that  the  Regulation  has  –probably-  delivered  net  benefits.  Carriers 
were mostly negative but, in contrast to air service providers consulted on air passenger 
rights and protection for PRM, bus and coach operators did not argue strongly in favour 
of lower regulatory costs at this stage of implementation of the Regulation.   

Whether the cost was reasonable can be assessed only partially given the lack of data. In 
particular, a robust assessment would require (1) the exact level of rights that existed, or 
would have been introduced, in the absence of the Regulation, for each combination of 
service  type  and  right,  (2)  the  exact  number  of  passengers  benefitting  from  each 
additional right, and (3) estimates of both the costs and the benefits of creating that right. 

On  the  other  side,  the  analysis  of  benefits  requires  an  assessment  of  (1)  which  of  the  
passenger rights enshrined in the Regulation would have been achieved anyway, whether 
through  other  legislation,  PSO  contracts  or  conditions  of  carriage,  or  commercial 
pressure  on  operators,  and  (2)  the  benefits  to  operators.  Therefore,  the  benefits  to 
passengers may include: 

–  non-discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of residence with regard to 

transport conditions offered to passengers by bus or coach undertakings; 

–  information  obligations  (regarding  their  rights  and  possibilities  of  complaint 

handling and enforcement); 

–  compensation  in  the  event  of  accidents,  in  respect  of  wheelchairs  and  other 
mobility  equipment,  and  if  the  correct  choices  are  not  offered  in  the  event  of 
disruption; 

–  obligations of bus and coach undertakings in the event of delay in departure, in 
the event a carrier has not assisted a passenger in the first instance, and also the 
availability  of  assistance  in  the  case  departures  are  delayed  by  90  minutes  or 
more; 

–  obligations of bus and coach undertakings in the event of cancellation; 

–  right to care and assistance in case of disruptions; 

–  right to assistance for passengers (including PRM) in case of disruption; 

–  more confidence in travel; and 

–  some savings in time through clarification of complaints procedures. 

According  to  some  consumer  and  passenger  associations,  the  need  to  use  Alternative 
Dispute  Resolution  –  ADR-processes  (with  the  time,  inconvenience  and  administrative 
fees  connected  with  them)  could  be  reduced  if,  for  example,  the  NEBs  had  sufficient 

45 

 
powers,  and  acted  consistently  in  interpreting  the  legislation,  to  deter  non-compliance 
through effective enforcement.108  

One  of  the  larger  NEBs  reported  that  passengers  do  not  always  obtain  individual 
repayment as a result of penalties due to the complexity of the administrative procedures 
for imposing penalties which are also not always effective. It suggested that ADR bodies 
should  be  encouraged  “as  simple  and  inexpensive  dispute  resolution  alternatives.” 
Another NEB suggested that carriers should be obliged to use ADR bodies or other out-
of-court dispute resolution procedures. 

In terms of efficiency and costs, one has to  mention  the existence of multiple NEBs in 
some  Member  States,  which  may  lead  to  some  duplication  and  somewhat  lower 
consistency. This may result in additional inefficiency, meaning higher regulatory costs. 
Overall,  the  uncertain  and  in  some  countries  high  number  of  NEBs  is  unlikely  to  be 
conducive to consistency in monitoring and enforcement. Some bodies mentioned cases 
where  a  lack  of  a  clear  division  of  their  competences  created  scope  for  different 
interpretations of the Regulation within the same Member State. If the Regulation can be 
interpreted  in  different  ways  within  a  Member  State,  the  potential  for  different 
interpretations  across  the  EU  is  even  greater.  Stakeholders  suggested  that  further  pan-
European  coordination should  be encouraged as  well as  the  rationalisation of NEBs, in 
order to resolve issues of interpretation and to ensure less complexity for all stakeholders 
involved and, potentially, lower costs.109 

5.2.3. What  types  of benefits  have been achieved for the different  stakeholder groups 
(e.g.  assistance  received  for  passengers  (including  PRM)  in  case  of  disruption,  time 
saving,  compensation  received  in  case  of  disruption,  increased  demand,  increased 
market share, etc.)? Can the costs and administrative burden incurred by stakeholders 
be considered proportionate to the benefits established?110   

The  Regulation  is  positively  perceived  by  passengers  and  PRM  representatives,  as 
evidenced  by  the  view  expressed  by  over  half  of  the  organisations  that  the  benefits  to 
passengers outweighed the costs.  

However,  the  gaps  identified  will  continue  to  result  in  significant  costs  for  passengers, 
regardless of the level of compliance with the Regulation performed by the industry. In 
particular, where the NEBs’ decisions on complaints are not binding, the complainant is 
obliged  to  either  rely  on  the  goodwill  of  the  carrier  or  other  parties  involved,  or  seek 
redress  by  other  means.  This  could  imply  seeking  redress  through  the  courts  with 
passengers  consequently  incurring  potentially  substantial  costs,  while  the  outcome  is 
often highly uncertain. On the other hand, although not all ADR bodies offer entirely free 
mediation,  using  this  remedy  or  small  claims  courts  does  not  normally  mean  a  risk  of 
bearing  the  legal  costs  of  the  opposite  party.  However,  some  financial  risk  may  derive 
from these remedial actions, whereas a minimum understanding of legal matters may be 
also be required. 

108 In line  with the  findings of the support study on  the  efficiency evaluation topic, see  Chapter 3 of the 
support study.  
109 See Support study, Para. 3.168. 
110 See Support study, Para. 3.117 and following. 

46 

 
                                                      
Under  the  Regulation,  the  economic  burden  is  primarily  borne  by  carriers,  who  in  turn 
pass  it  on  to  passengers,  through  bus  and  coach  fares.  However,  additional  compliance 
and  enforcement  costs  stem  from  legislation  at  the  expenses  of  some  stakeholders’ 
groups. To this end, it is useful to consider the evidence provided by stakeholders, who 
offered various views on the distribution of costs and benefits. 

The  majority  of  costs  reported  by  stakeholders  related  to  the  time  commitment  and 
inconvenience associated with the complaint processes.  

With  regard  to  administrative  burden,  the  majority  of  the  NEBs  expressing  their  view 
stressed that the net benefits provided by the Regulation, through improvements for the 
passenger, do offset the Regulation’s generally low but direct costs. These benefits have 
resulted in a combination of: 

–  Service quality improvements; 

–  A process for complaints handling; 

–  Improved passenger confidence and greater consistency across operators; 

–  Clarity on stakeholders’ rights and obligations; and 

–  Improved accessibility to services. 

Concerning  the  distribution  of  NEB’s  costs  between  different  tasks,  including 
monitoring, complaints handling and enforcement, only limited data could be collected. 
However, one NEB stated that the average number of complaints received appears to be 
correlated  with  the  NEBs’  total  costs.  This  may  also  skew  the  distribution  of  costs 
towards  complaint-handling  and  enforcement,  as  some  NEBs  ensure  compliance 
primarily or exclusively through responding to complaints. In such cases, their costs are 
likely be driven by the number of complaints, which has been rising steadily over recent 
years,  resulting  in  costs  rising  as  well.  However,  this  rising  trend  in  the  number  of 
complaints was interrupted by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic  which brought 
the  bus  and  coach  sector  to  a  partial  or  total  standstill  in  2020.  The  NEBs  in  general 
reported  a  decline  in  the  number  of  complaints  submitted  for  2020.  Part  of  these  costs 
also have to do with the complexity of the NEBs’ structure, as decided by the  Member 
States, some of which created  a large network of NEBs.  For  example, disproportionate 
costs  for  NEBs  may  derive  from  the  choice  to  have  a  national  NEB  for  international 
services and regional ones for domestic services (as it is the case in Belgium, Spain and 
Poland). In addition, in Poland the NEB depends on the municipality in which the carrier 
was licensed, rather than where the journey was made.  

NEBs  also  have  to  publish  a  report  on  their  activity  every  two  years  and,  whenever 
appropriate,  exchange  information  on  their  work  and  decision-making  principles  and 
practices  with  other  NEBs.  The  Commission  supports  the  NEBs  in  these  tasks  by 
providing  guidance,  organising  meeting  with  the  partipation  of  stakeholders  and 
providing a forum for exchanges of best practices between the NEBs thus curtailing the 
costs and administrative burden.  

Estimated costs for NEBs remain low compared to those of other stakeholder groups. On 
the other hand, in view of the tasks referred to above, it appears questionable if the small 
workload  reported  by  some  NEBs  allows  to  conclude  that  they  fulfil  properly  all  their 

47 

 
activities,  from  monitoring,  enforcement  to  inspections  and  promotion  of  passenger 
rights. 

It  was  difficult  for  carriers  to  identify  the  costs  associated  with  compliance  with  the 
Regulation.  FlixBus  stated  that  the  costs  associated  with  providing  assistance  to 
passengers  in  the  event  of  disruption  and,  more  generally,  executing  the  company’s 
obligations under the Regulation were “high”, but had difficulties separating such costs 
from those it would have incurred in the absence of the Regulation, as well as from more 
general  customer  service  costs.  In  general,  the  relevant  costs  involved,  such  as 
complaints  handling,  customer  assistance,  re-routing  costs  and  IT  infrastructure  costs, 
have  a  range  of  drivers,  of  which  the  Regulation  is  only  one.  These  include  passenger 
expectations,  market  competition,  company  mission  statement  and  profitability.  In  at 
least one Member State, the Regulation’s impact has been limited due to the existence of 
similar provisions previously established under national legislation. 

No  stakeholder  commented  on  whether  ticket  prices  have  increased  due  to  operators 
passing on increased operating costs to passengers. There is also insufficient information 
from terminals, or terminal managing bodies at designated terminals, to identify clearly 
the distribution of costs and benefits for these stakeholders. 

The evidence obtained suggests that the Regulation has delivered some benefits and that 
the compliance costs appear limited. However: 

–  Effective enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in air transport through 
both NEBs and through claim agencies led to increased airline costs, especially 
where  there  was  a  right  to  compensation.  In  contrast,  bus  and  coach  carriers 
reported negligible compliance costs. This might be because compliance by bus 
and  coach  carriers  is  limited,  and  the  costs  of  complete  compliance  would  be 
much  higher.  However,  it  may  be  because  only  a  small  proportion  of  bus  and 
coach  passengers  are  entitled  to  the  rights  associated  with  services  of  250 
kilometres or more. 

–  The  Regulation  has  not  resulted  in  a  network  of  designated,  accessible  and 
staffed  terminals  in  all  major  urban  areas.  If  this  had  happened,  it  might  have 
involved  high  costs,  assuming  that  the  relevant  planning,  heritage  and 
environmental consents could be obtained. 

5.2.4.  Could  the  use  of other  policy  instruments  or  mechanisms  have  provided  better 
efficiency?   

The  Regulation  allows  for  some  flexibility  in  terms  of  enforcement,  recognising  the 
different  national  regulatory  frameworks  in  place  in  different  Member  States.  In 
particular: 

–  There  may  be  one  or  more  NEBs,  with  the  Member  State  deciding  how 

responsibility for enforcement shall be divided between them. 

–  They  range  from  new  NEBs  dedicated  to  bus  and  coach  passenger  rights  to 

existing bodies with a wide range of responsibilities. 

–  It is for the Member States to decide what powers and resources to allocate to the 
NEBs, and for the NEBs to decide how to use them, provided that they “take the 
measures necessary to ensure compliance with” the Regulation. 

48 

 
Implicitly, Member States and NEBs may use this flexibility – the number of NEBs, the 
range  of  their  responsibilities,  and  the  interpretation  of  what  is  “necessary  to  ensure 
compliance”  –  to  adopt  a  model  that  they  consider  to  be  effective  and  efficient  in  the 
context of their national legislation and the bodies which enforce it.  

In addition, and taken together, these elements of flexibility have resulted in a wide and 
potentially  confusing  range  of  enforcement  models  leading  to  an  unequal  level  playing 
field.  A  variety  of  enforcement  powers,  limited  fines  available  to  most  NEBs,  and  the 
the  efficiency. 
rarity  with  which  penalties  have  been  applied  may 
Administrative procedures are complex, and the large number of NEBs, plus ADR bodies 
and complaints-handling bodies, may lead to duplication of effort. In the absence of case 
law, and with many complaints treated on a case-by-case basis, the Regulation may not 
be interpreted consistently across the EU or within the same Member State.  

influence 

5.3. 

Relevance 

Evaluation questions 

5.3.1. To what extent did the original objectives of the Regulation prove relevant to the 
particular needs of passengers (including PRM) travelling by bus and coach identified 
at the outset of the intervention? 

Problems and needs of passengers identified at the outset of the intervention 

The  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  2008  legislative  proposal  identified  a  set  of 
specific objectives to be pursued by the Commission in terms of ensuring a high level of 
protection to bus and coach passengers comparable with other modes of transport.  

As explained under section 2.2 above, these objectives included accessible coach travel 
for  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility,  protection  on  death  or  injury, 
liability  for  loss  or  damage  of  luggage,  a  consistent  complaint  handling  and  an 
appropriate  enforcement  system.  Each  of  these  specific  objectives  fed  into  the 
Regulation’s overarching objective, which is to ensure an equivalent level of protection 
of,  and  assistance  to,  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport  throughout  the  EU.  The 
achievement  of  specific  objectives  through  the  Regulation  has  been  partial  and  these 
objectives remain highly relevant.  

Non-discrimination, assistance and denied boarding 

A very  low number of PRM-related  complaints,  reported by NEBs,  might  indicate that 
the Regulation has shown relevance in the way it addresses the originally identified needs 
of PRM passengers, but it might also be only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ (see above).  

On the one hand, the Regulation appears to have positive impact on the accessibility of 
bus  and  coach  services  for  PRM.  This  is  due  to  the  obligations  related  to  assistance, 
which were put on carriers and terminal operators, in particular in the area of training of 
staff (despite weaknesses of enforcement  and possible exemptions). On the other hand, 
only  a  small  minority  of  vehicles  and  terminals  are  truly  accessible,  the  provision  of 
information  in  accessible  formats  is  often  unsatisfactory,  and  identifying  available 
assistance  might  be  difficult  in  practice.  This  results  in  a  still  persisting  structural 
problem  of  inaccessibility,  which  prevents  PRM  from  considering  coach  travel  and 
requires  further  efforts.  The  objective  of  achieving  non-discriminatory  access  and 

49 

 
ensuring  assistance  to  PRMs  has  been  addressed  to  a  limited  degree  but  still  remains 
highly relevant.  

Liability of carriers 

Chapter  II  of  the  Regulation  provides  for  compensation  for  death  or  personal  injury  to 
passengers and loss of or damage to luggage, but only in case of accidents arising out of 
the  use  of  a  bus  or  coach.  Consequently,  the  Regulation  does  not  cover  the  relatively 
frequent  issue  of  stolen  baggage,  since  only  lost  or  damaged  luggage  in  the  event  of 
accidents are covered under the Regulation (Article 7). In addition, it has been found that 
the conditions of carriage of some operators attempt to limit the compensation below the 
minimum  compensation  of  EUR  1 200  per  item  of  luggage  to  which  passengers  are 
entitled under the Regulation (Article 7(2)(b)). 

Since  serious  accidents  remain  relatively  rare  in  bus  and  coach  passenger  transport,  111 
liability  for  injury  or  death  is  not  an  issue  thoroughly  commented  on  by  stakeholders. 
Moreover, the Impact Assessment found that there was a range of rules relating to loss, 
damage and injury, which apply on the basis of other acts and which would apply in the 
absence of the Regulation.112 However, the objective of harmonising these different rules 
in  the  interest  of  greater  clarity  for  passengers  was  clearly  relevant  at  the  time  of  the 
intervention,  and  remains  relevant  as  passengers’  awareness  of  their  rights  and 
willingness to exercise them grow. 

Cancellations and delays 

Some  NEBs  note  that  passenger  protection  in  relation  to  disruption  and  re-routing  was 
significantly  strengthened  by  the  Regulation.  However,  the  views  of  passenger  groups, 
while  mixed,  tend  to  emphasise  the  progress  that  remains  to  be  made  in  terms  of 
effectiveness. Furthermore, passenger protection may be weakened by the specificities of 
the  sector.  Stakeholders  indicate,  for  instance,  that  it  may  be  difficult  to  re-route 
passengers on other services, carriers or modes, particularly when passengers are already 
waiting at a remote bus stop. The most effective response in such situations seem to be to 
provide a direct replacement vehicle to operate a direct replacement service.  

The data does not  allow to  conclude whether or  by how much the  carriers’ operational 
performance,  measured  in  terms  of  cancellation  and  delays,  has  improved  since  the 
Regulation came into force. However, the views of different groups, read in light of the 
characteristics  of  the  sector,  suggest  that  protection  in  case  of  cancellation  or  delay 
remains a highly relevant issue. 

Establishment of basic quality standards, complaints and monitoring 

Many aspects of service quality experienced by passengers, such as the level of comfort 
or length  of journey time, are determined by operators who  respond to the competitive 
dynamics of the market. In that area, the Regulation specifies the rights that passengers 
have  in  the  event  of  disruption,  the  information  they  should  expect  and  the  complaints 
procedure to which they should have access. 

111 See road fatalities of vehicles occupants, statistical pocketbook 2020, EU Transport in figures, pp. 107-
110. Link: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/media-corner/publications/statistical-pocketbooks_en.  

112  See support study, Para. 3.283. 

50 

 
                                                      
5.3.2. Do the original objectives of the Regulation still correspond to the current needs 
of  passengers  travelling  by  bus  and  coach?  How  well  is  the  Regulation  adapted  to 
technological or scientific advances that may help passengers and PRM travelling by 
bus and coach? To what extent is the scope of application of the Regulation adequate 
today for the attainment of the objectives, taking into account the exemptions foreseen 
and applied? 

The EU bus and coach market 

Since the Regulation began to apply in 2013, there have been a number of changes to the 
EU  bus  and  coach  market  with  potential  implications  for  passengers’  needs  and  the 
objectives of the intervention. These changes are not the consequence of the Regulation 
but stem from the liberalisation of the market in the EU over that same period. 

First,  liberalisation  of  domestic  markets  in  large  Member  States  led  to  a  significant 
increase  in  passenger  traffic,  both  domestically  and  internationally  within  the  EU.  The 
liberalisation was followed by a relatively rapid consolidation of carriers. 

Second,  the  “platform”  operating  model  adopted  by  carriers  involves  working  in 
cooperation with other carriers, who employ the drivers, own the vehicles and operate the 
routes.  This  trend  towards  increasing  digitalisation  and  greater  use  of  online  and  app-
based  services  by  consumers  reflects  global  developments  in  information  and 
communication technology, and affects EU economy as a whole. 

Third,  the  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  routes  offered  means  that  many 
passengers using long-distance bus and coach services do not board at a terminal but may 
find it more convenient to use local bus stops.  

Key technological changes 

Increased  digitalisation  has  had  a  significant  impact  on  the  bus  and  coach  industry  in 
recent  years.  As  indicated  by  many  stakeholders  participating  in  the  consultation 
exercise,  technological  improvements  have  changed  many  passengers’  experience,  in 
particular in relation to the booking process and the provision of information: passengers 
can buy tickets online or on their phone and receive live updates about the status of their 
journey. Other developments  in  the sector include increased competition and passenger 
choice  in  some  Member  States,  market  consolidation,  and  improvements  in  terms  of 
PRM facilities, comfortable seats and on-board WiFi. 

However,  digitalisation  led  to  deterioration  of  other  services,  resulting  in  fewer  staffed 
ticket offices and less provision of information in physical format. Access to information 
has,  therefore,  become  more  difficult  for  passengers  who  do  not  have  access  to  the 
internet, even if they represent only a minority of bus and coach users. This issue is not 
unique to the bus and coach market. 

The trend towards more digitalisation is  likely to reinforce the market  share of carriers 
best able to exploit it, risking a further reduction in the number of smaller carriers who do 
not  have  the  resources  to  build  the  necessary  IT  infrastructure.  This  risk  may  be 
exacerbated  by  some  of  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation,  related  to  information 
provision and timely customer support in case of disruption - indeed, these requirements 
are likely to be harder to be met by smaller carriers than by large ‘platform’ carriers. 

The  Regulation  makes  little  reference  to  electronic  media  and  format.  However,  its 
provisions on non-discrimination and provision of information may, potentially, allow to 

51 

 
address issues of inadequate information for passengers without access to digital sources, 
through existing provisions in the legislation.  

The  Regulation  includes  various  references  to  requirements  for  terminals,  in  terms  of 
accessibility and assistance. Nevertheless, as the EU bus and coach fleet is modernised, 
and  the  industry  is  further  digitalised,  some  of  the  services  previously  provided  at 
terminals  are  likely  to  be  increasingly  provided  in  other  ways,  such  as  through  on-line 
platforms  and  apps.  Despite  that,  terminals  are  still  likely  to  play  an  important  role  in 
providing connections with other bus services and transport modes in a comfortable and 
secure environment. 

Passenger needs 

While it may not be concluded that passengers’ needs have significantly changed, market 
developments  suggest  that  their  expectations,  for  instance  as  to  the  quality  of  service, 
may have evolved since the adoption of the Regulation in 2011. Many stakeholders note, 
in  fact,  that  market  and  technological  developments  improved  the  service  that  carriers 
offer  to  passengers.  Still,  they  reiterate  the  needs  identified  at  the  outset  of  the 
intervention and identify areas where the Regulation could be improved, such as quality 
of the complaints procedure and the refund process, accessibility, access to information, 
regulation  of  stolen  luggage,  expansion  of  new  technologies,  or  situations  where 
passengers miss a connection with the same carrier. 

Needs that arose from the COVID crisis 

The  COVID-19-pandemic  has  made  the  question  of  health  much  more  important  for 
most  passengers,  especially  for  risk  groups.  For  those  passengers,  the  priority  is  the 
possibility to keep their distance from other passengers, which may be difficult if carriers 
are  allowed  to  sell  all  seats.  As  explained  above,  the  questions  of  provision  of 
information and reimbursement have also become all the more prominent in view of the 
cancellations  and  other  disruptions  that  occurred  since  spring  2020  due  to  the  health 
crisis.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  brought  the  bus  and  coach  sector  to  a  partial  or  total 
standstill  in  2020  as  the  carriers  could  only  provide  services  to  a  limited  extent.  The 
NEBs reported in general that the number of journeys drastically decreased as a result of 
COVID-19 pandemic on the global scale and consequently the number of complaints fell 
too. The complaints received were in majority related to cancellation of trips by carriers 
or reimbursement of ticket price.   

Adequacy of the Regulation    

These  developments  have  not  substantially  impacted  the  relevance  of  the  Regulation. 
However, its scope and room for exemptions had an impact on its effectiveness and thus 
on the extent to which its objectives could be achieved. 

5.4. 

Coherence 

Evaluation questions 

5.4.1. To what extent is the Regulation internally coherent? 

The scope of the Regulation might  be seen as incoherent  with  its objective of uniform, 
high level of protection. Indeed, the Regulation does not apply in its entirety to services 
below 250 km, occasional services and, until 1 March 2021, also to exempted services.  

52 

 
Also,  the  Regulation  established  the  right  of  PRM  to  travel  at  no  additional  cost. 
However,  several  provisions  essential  to  guarantee  that  right  do  not  apply  to  some 
services. An example is the requirement to notify the need for assistance, which applies 
only  to  regular  services  whose  length  is  250  kilometres  or  more.  The  same  250  km 
threshold  applies  to  the  obligation  of  rapid  provision  of  temporary  replacement 
equipment  or  devices.  However,  to  be  of  value,  a  right  to  travel  must  come  with  the 
possibility  of  taking  mobility  equipment  on-board  and  replacing  it  regardless  of  the 
distance travelled, since it is a basic need. In addition, while accessibility and information 
requirements  for  PRM  passengers  do  not  apply  to  services  below  250  km  and  to 
occasional  services,  an  operator  may  still  refuse  the  transport  of  a  person  in  case  of 
physical  impossibility  –  this  right  of  the  operator,  together  with  inapplicability  of  the 
provisions  on  accessibility  and  information,  leads  to  a  low  level  of  PRM  protection, 
incoherent with the objective of the Regulation. 

Another  inconsistency  exists  between  the  time  to  provide  information  in  the  event  of 
cancellation or delay on departure of a regular service (‘as soon as possible and no later 
than 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time’) and the time to offer the passenger 
the choice between continuation, re-routing or reimbursement (‘immediately’). The latter 
process  is  much  more  complex  than  the  provision  of  information,  while  the  time-limit 
imposed on the operator is shorter. 

Table 4 summarises the findings on internal coherence issues of the Regulation, of which 
there are many.  Some explanations regarding specific provisions are provided in Section 
5.1.6. 

Table 4: Issues of internal coherence of the Regulation 

Issues 

Article 

Details 

Basic rights 

2 

Selection of some rights as “basic” is unclear. 

Occasional services  2 

Rights are different from those for regular services. 

28 

Rights for occasional services are not subject to enforcement. 

Accessibility 

10(1) 

Physical possibility is referred to for vehicles but not for terminals. 

Distance 

Luggage 

Immediate practical 
needs  in  the  event 
of accidents 

2 

7 

8 

Some  rights  depend  on  whether  “the  scheduled  distance  of  the  service  is  250 
kilometre  or  more”,  but  this  is  sometimes  interpreted  to  mean  the  passenger 
journey: either interpretation may lead to inconsistencies. 

Luggage  liability  is  limited  to  accidents  and,  because  of  the  250-kilometre 
threshold, depends on the service distance. 

Because of the 250-kilometre threshold, assistance may vary between passengers 
making the same journey on different coaches, or passengers on the same coach 
making different journeys. 

notification 

PRM 
of travel 

14 

The  process  for  notification  of  PRM  travel  is  only  defined  above  the  250-
kilometre threshold. 

PRM 
replacement 
equipment 

temporary 
of 

17(3) 

Because of the 250-kilometre threshold, rights to temporary replacement depend 
on the distance of the service. 

Information 
choice 

and 

19, 20 

Information  may  be  delayed  30  minutes,  but  choices  related  to  the  same  event 
must be offered immediately. 

53 

 
Issues 

Article 

Details 

2 

Terminals, 
designated 
terminals, 
and 
terminal  managing 
bodies 

Neither terminals nor terminal managing bodies are coherently defined, making it 
difficult to identify either for enforcement purposes. 

Even  where  an  entity  is  identified  identifies  as  a  terminal  managing  body,  it  is 
unclear when obligations apply to it rather than to the carrier. 

12 

28(3) 

Rights  depend  on  designation  by  a  Member  State,  applied  to  only  250  of  an 
estimated one million bus and coach boarding and alighting points. 

Passengers wishing to complain about a terminal managing body may have to do 
so to a carrier. 

Right to complain 

27, 28(3)  Only passengers have rights to complain, even regarding information, which may 

be a service to intending passengers or those meeting passengers. 

Source: Regulation (EU) No 181/2011, analysis based on Support study, Para. 3.245. 

5.4.2.  To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  and  complementary  with  other 
relevant EU legislation and with international obligations?  

Other passenger rights Regulations 

Although  it  may  not  be  relevant  for  passenger  rights  to  be  identical  for  all  transport 
modes,  the  Regulation  displays  some  differences  with  other  EU  passenger  rights 
legislation.  Table  A6.8  in  Annex  6  presents  a  comparison  of  the  Regulation  with  other 
passenger rights Regulations. Inconsistencies may be considered to be limited. Here are 
some examples: 

–  Bus and coach passenger rights  covers only delays on departure, but not  delays 
en-route  or  on  arrival.  For  instance,  in  contrast,  both  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1371/2007  on  rail  passenger  rights  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  on  air 
passenger rights refer to long delays at arrival. It has also been suggested that the 
combination of a 120-minute threshold delay on departure (Article 19(1)) with a 
service  of  250  kilometres  or  more,  in  relation  to  the  right  to  re-routing,  is 
relatively  high,  for  instance  as  compared  to  rail  (where  re-routing  is  granted  in 
case of delay at arrival/departure of a least 60 minutes).  

–  Another  inconsistency  is  found  in  respect  to  the  right  to  information  before, 
during and after the journey. The Regulation sets a deadline of 30 minutes after 
the  scheduled  departure  time  (Article  20(1))  to  inform  passengers  about  the 
nature  of  the  disruption  and  the  impact  on  their  schedule.  While  the  same 
deadline  is  mandated  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  on  waterborne 
passenger  rights,  real-time  on-board  information  is  provided  for  by  Regulation 
(EU)  2021/782  on  rail  passenger  rights,  but  no  deadline  exists  for  air  carriers, 
under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.  

–  The  length  of  the  delay  triggering  the  right  to  assistance  also  differs  across 
modes. Under the Regulation, assistance is offered to passengers in the event of 
departures  delayed  by  more  than  90  minutes  (Article  21),  whereas  different 
thresholds  are  established  for  air  and  rail  (2-4  hours  and  60  minutes, 
respectively),  therefore  affecting  the  consistency  of  the  EU  legislation  on 
passenger rights.  

54 

 
 
Another issue, which is  the consequence of these inconsistencies, includes the situation 
where a ticket valid on more than one mode entitles the passenger to different rights on 
each mode, although such a situation arises relatively.  

Directive 2009/103/EC relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of 
motor vehicles, and the  enforcement of the obligation to  insure against such liability is 
referred to in recital 4 of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011.  

The only area which is common to the two acts is that of liability and compensation in 
the case of accidents. Indeed, Directive 2009/103/EC specifies minimum levels of cover 
under  carriers’  insurance,  while  Article  7  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  specifies 
minimum levels of compensation in the event of accidents. The Directive contains much 
more  detailed  provisions  on  liable  parties,  national  frameworks  and  insurance. 
Importantly, it specifies  the minimum  cover partly  on a per claim  basis, irrespective of 
the number of people affected by an  incident,  whereas the thresholds  in  the Regulation 
are on a per passenger or personal item basis. Apart from this issue relating to thresholds, 
both acts are coherent with each other.  

Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market 
for  coach  and  bus  services  contains  provisions  relating  to  access  and  authorisation  for 
international coach services within the EU. Although both Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 
and Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 apply to international bus and coach services, there 
appears to be little overlap between them. 

Indeed, Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 sets out the obligations of carriers, 
but  these  relate  to  service  levels,  not  to  passenger  rights.  Article  16  on  cabotage 
operations requires the rules of the host country to apply with regards to the carriage of 
PRM  passengers.  In  relation  to  this  minimal  overlap  between  both  Regulations,  both 
pieces of legislation are coherent, which was confirmed by stakeholders.  

Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road 
contains provisions in relation to public service contracts (PSCs). While both acts apply 
to  bus  and  coach  services,  there  appears  to  be  little  overlap  between  them,  and 
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 makes no reference to passenger rights other than in its 
preamble.  Competent  authorities  may  use  PSCs  to  impose  on  performing  carriers 
contractual  obligations  (related  to  information,  PRM  assistance,  reimbursement,  re-
routing  or  rights  to  complain)  which  essentially  correspond  to  passenger  rights. 
Accordingly, and as confirmed by stakeholders, both regulations are coherent with each 
other.  

Directive  2015/2302/EU  on  package  travel  and  linked  travel  arrangements  (which 
replaced  Council  Directive  90/314/EEC)  sets  out  a  framework  of  governance  and  the 
obligations  of  operators  in  relation  to  package  travel,  two  or  more  different  types  of 
travel services, combined for the purpose of the same trip or holiday, are provided by one 
trader  under  a  single  contract.  A  ‘package’  may  also  exist  where  travel  services  are 
provided under separate contracts concluded with individual travel service providers (e.g. 
where  these  services  were  purchased  from  a  single  point  of  sale  or  where  they  are 
offered, sold or charged at an inclusive or total price). There is some overlap between the 
Package Travel Directive and the Regulation in case any part of a package travel contract 
includes bus or coach transport. 

55 

 
Directive  2015/2302/EU  is  consistent  with  the  Regulation  inasmuch  as  operators  are 
required to  provide re-routing for passengers in  the case of disruption, even though the 
length and nature of disruption is not as clearly defined as in the Regulation.  

The rules in relation to provision of accommodation in the case of disruption of the trip 
appear  to  be  less  consistent.  The  Regulation  states  in  Article  21  that  in  the  case  of 
disruption of journeys of a scheduled duration of more than three hours, operators must 
provide  accommodation,  whose  length  may  be  limited  to  a  maximum  of  two  nights. 
Pursuant to Article 13(7) of the Package Travel Directive, in contrast, the organiser shall 
bear  the  cost  of  necessary  accommodation  for  a  period  not  exceeding  three  nights  per 
traveller.  The  Directive  applies  to  disruption  on  any  transport  mode  and  provides  that 
accommodation must be provided for longer than three nights if such longer periods are 
provided for in existing or future Union passenger rights legislation.  

However,  these  differences  appear  to  reflect  the  different  nature  of  the  two  services, 
where scheduled regular coach services publish timetables specifying a departure time to 
the  nearest  minute,  while  most  package  trips  are  over  multiple  days  and  transport  is 
provided as part of the wider package, operated in different travel modes.  

One  potential  issue  arises  in  relation  to  occasional  coach  services.  The  Package  Travel 
Directive does not cover trips of less than 24 hours, unless an overnight stay is included. 
On the other hand, pursuant to Article 2(3), most of the provisions of the Regulation do 
not  apply  to  occasional  services.  This  effectively  leaves  those  passengers  without 
appropriate protection at the EU level. 

Directive  2019/882/EU  on  the  accessibility  requirements  for  products  and  services  (the 
European  Accessibility  Act).  When  it  will  become  applicable  in  2025,  the  European 
Accessibility  Act  (EAA)113  will  oblige  bus  and  coach  operators  and  terminals  to  make 
their homepages, mobile apps, electronic ticketing services, real-time travel information 
services, ticketing and check-in machines compliant with EU wide accessibility standards 
specified in the same act. As the Regulation relies on the provision of assistance to PRMs 
and is  not  directly  related to  accessibility of terminals  or buses, the EAA complements 
the Regulation,  therefore there are no issues of consistency between the two legislative 
instruments.  

Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 on approval requirements for the safety of motor vehicles 
lays down technical  requirements for buses with  a capacity exceeding 22 passengers in 
addition  to  the driver, while establishing  accessibility  requirements for PRM, including 
wheelchair  users.  It  states  that  vehicles  shall  be  designed  and  constructed  so  as  to  be 
accessible  by  persons  with  reduced  mobility,  including  space  for  at  least  one  manual 
wheelchair. The Regulation does not create any accessibility requirements only referring 
to the designation of accessible terminals, therefore there are no issues of coherence with 
Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.  

EU consumer policy 

The EU programme for consumer action is expressed in the New Consumer Agenda,114 
which  has  several  objectives,  including  enhancing  knowledge  of  consumer  rights, 

113  Directive  2019/882/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  the 
accessibility requirements for products and services (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70-115). 
114 See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0696.  

56 

 
                                                      
strengthening the enforcement of consumer rules through coordinated action, integrating 
consumer interests into key sectoral policies and empowering consumers through choice, 
information  and  awareness.  The  Regulation  is  clearly  consistent  with  that  policy  as  it 
supports the achievement of each of the objectives of the Agenda, in particular through 
the articles on provision of information and on enforcement and NEBs. 

However,  potential  gaps  exist  in  the  Regulation  with  respect  to  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination  between  passengers  in  different  locations.  For  instance,  differentiation 
between bus stops and terminals in practice means that PRM passengers do not receive 
the  same  level  of  assistance  at  different  boarding  and  alighting  points.  In  addition,  the 
assistance  and  infrastructure  provided  at  designated  terminals  is  not  sufficient  at  times. 
The  Regulation  also  does  not  contain  a  non-discrimination  rule  in  relation  to  access  to 
transport  on  the  grounds  of  gender,  ethnic  origin,  religion,  age  or  sexual  orientation, 
which should be present in order to be in line which other EU interventions. 

EU competition policy 

Competition  policy  and  passenger  rights  legislation  address  different  issues,  although 
they both aim at a level-playing field. However, no material inconsistencies between the 
Regulation  and  competition  law  were  identified  and  reported.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
possible that a common framework of rights has helped to establish a level playing field 
for competing services operated between and within Member States. 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its Optional 
Protocol115  was  adopted  in  2006  and  entered  into  force  in  May  2008.  The  EU,  its 
Member States and the other four countries examined in the evaluation are all parties to 
the  UNCRPD.  It  creates  therefore  a  legal  obligation  on  the  Member  States  that  have 
ratified  it  and  on  the  EU  to  incorporate  accessibility  requirements  in  national  and  EU 
legislation.  

There  is  no  coherence  issue  between  the  UNCRPD  and  the  Regulation,  but  it  must  be 
noted  that  the  Regulation  does  not  create  any  accessibility  requirements,  but  instead 
relies  on  assistance  requirements.  In  any  case,  the  limited  scope  of  the  Regulation  has 
not, for now, allowed for the objective of accessibility to be fulfilled. The gap also exists 
as to the accessibility of terminals and bus stops. So far, the closure of these gaps are left 
to national law. 

115 https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-
disabilities.html  

57 

 
 
 
                                                      
5.5. 

EU added value 

Evaluation questions 

5.5.1. What  is  the added value of this  Regulation compared to  what  could  have been 
achieved at international, national and /or regional level?   

The  Impact  Assessment  of  2007  mentioned  that  “for  bus  and  coach,  an  international 
convention had been ratified in the 1990s by only four Member States”.116 Beyond this, it 
does  not  seem  that  any  international  party  sought  to  take  forward  an  intervention, 
whether  by  legal  means  or  through  a  voluntary  framework,  before  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation.  The  Regulation  resulted  in  some  levelling  up  of  the  rights  available  to 
passengers in national law, although some rights are limited to services of 250 kilometres 
or more. 

As  clarified  in  the  baseline,117  four  large  and  populous  Member  States  –  France, 
Germany, Italy and Spain – did not have pre-existing national passenger rights legislation 
although,  in  the  absence  of  the  Regulation,  France,  Germany  and  Italy  might  have 
legislated on passenger rights as part of their process of market liberalisation. 

PSO  contracts  cover  the  majority  of  all  journeys  by  bus  and  coach  within  the  EU, 
although most of these journeys are  on services  of less than 250 kilometres and wholly 
within a region,  suburban or urban area, which  are specified by the  relevant  competent 
authority. For many of these  services, the carrier may be the competent authority or its 
internal  operator,  who  may  further  subcontract  operations  to  a  performing  carrier. 
National  law  may  require,  or  the  competent  authority  acting  as  carrier  may  offer, 
particular rights, and the conditions of carriage may be consistent across, and include free 
re-routing  between,  all  the  services  and  modes  for  which  they  are  responsible.  This 
means  that  the  value  which  is  added  by  the  Regulation  may  be  limited,  vary  between 
competent authorities, as well as depend on factors such as the ticket type. 

For  PRM,  nine  Member  States,  including  those  with  the  largest  transport  markets  in 
Europe, had implemented legislation conferring at least some rights regarding travelling 
by bus and coach. However, this national legislation created no consistent requirement, 
across the Member States, for transport to be available or accessible, for assistance to be 
provided, or for these requirements to be met at no additional cost.  

Upon  the  Regulation  entering  into  force  in  2013,  it  was  estimated  that  15  million 
passengers  required  assistance  when  travelling.  Of  these  15  million,  4.2  million  (28%) 
were  already  eligible  for  assistance  from  previous  legislation  available  in  the  nine 
Member States identified above, whilst the Regulation entering into force extended rights 
to  an  additional  10.7  million  passengers.118  All  PRM  now  benefit  from  a  right  to 
transport throughout the EU at no additional cost, trained staff and compensation for loss 
of  or  damage  to  wheelchairs,  other  mobility  equipment  or  assistive  devices,  although 

116 UNECE Convention on the contract for the international carriage of passengers and luggage by road 
(CVR), of 1 March 1973. It has 9 Contracting Parties: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czechia, Latvia, 
Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine, and 2 signatories: Germany and 
Luxembourg, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-
26&chapter=11&clang=_en and https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280043a68 
117 See the support study, Appendix F.  
118 See output of the evaluation baseline as indicated in the support study, Appendix F. 

58 

 
                                                      
their right to travel is still constrained by what is ‘physically possible’ - a recognition that 
the Regulation does not create a right to accessibility. 

EU  added  value  may  be  limited.  The  250  km  threshold  on  the  provision  of  basic  or 
extended rights means that much of the extended (or full) rights afforded to passengers 
under the Regulation are still limited to a minority of passengers. These extended rights 
include  rights  in  the  event  of  cancellation  or  delay,  additional  rights  to  assistance  for 
passengers with PRM requirements and compensation and assistance in the event on an 
accident.  In  2018,  only  7.4%119  of  bus  and  coach  passengers  in  EU+4  were  afforded 
these extended rights.   

5.5.2. What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing existing 
EU intervention? To what extent do the issues addressed in the Regulation continue to 
require intervention at the EU level?   

As noted above, before the implementation of the Regulation, the level of rights for PRM 
and passengers varied between Member States, competent authorities and contracts.120 If 
the  Regulation  was  withdrawn,  one  possibility  is  that  some  of  the  EU-established 
passenger  and  PRM  rights  in  each  Member  State,  competent  authority  and  contract 
would, to a certain degree, revert to the level they were prior to the implementation of the 
Regulation. This seems unlikely though, because all Member States have invested in the 
creation of the institutional framework required to comply with the Regulation, including 
most  notably  setting  up  funding,  staffing  the  NEBs  and  designating  terminals.  These 
developments would otherwise not have been achieved in the absence of the Regulation, 
and before its implementation at national level since 2013.  

It may therefore be considered that: 

  It is unlikely that many Member States would set this ‘acquis’ aside if the Regulation 

would no longer apply at EU level. 

  It  is  also  unlikely  that  many  Member  States  would  conclude  that  passenger  rights 

should no longer be enforced in the absence of EU legislation. 

Given  the  requirements  of  international  legislation,  such  a  reversal  appears  particularly 
unlikely in the case of legislation relating to PRM. No stakeholder indicated that giving 
up the progress made since the Regulation was implemented would be desirable. 

One area where the withdrawal of the Regulation could have a more immediate impact is 
on  international  journeys.  If  rights  on  international  services  could  only  be  sustained  by 
Member States  making  and implementing bi- or multilateral  agreements, there is  a risk 
that  agreements,  if  any,  could  only  be  reached  on  the  lowest  levels  of  protection 
considered to be desirable or affordable. 

As  mentioned  above,  it  is  unlikely  that  Member  States  would  completely  remove  the 
provisions  of  the  Regulation  from  national  legislation,  although  some  could  remove 

119 Without the exemptions, which were repealed on 1 March 2021, that percentage is estimated to remain 
below 10%. 
120  The  discussion  below  is  based  on  Steer’s  detailed  understanding  of  the  issues  but  is  necessarily  only 
conjecture.  

59 

 
                                                      
specific provisions, or reduce the resources available to the NEBs and leave enforcement 
“to the market”: 

  On  international  journeys,  rights  and  enforcement  levels  would  probably  decline, 
unless Member States made bi- and/or multilateral agreements to retain and to enforce 
them. 

  On domestic journeys, there would be a divergence in passenger rights across Member 
States,  competent  authorities  and  carriers,  with  some  pursuing  more  ambitious 
standards than others. 

This  could  be  compared  to  the  situation  where  the  Regulation  would  not  have  been 
adopted since the beginning.  In that case, the framework of rights applying in different 
Member  States  would  significantly  diverge.  Some  Member  States  might  seek  to 
implement  a  more  ambitious  framework,  establishing  more  extensive  rights  than  the 
current EU legislation, as it is currently the case, while others might only retain some of 
the existing provisions or possibly weaken them  to  some  degree. The overall impact  in 
these  circumstances  would  be  a  greater  fragmentation  and  inconsistency  and,  as  a 
consequence, rights would be diminished. 

Competent  authorities  and  carriers  have  introduced  improvements  in  service  quality  in 
recent years, also for reasons including increased competition and parallel developments 
of  digital  communication.  In  this  environment,  they  might  continue  to  meet  previously 
established obligations relating to passenger rights even if they were not obliged to do so 
by law. In practice: 

  Some carriers might conclude that they could reduce costs, and possibly fares, on non-
PSO services by reducing the level of protection afforded to passengers. In the airline 
industry, for example, low-cost carriers have found that many passengers will accept 
reductions in service quality in exchange for lower fares; 

  It  seems  less likely that  competent  authorities  will reduce any protections offered in 
their conditions of carriage, except in situations of extreme financial constraints, and 
even in these circumstances such reductions may be presented as temporary. 

However,  again,  the  result  would  be  a  divergence  in  the  level  of  protection  between 
countries,  depending  on  which  authorities  are  competent  and  which  carriers  operate, 
making it more difficult for passengers to determine and exercise their rights. 

Overall, while expectations in terms of the quality of the service may have evolved given 
recent  market  developments,  passengers’  needs  have  not  considerably  changed  since 
2011-13,  according  to  most  stakeholders.  This  means  that  the  needs  identified  at  the 
outset of the intervention are still valid today.   

On the other hand, these developments have certainly emphasized the necessity to review 
the way the current rules are implemented and enforced, as well as how passenger rights 
could best materialise in practice. 

On the basis of the examination of the needs that drove the intervention, Table 5 assesses 
whether these issues would remain without the current EU framework. 

60 

 
As identified, only a small number of Member States had implemented some kind of bus 
and  coach  passenger  and  PRM  rights  legislation  before  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation.  In  principle,  while  it  would  be  possible  to  leave  the  legislation  of  the 
passenger  rights  to  Member  States,  this  would  be  unlikely  to  result  in  a  consistent 
application of rights across the EU.  

Table 5: Assessment of how passenger needs would be addressed without EU intervention 

Passenger 
identified 

need 

Assessment 

Accessible coach travel 
for  PRM,  the  elderly, 
temporarily 
with 
disability,  and  other 
vulnerable groups 

a 

This  would  be  left  to  Member  States,  and  although  some  level  of 
accessibility  requirements  would  probably  remain  in  each  Member  State, 
that level would be likely to vary, in particular the extent of enforcement,. In 
some cases, the outcome levels of protection would be below the minimum 
standards currently required at an EU level. 

Protection  on  death  or 
injury 

Liability  for 
loss  or 
damage  of  luggage  in 
the event of accidents 

rights 
Consistent 
complaint handling 

to 

Minimum  levels  of  cover  would  continue  to  be  specified  by  Directive 
2009/103/EC  but,  without  the  provisions  of  the  current  Regulation, 
compensation  for  death  or  injury  in  the  event  of  accidents  would  probably 
be  dealt  with  by  Member  States’  legal  systems  and  carrier  policies.  While 
this would be adequate is some cases, in other cases it is likely to depend on 
the  outcome  of  the  ruling  in  the  individual  case.  Many  passengers  would 
probably be deterred from claiming liability through the legal system due to 
the process and associated costs. 

Minimum  levels  of  cover  would  continue  to  be  specified  by  Directive 
2009/103/EC  but,  without  the  provisions  of  the  current  Regulation, 
compensation for loss or damage of luggage in the event of accidents would 
probably be dealt with by Member States’ legal systems and carrier policies. 
In many cases, this could mean that carriers would limit their obligations to 
the minimum required by national law. 

The  arrangements  for  complaint  handling  vary  widely,  but  the  Regulation 
specifies  a  right  to  complain.  This  would  be  left  to  Member  States,  with 
some keeping the existing framework and others that could repeal or alter it. 
While  the  right  to  complain  could  remain  consistent  within  some  Member 
States  (if  was  enforced  appropriately),  it  is  unlikely  that  it  would  remain 
consistent across Member States. 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.263, Table 3.17. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The  Commission’s  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  2008  legislative  proposal 
identified areas in which the protection of passengers’ rights in bus and coach transport 
needed  to  be  strengthened:  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility 
(PRM),  automatic  and  immediate  solutions  when  travel  is  interrupted,  liability  in  the 
event  of  death  or  injury  of  passengers,  treatment  of  complaints  and  means  of  redress, 
passenger information and other initiatives.  

Accordingly, the adoption of the Regulation was intended to meet the objectives of: non-
discrimination  and  the  provision  of  assistance  to  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons 
with  reduced  mobility;  operator  liability  in  the  event  of  death  or  injury  of  passengers; 

61 

 
establishing  a  quality  level  for  standards  of  services  (specifying  the  information  and 
assistance  obligations  in  case  of  disruption);  complaints-handling  procedures;  and 
appropriate  enforcement.  The  Regulation  introduced  a  specific,  enforceable  framework 
of  rights  for  passengers  when  travelling  by  bus  and  coach  in  the  European  Union, 
Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.  

This  evaluation,  which  began  in  July  2019,  is  based  on  the  collection  and  detailed 
analysis  of  published  pan-European  data  and  information  from  stakeholders  and  other 
industry  sources  over  a  two-year  period.  Although  the  quality  of  contributions  from 
stakeholders  can  be  considered  good,  the  lack  of  detailed  data  on  the  bus  and  coach 
passenger transport market complicated the analysis. 

The overall conclusion of the evaluation, based on the five key evaluation criteria set out 
below,  is  that  the  Regulation  has  brought  improvements  to  passenger  rights,  including 
PRM rights, especially in Member States which did not have pre-existing legislation in 
this area. While the objectives of the Regulation have been and are still, to some extent, 
applicable nowadays, several  gaps in  the Regulation have hampered their achievement. 
One of the gaps is the absence of an explicit reference to rights in case of delays en route 
and  on  arrival  or  in  case  of  re-routing  of  passengers  on  other  routes  or  operators,  or  a 
very  limited  right  to  compensation  or  luggage  liability.  Moreover,  enforcement 
provisions  do  not  exist  for  occasional  services  and  a  number  of  provisions  could  be 
clarified further, including on the definition of terminals and the concept of comparable 
conditions.  

The  most  significant  of  the  gaps  found  through  this  evaluation  is  the  fact  that  the 
Regulation  has created only very minimal  rights  for  passengers travelling  on scheduled 
services  for  distances  less  than  250  km.  In  practice,  this  threshold  excludes  more 
comprehensive  rights  for  all  domestic  journeys  in  smaller  Member  States  and  the  vast 
majority of domestic journeys in others, even in larger Member States. As a result, it was 
estimated that less than 10% of all the 2018 bus and coach passengers across the EU+4 
benefitted from significant passenger rights. This is expected to remain the case to a large 
extent,  even  with  the  end  of  the  exemptions  referred  to  above.  Most  benefits  from  the 
Regulation are therefore concentrated on long-distance journeys, which play a key role in 
the EU internal market.  

The  complex  enforcement  set-up  has  also  created  additional  barriers  to  achievement  of 
the expected objectives. Other issues undermining delivery of the Regulation’s expected 
benefits include: the provisions on terminals, especially but not only in relation to PRM 
passengers; real-time information; en route and arrival delays; baggage liability in case of 
theft,  loss  or  damage;  the  need  for  improved  PRM  assistance;  occasional  services; 
clarifications  of  provisions;  and  improved  enforcement,  including  more  intensive 
monitoring and expanded data collection.  

Increased data collection is very important, as the evaluation found that the lack of data 
(on the number of passengers covered by the Regulation, the number and nature of their 
complaints,  the  way  complaints  are  processed  and  addressed  by  carriers,  etc.)  not  only 

62 

 
made  it  difficult  to  quantify  the  Regulation’s  benefits,  but  also  results  in  less  effective 
application and enforcement across the board. 

6.1. 

Effectiveness 

The Regulation created an unprecedented legal framework for the protection of bus and 
coach  passenger  rights.  Many  stakeholders  welcomed  the  existence  of  a  consistent 
framework  of  rights  across  the  EU.  Moreover,  and  outside  the  direct  benefits  of  the 
Regulation,  it  resulted  in  some  levelling  up  of  the  rights  available  to  passengers  at  the 
national level.  

However, several issues have hindered the effectiveness of the Regulation:  

-  The  Regulation  does  not  provide  for  full  protection  on  services  of  less  than  250  km, 
which account for the overwhelming proportion of bus and coach travel in Europe. There 
are  consequently  some  significant  differences  in  terms  of  the  rights  that  are  granted  to 
bus  and  coach  passengers,  depending  on  whether  they  qualify  for  ‘basic’  rights  or  the 
more ‘extended’ ones, this difference lying in the 250 km distance threshold provided for 
by the Regulation. As a result, a significant proportion of passengers only gets minimal 
protection under the Regulation.  

-  The  possibility  of  exemptions,  provided  for  in  the  Regulation  up  to  1  March  2021, 
limited  until  recently  the  application  of  important  provisions  to  less  than  two  thirds  of 
Member  States.  As  a  consequence,  in  2018,  only  7.4%  of  bus  and  coach  passengers  in 
EU+4  were  afforded  extended  rights.  With  the  lifting  of  the  exemptions,  the  level  of 
protection  should  now  become  more  uniform  across  the  EU,  while  the  percentage  of 
passengers benefiting from extended rights is expected to increase to near 10%. 

- The Regulation’s effectiveness is impacted by the legal uncertainty or gaps identified, 
including the fact that delays at departure are addressed but delays en route and on arrival 
are not; provisions on occasional services are not enforced; liability for damaged or lost 
luggage  is  limited  to  the  occurrence  of  accidents,  and  liability  for  stolen  luggage  falls 
outside the Regulation’s scope. 

-  Some  provisions  remain  unclear,  such  as  the  definition  of  terminals  (Article  3(m))  / 
designated terminals (Article 12) and comparable conditions when it comes to a choice 
between  ‘continuation  or  re-routing  to  the  final  destination,  at  no  additional  cost  and 
under  comparable  conditions’  (Article  19(1)).  In  addition,  there  remain  difficulties  as 
regards re-routing passengers on other routes or operators, and compensation is linked to 
ticket  price  and  is  only  possible  if  re-routing  and  reimbursement  were  not  offered  to 
passengers (Article 19(2)). 

- While the Regulation requires Member States to designate national enforcement bodies 
(NEBs),  which  must  take  the  measures  necessary  to  ensure  compliance,  it  does  not 
specify how they should do so. This leads to different approaches, so different NEBs (the 
total number of NEBs as notified to the Commission is 98 in the 27 EU Member States 
and the United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), deal with different numbers 
of  complaints.  Only  a  small  proportion  of  NEBs  have  issued  penalties,  which  are 

63 

 
generally  infrequent  and  small,  and  the  overall  number  of  complaints  is  extremely  low 
but appears to be growing. 

-  In  some  Member  States,  NEBs  and  other  bodies  carry  out  inspections  of  operators, 
terminals and other parts of the industry supply chain, with more effective results than in 
other  Member  States  in  which  compliance  with  the  Regulation  is  monitored  less 
proactively.  

-  Provision  of  assistance  to  PRM  passengers  varies  with  national  legislation,  and  is 
constrained  by  terminals’  accessibility,  vehicle  infrastructure  and  lack  of  disability-
awareness  training  for  drivers.  As  regards  the  network  of  terminals  and  bus  stops  with 
facilities to support PRM passengers seeking to exercise their rights, only a minority of 
them are properly equipped and even fewer are designated bus and coach terminals with 
terminal managing bodies.121 

-  The  level  of  protection  is  also  affected  by  the  extent  to  which  information  can  be 
communicated to passengers in accessible languages or media, bearing in mind the fact 
that passengers’ awareness of their rights has remained low.  

Finally, the evaluation identified the need for a coordinated approach by NEBs on mass 
disruption events such as the multiple cancellations of services caused by the COVID-19 
crisis,  which  has  had  tremendous  implications  for  passengers  in  terms  of  ticket 
reimbursement  following  the  cancellation  of  transport  services  at  the  initiative  of  the 
carrier  or  of  public  authorities,  as  well  as  in  terms  of  reimbursements  for  journey 
cancellation by the passenger.  

The  Regulation  did  not  result  in  the  establishment  of  comprehensive  systems  of 
passenger rights and procedures for monitoring and data collection by the bus and coach 
the  relevant 
took  different  approaches 
industry.122  Member  States 
requirements of the Regulation. 

to  meeting 

6.2. 

Efficiency 

Quantifying  the  costs  and  benefits  was  very  challenging  for  many  categories  of 
stakeholders.  Many  of  them  had  no  firm  view  on  whether  the  costs  of  the  Regulation 
were proportionate to  the benefits,  although views varied depending on  the category of 
stakeholder.  

Passenger  and  PRM  representatives  were  mostly  positive,  with  around  half  stating  that 
the  Regulation  delivered,  or  probably  delivered,  net  benefits.  Carriers  were  mostly 
negative  but,  in  contrast  to  air  service  providers  consulted  on  air  passenger  rights  and 
protection for PRM, bus  and coach operators did  not  argue strongly in  favour of lower 
regulatory costs at this stage of implementation of the Regulation, which may have to do 
with the fact that enforcement of the Regulation has so far been limited. For passengers, 
the cost of the Regulation can be approximated as an additional EUR 0.05 to their fare; 

121 See possible attributes of terminals in Table A6.5 in Annex 6. 

122 See support study, Para. 4.16.  

64 

 
                                                      
this  equates  to  the  cost  estimated  for  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  on  waterborne 
passenger rights, compared to roughly EUR 5 in air transport.123 The costs are therefore 
limited  compared  with  the  benefits  gained  through  implementation  of  the  Regulation, 
although most of these benefits have been restricted to the small group of passengers who 
travel on the scheduled distance of the service of 250 km or more. 

At present, the individual costs and workload of NEBs are relatively low, as they have so 
far been largely linked to the volume of complaints received, which remained small. For 
operators,  the  costs  are  more  substantial  than  for  NEBs,  but  no  strong  objection  came 
from operators about disproportionate costs.  

The  Regulation  allows  for  flexibility  in  enforcement,  reflecting  the  various  national 
regulatory frameworks in place in different Member States. While this approach means 
that  enforcement  relies  on  national  consumer  protection  or  (for  PRM)  on  equality 
frameworks already in place, thereby reducing the costs of implementation, it also makes 
complaint handling and enforcement procedures more complex for passengers and other 
stakeholders to understand and apply consistently across Europe.  

This  enforcement  flexibility,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  depending  on  the  applicable 
national  law  some  NEBs  do  not  have  competence  to  take  binding  decisions  on 
complaints,  undermines  the  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation.  At  system  level,  the  large 
number of bus and coach NEBs (and ADR bodies) in Europe may lead to duplication of 
effort while adding complexity. The evaluation found that benefits could probably have 
been  higher  if  the  Regulation  had  sought  to  ensure  that  NEBs  acted  consistently  in 
interpreting  the  legislation  and  issuing  penalties.  In  the  absence  of  case-law,  and  with 
many  complaints  treated on a case-by-case basis, the Regulation  may  consequently  not 
be interpreted consistently across the EU or even within the same Member State. 

6.3. 

Relevance 

The fundamental needs of passengers identified by the Commission’s impact assessment 
accompanying the 2008 proposal for legislation have not significantly changed since the 
Regulation  was  implemented.  However,  there  have  been  substantial  changes  to  the  EU 
bus  and  coach  market,  including  liberalisation  of  domestic  markets  in  some  Member 
States,  a  greater  choice  of  long-distance  coach  services  available,  and  increased  use  of 
digital technology.  

The  objective  of  establishing  basic  quality  standards,  more  consistent  handling  of 
complaints  and  effective  monitoring  appears  to  have  been  partially  achieved  by  the 
Regulation.  However,  a  number  of  stakeholders  argue  that  further  improvement  is 
required. In that context, the needs of passengers have not significantly changed since the 

123  EUR4.4  in  2018  for  the  cost  of  implementation  of  the  Air  Passenger  Rights  Regulation  (EC)  No 
261/2004  (according  to  the  Study  on  the  current  level  of  protection  of  air  passenger  rights  in  the  EU  - 
Steer, 2020, Para. 4.30, Table 4.3) and EUR0.55 for the cost of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 concerning 
the rights of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (see Study 
on  the  EU  Regulatory  Framework  for  Passenger  Rights.  Part  A,  Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1107/2006 on the rights of persons with disabilities and with reduced mobility when travelling by air, Para. 
3.102; 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d8b8bd04-1b4d-11ec-b4fe-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231259999).   

link: 

65 

 
                                                      
Regulation came into force and there are a number of areas where it could better address 
them.  

The  objective  of  non-discriminatory  access  and  assistance  to  PRM  has  also  been  only 
partially  achieved.  In  addition,  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  excludes  the  majority  of 
passengers from a more comprehensive protection regime beyond some basic rights, by 
establishing  the  threshold  of  250  km  for  it  and  excluding  some  types  of  services. 
Consequently,  the  main  objective  of  ensuring  an  equivalent  level  of  protection  and 
assistance to passengers on bus and coach transport across Member States has not been 
fully achieved.  

Finally, while the Regulation did not anticipate the full effect of technological changes in 
the  bus  and  coach  sector,  in  particular  increasing  digitalisation,  the  Regulation 
nevertheless  remains  relevant.  In  other  words,  the  issues  which  led  to  the  intervention 
would remain if the Regulation were not in place, and such protections still remain highly 
relevant for the passengers. 

6.4. 

Coherence 

The  Regulation  presents  some  internal  inconsistencies,  and  its  scope  might  be  seen  as 
incoherent with its objective of a uniform, high level of protection; it does not apply in its 
entirety  to  services  on  distances  of  less  than  250 km,  occasional  services  and,  until 
1 March 2021, exempted services. Also, the Regulation established the right of PRM to 
travel  at  no  additional  cost,  but  several  provisions  essential  to  guarantee  that  right 
actually do not apply to some services.  

As  regards  external  coherence,  there  are  no  major  inconsistencies  with:  other  EU  acts; 
policies on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles; safety 
and  security  requirements;  competition  policy;  and  EU  external  transport  policy. 
However,  passengers  using  occasional  coach  services  on  package  trips  of  less  than  24 
hours  without  an  overnight  stay  are  not  covered  by  Directive  (EU)  2015/2302  nor  by 
most of the provisions of the Regulation. There are also some inconsistencies in relation 
to  the  level  of  passenger  rights  in  other  modes,  including  as  regards  the  definition  of 
delays giving right to compensation. 

6.5. 

EU added value 

Many stakeholders suggested that there was considerable value in a common framework 
of rights throughout Europe, noting that it gave passengers more confidence and security 
when travelling by bus and coach. Stakeholders also highlighted that the implementation 
of the Regulation encouraged awareness of the needs of PRM across the Member States. 
Finally, the Regulation also  supports the development  of a European-wide market  over 
the medium and long term. 

The low number of EU Member States implementing passenger rights legislation before 
the Regulation came into force suggests that EU-wide legislation has added value, as it 
introduced a common framework of basic rights throughout Europe where in many cases, 
few  or  none  existed  previously.  As  a  result,  it  enabled  passengers  to  travel  by  bus  and 
coach  with  greater  protection  and  hence  more  confidence;  it  encouraged  awareness 
among  Member  States  of  the  needs  of  PRM;  and  it  supported  the  development  of  a 
Europe-wide market over the medium to long term. The Regulation has also established a 

66 

 
common framework of enforcement and complaints handling. Removing the Regulation 
would probably result, at least over time, in a reduction both in the level of rights offered 
and in the effort put into their enforcement. 

67 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

The Directorate-General  for Mobility and Transport (“DG MOVE”) is  the lead DG for 
the evaluation  of the Regulation  (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  16  February  2011  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach 
transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.  

The evaluation was registered in the Decide Planning under reference PLAN/2019/5709. 

2. Organisation and timing 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  prepared  in  line  with  the 
procedural  steps  set  forth  under  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines.  The 
evaluation  roadmap  together  with  the  context,  the  purpose  and  the  scope  of  the 
evaluation was published on 11 July 2019. 

The ex-post evaluation of the Regulation on passenger rights in bus and coach transport 
was  performed  in  cooperation  with  other  interested  Commission  services  coordinated 
under  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (“ISSG”),  which  was  established  early  in  the 
evaluation  process  for  that  purpose.  The  ISSG  consists  of  representatives  from 
Secretariat General (SG), Legal Service (LS), European External Action Service (EEAS), 
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW), 
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), Directorate-
General for Justice and Consumers (JUST), Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and 
Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR), Directorate-General  for Regional and Urban Policy 
(REGIO),    Directorate-General  for  Communications  networks,  content  and  technology 
(CNECT).  

Table A1.1 describes the milestones of the evaluation phase. 

Table A1.1 – Evaluation process 

Date 

11 July 2019 

Activity 

Launch of the evaluation in the Commission’s Decide Planning and publication 
of the Evaluation Roadmap on the Better Regulation portal 

13 September 2019 

1st meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group - outcome of the Roadmap, draft 
Terms of Reference for the support study, consultation strategy 

23 October 2019 

Launch of the call for tenders for the support study, under Framework Contract 
MOVE/A3/2017-257  

18 February 2020 

Signature of the contract by independent contractor 

20 February 2020 

Kick-off meeting with contractor – start of the support study 

23 April 2020 

2nd meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group - Inception report 

3 July 2020 

Start of the public consultation 

2 October 2020  

3rd meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group- First interim report  

23 October 2020 

End of the public consultation 

68 

 
 
1 December 2020 

Stakeholder workshop  

2 February 2021 

4th meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group – Draft final report  

19 March 2021 

5th meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group – Final report 

27 July 2021 

Submission of the final report of the support study 

3 – 31 August 2021 

Inter-service consultation on the Staff Working Document 

3. Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

None. 

4. Evidence, sources and quality 

The  assessment  takes  account  of  the  Regulation  impact  from  when  it  started  to  apply 
nearly eight years ago, until the start of the evaluation in February 2020. Therefore, the 
analysis  does  not  specifically  cover  the  impact  of  COVID-19  due  to  the  pandemic 
outbreak during the course of the support study. 

The  evaluation  findings  mainly  rely  on  an  external  evaluation  study  carried  out  by  the 
external contractor Steer which develops through the analysis of the following evaluation 
criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  and  EU  added  value  of  the 
Regulation.  

The  evaluation  was  completed  by  additional  information  gathered  by  the  European 
Commission. The methodology used to address the objectives of the evaluation consist of 
a  mix  of  tools,  including  inter  alia  stakeholder  consultation,  desktop  research,  case 
studies, a workshop and a cost-benefit analysis. 

69 

 
 
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

This annex presents the results of the consultation activities undertaken in the context of 
the ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 aimed at identifying performance 
since adoption.  

As set out in the consultation strategy for the evaluation, the objective of the consultation 
process  was  to  gather  the  views  of  stakeholders  and  collect  any  evidence  on  the  key 
implementation  issues.  The  consultation  process  was  based  on  a  programme  of  field 
research designed to offer stakeholders the opportunity to provide information and data 
that  contributed  to  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  support  study,  collect  stakeholders’ 
views on the outcomes, results and impact of the Regulation, discuss issues arising with 
the application of the Regulation (and any possible shortcomings, redundancies, overlaps, 
inefficiencies  or  inconsistencies),  and  collect  stakeholders’  views  on  whether  the 
Regulation is still fit for purpose as well as any suggested good practices or amendments. 
For this purpose, the results of a 16-week long public consultation was collected by the 
Commission,  who  also  participated  to  the  online  participatory  workshop  organized  and 
led  by  the  external  contractor.  In  addition,  targeted  questionnaires  to  industry,  pilot 
interviews and targeted interviews were conducted in the context of the external support 
study.   

The scope of the consultation activities focused on assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, 
relevance,  coherence,  and  EU-added  value  of  the  Regulation.  The  geographic  scope  of 
the  consultation  covered  the  27  EU  Member  States  as  well  as  4  non-EU  countries 
(Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and United Kingdom). 

1. Engagement methods and tools 

The  consultation  process  consisted  of  different  activities  developed  through  a  public 
consultation as well as targeted consultations.  

In  addition,  the  consultation  process  takes  into  account  the  feedback  received  by  the 
Commission  on  the  evaluation  roadmap  throughout  the  third  quarter  of  2019.  
Responses  were  received  from  twelve  organisations  in  total,  including  representative 
organization  for  PRM  rights  (EDF),  a  non-governmental  organization,  a  consumer 
organization,  a  NEB  (APF),  the  international  representative  organisation  for  road 
transport (IRU), representative organisation of the industry (UITP), two carriers from the 
same  Member  State  plus  two  additional  carrier,  a  ticket  retailer,  and  a  provider  of 
mobility as a service (MaaS). 

1.1. Questionnaires  

A number of distinct questionnaires tailored to each key stakeholder group was used to 
collect input from the industry, as well as data and policy views.  

Questionnaires and interviews were used as basis for performing specific tasks, including 
the  analysis  of  the  evaluation  baseline,  the  development  of  the  case  studies,  the 
development  of  the  country-fiches  and,  the  overall  assessment  of  the  evaluation 
questions.  However,  a  number  of  limitations  were  identified:  the  questionnaires  were 

70 

 
 
lengthy and time consuming for stakeholders to complete comprehensively, this implying 
that the quality of the responses depended on stakeholders’ interest in or exposure to the 
Regulation. 

In total, 87 responses were received through the targeted stakeholder consultation out of 
270  questionnaires  sent  (see  Figure  A2.1  below).  Responses  can  be  indexed  by  the 
following  stakeholder  groups:  NEBs,  bus  and  coach  carriers,  bus  and  coach  terminals, 
passenger  and  PRM  representatives,  European  Consumers  Centres  (ECCs),  ADR 
organisations and a small number of other stakeholders, as shown in this graph: 

Figure A2.1: Overview of stakeholder engagement by stakeholder group  

Source: Support study, Para. 2.7, Figure 2.2. 

1.2. Interviews  

A  total  of  28  interviews  were  conducted  with  selected  stakeholders  to  ensure 
representativeness and diversity of the sample. 

Four  pilot  interviews  were  completed  during  the  project  inception  with  the  following 
stakeholders:  the  Appeal  Board  for  Bus,  Train  and  Metro  (ABTM)  (DK),  Bus  User 
Wales (UK), European Passenger Forum (EU) and FlixBus (DE). 

In  addition,  a  total  of  24  interviews  were  conducted  as  part  of  the  evaluation  process, 
including 4 which were used to simultaneously discuss Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 as 
well  as  other  passenger  rights  Regulations  ((EC)  No  1107/2006  and/or  (EU)  No 
1177/2010). Five stakeholders declined, whilst two did not engaged.  

Stakeholders who participated to the interviews, including an ADR organisation, NEBs, 
bus and coach carriers, passenger and PRM representatives are indicated in Table A2.1 
below.  

71 

 
  
 
 
 
Table A2.1 – Stakeholder consultation interviews 

Group 
ADR 
NEB 
NEB 
NEB 
NEB 
NEB 
NEB 
NEB 

MS 
DE 
BE 
DE 
AT 
ES 
FI 
HR 
SE 
EU-Wide  Carrier 
Carrier 
DE 
Carrier 
FR 
RO 
Carrier 
EU-Wide  Carrier 
Carrier 
DE 
Carrier 
ES 
Carrier 
IT 
SE 
Carrier 
EU-Wide  Other 
EU-Wide  Other 

DE 

DK 

EU-Wide 

ES 

Passenger 
representative 
Passenger 
representative 
Passenger 
representative 
PRM 
representative 
PRM 
representative 

Organisation 
Arbitration Board for Public Passenger Transport (SöP) 
Mobility and Transport Federal Public Services (FPS) 
Federal Railway Authority (Eisenbahn-Bundesamt) 
Agency for Passengers and Passenger Rights (APF) 
Ministry of Development (MITMA) 
The Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) 
Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure 
National Board for Consumer Complaints 
Trainline 
FlixBus  
BlaBlaCar 
Dacos 
European Passenger Transport Carrier (EPTO) 
Federal Association of German Omnibus Entrepreneurs (BDO) 
Confederation of Bus Transport (CONFEBUS) 
National Association of Road Transport and Travelers (ANAV) 
Swedish Bus and Coach Federation 
International Road Transport Union (IRU) 
International Union of Public Transport (UITP) 

PRO BAHN 

Danish Consumer Council (Forbrugerraadet Taenk) 

European Passengers’ Federation (EPF) 

Spanish Committee of Representatives of People with Disabilities (CERMI) 

EU-Wide 
Source: Stakeholders consultation report attached to the Support study, Para. 2.48, Table 2.12. 

European Disability Forum (EDF) 

1.3. Workshop 

A full-day participatory workshop with selected stakeholders took place on 1 December 
2020.  The  workshop  was  led  and  organised  by  the  contractor,  with  the  European 
Commission  also  in  attendance.  The  workshop  was  conducted  entirely  virtually  via  a 
Zoom teleconference and the discussion mainly centred on three themes: 1) the scope of 
the  Regulation,  2)  the  industry  and  the  Regulation,  and  3)  ensuring  the  Regulation 
remains fit for purpose.  

On  the  scope  of  the  Regulation,  mixed  views  were  expressed,  while  on  the  coach 
industry and the Regulation, a few points related to the definition of terminals, the role of 
drivers  and  information  provision  were  raised  by  participants.  As  regard  the  looking 
forward theme, some articles were identified for further clarification, gaps in legislation 
outlined and opinions on the role of NEBs shared.   

The workshop was attended by 29 organisations in total, including NEBs, bus and coach 
carriers,  bus  and  coach  terminals,  passenger  and  PRM  representatives  as  illustrated  in 
Table A2.2 below.  

Table A2.2 - Workshop attendees 

MS 
DE 

DE 

FR 

Group 
ADR 

ADR 

ADR 

Organisation 
Arbitration Board for Public Passenger Transport (Söp) 

Pro Bahn 

Tourism and Travel Mediation (MTV) 

72 

 
MS 
AT 

BE 

DE 
FI 

IT 

PT 
UK 

RO 

EE 

ES 

IT 

EU wide 

CZ 

UK 

SE 

DE 
EU wide 
EU wide 

EU 

FR 

DK 

HU 

FR 

LV 

UK 

Group 
NEB 

NEB 

NEB 
NEB 

NEB 

NEB 
NEB 

Carrier 

Carrier 

Carrier 

Carrier 

Carrier 

Carrier 

Carrier 

Carrier 

Carrier 
Other 
Other 
Passenger 
Representative 
Passenger 
Representative 
Passenger 
Representative 
PRM 
Representative 
PRM 
Representative 

Terminals 

Terminals 

Organisation 
Agency for Passengers and Passenger Rights (APF) 

Ministry of Mobility and Transport (FPS) 

Federal Railway Authority (Eisenbahn-Bundesamt) 
Traficom 

Regulatory Authority for Transport (ART) 

Authority for Mobility and Transport 
Bus Users 

Dacos 

Lux Express 

Spanish Confederation of Transport by Bus and Coach (CONFEBUS) 

National Association of Road Transport and Travelers (ANAV) 

European Alliance for Coach Travel (EACT) 

Czech Association of Road Transport Operators (ČESMAD Bohemia) 

European Passenger Transport Operators (EPTO) 

Swedish Confederation of Transport Enterprises (Transportföretagen) 

German Bus and Coach Operators Association (BDO) 
International Road Transport Union (IRU) 
International Union of Public Transport (UITP) 

European Passengers’ Federation (EPF) 

National Federation of Transport Users Associations (FNAUT) 

Danish Consumer Council (Forbrugerrådet Tænk) 

Association of Persons with Mobility Restrictions in Hungary 
French Confederation For The Social Promotion Of The Blind And Amblyopia 
(CFPSAA) 

Riga International Coach Terminal 

Victoria Coach Station 

ES 
Source: Stakeholders consultation report attached to the Support study, Para. 2.49, Table 2.13. 

Madrid South Bus Terminal 

Terminals 

1.4. Public consultation 

The Commission launched a 16-week long public consultation for the evaluation of the 
Regulation. The objective of this was to collect the views of the general public and the 
stakeholders. The public consultation opened on 3 July 2020 and closed on 23 October 
2020. 

A total of 25 responses were received to the survey. All responses were from contributors 
from the EU. The Member States with the most responses were: France (4), Austria (3), 
Belgium (3) and Sweden (3).  

2. Analysis of the results  

The  outcome  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  process  is  presented  on  the  basis  of  the 
results  obtained  through  the  targeted  consultation  activities  –  that  is  to  say,  targeted 
questionnaires, interviews and workshop – and the public consultation.  

2.1. Results of the targeted consultation  

The targeted questionnaires were designed to obtain data and open responses, and drafted 
to ensure that similar questions were posed to each stakeholder group. It is important to 
note that stakeholder responses were not analysed using any statistical approaches due to 

73 

 
the highly qualitative nature of the responses received. Therefore, although response rates 
were closely monitored, the focus was more on the quality, length and detail provided in 
the responses, rather than the number of responses per se. 

The  majority  of  responses  received  were  generally  well  detailed  and  provided  valuable 
quantitative  and  qualitative  information  for  the  support  study.  Responses  were  mostly 
received  within  the  timeframe  agreed  with  stakeholders.  Nearly  all  responses  were 
supplied  in  English  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  affected  the  quality  of  the 
submissions. 

Interviews  proved  effective  at  investigating  gaps  in  the  qualitative  data  and  gave 
stakeholders  the  opportunity  to  raise  or  stress  particular  points  of  importance.  Overall, 
the approach to the consultation which includes the steps taken to mitigate the effects of 
COVID-19  on  stakeholder  engagement,  ultimately  succeeded  in  encouraging  open 
engagement with all stakeholder groups. 

National enforcement bodies 

Almost  all  NEBs  (25/31)  provided  a  questionnaire  response,  with  some  questions  left 
blank  by  some  respondents  (this  was  particularly  common  for  questions  on  good 
practice). Overall, the vast majority of NEBs answered questions in detail, therefore, for 
most questions, it was possible to identify a consensus across NEBs.  

With respect to the effectiveness of the Regulation, few NEBs felt confident asserting a 
position  on  whether  the  Regulation  had  changed  the  level  of  protection  provided  to 
passengers  and  PRMs.  Just  under  one-half  (13)  assessed  that  the  Regulation’s  key 
concepts were sufficiently well defined. 

Of  the  10  NEBs  to  provide  a  view,  all  except  for  one  assessed  that  the  Regulation’s 
efficiency costs are proportionate to the benefits of the Regulation.  

On  relevance,  NEBs  assessed  that  the  original  objectives  of  the  Regulation  remain 
relevant to the current needs of PRMs when travelling by bus and coach. Nevertheless, 
the Regulation could be better tailored to account for other passenger concerns. 

On  coherence,  most  NEBs  judged  that  the  Regulation’s  provisions  were  coherent  and 
consistent  with  one  another.  Nevertheless,  four  NEBs  disagreed,  assessing  that  the 
Regulation’s provisions on compensation and delay length were not commensurate with 
that of other transport modes and that the Regulation’s scope was too limited. 

In terms of EU added value, it was highlighted that passengers have benefitted from the 
reassurance  which  a  single  European  framework  for  bus  and  coach  passenger  rights 
provides.  However,  a  couple  of  NEBs  highlighted  that  the  benefits  of  the  Regulation 
were  muted  in  their  respective  countries  due  to  the  greater  protections  afforded  to 
passengers by domestic consumer law. NEBs also highlighted that PRMs are now able to 
(at  least  in  principle)  travel  anywhere  in  Europe  without  issue  and,  albeit  to  a  lesser 
extent, to anywhere in the world. 

74 

 
Bus and coach carriers 

All  responses received from carriers were detailed with  each answering  the majority of 
questions  (12  responses  were  successfully  collected  from  9  carriers  and  3  carrier 
associations).  All  of  the  responses  appear  to  be  unique  with  no  clear  similarities  with 
other responses. 

Carriers  had  difficulty  in  forming  a  view  on  effectiveness  –  with  only  two  explicitly 
providing  a  view  on  to  what  extent  the  Regulation  has  improved  protections  for 
passengers (one stated no impact; the other mentioned a positive impact). For the rights 
of PRMs in particular, a consensus emerged across carriers with all of those to express a 
view (4) agreed that the Regulation has improved the extent to which PRMs are able to 
travel by bus and coach on equal terms to other passengers. Furthermore, the majority of 
responding carriers (6) agreed that key terms within the Regulation are sufficiently well 
defined. 

On  efficiency,  most  of  those  to  provide  a  view  (3  of  4)  assessed  that  the  Regulation’s 
compliance  costs  were  proportionate  to  its  benefits.  One,  however,  highlighted  that 
digitalisation could be better utilised to accommodate for automatic re-routing. 

On relevance, carriers agreed that the priority needs of passengers are similar to those at 
the  time  of  implementation.  However,  the  extent  of  technological  development  and 
digitalisation is much more prominent than it was when the Regulation was adopted and 
has  gained  importance.  Furthermore,  carriers  are  divided  on  whether  the  distinction 
between journeys of 250 km or more and journeys of less than 250 kmremains relevant. 

On  coherence,  the  majority  (4)  of  carriers  to  respond  stated  that  the  Regulation  and  its 
provisions are coherent with one another. 

With respect to EU added value, carriers stated that the Regulation provides certainty for 
passengers and PRMs regarding service quality expectations. Furthermore, they took the 
view  that  the  Regulation  has  fostered  a  more  connected  approach  to  passenger  rights 
regulation across Member States. 

Bus and coach terminals 

Only two responses were received from bus and coach terminals, this ruling out a pan-
European consensus for this particular stakeholder group.  

On  effectiveness,  both  respondents  stated  that  services  provided  as  a  result  of  the 
Regulation  were  already  available  prior  to  the  Regulation.  It  was  also  stated  that  they 
believe  the  key  terms  within  the  Regulation  are  defined  to  support  effective 
implementation. 

With  respect  to  cost  efficiency,  both  agreed  that  the  costs  of  implementation 
(compliance,  administrative  and  legal)  are  proportionate  to  the  Regulation’s  benefits:  a 
greater level of passenger satisfaction. 

75 

 
On relevance, both stakeholders indicated that the priority needs of passengers travelling 
by bus and coach are similar to when the Regulation was implemented. 

Regarding  EU  added  value,  both  agreed  that  value  has  been  added  for  PRMs  via 
increased pan-European mobility and reliability. 

Passenger and PRM representatives 

Responses  to  the  targeted  consultation  were  received  from  a  total  of  14  passenger  and 
PRM representatives from 8 Member States.124  

On effectiveness, the majority of responding PRM representatives (4) stated that further 
changes are required. Furthermore, most stakeholders (6) agreed that progress has been 
made  towards  ensuring  PRMs  are  able  to  travel  on  equal  terms  to  other  passengers. 
Passengers and PRM representatives also stated that progress has been made with respect 
to  informing  passengers  of  their  rights.  The  majority  of  responding  stakeholders  (4) 
stated  that  the  biggest  barrier  to  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation 
arises from the exemptions afforded to Member States. 

On  efficiency,  passenger  and  PRM  representatives  agree  that  the  benefits  generated  by 
the Regulation outweigh its costs. 

In  terms  of  relevance,  passenger  and  PRM  representatives  agree  that  the  Regulation 
remains relevant to the priorities of passengers travelling by bus and coach. 

On coherence, one PRM representative highlighted that the Regulation is not in line with 
the UNCRPD which requires transport to be accessible on an equal basis. Furthermore, 
PRMs  are effectively prohibited from  travelling to  some regions  which lack designated 
terminals. A lack of sufficient protections for multi-modal journeys was also highlighted 
which  would  ensure  that  the  rights  of  passengers  and  PRMs  are  protected  throughout 
their entire journeys. 

No responses were given regarding EU added value. 

European Consumers Centres 

Nearly all ECCs which responded with details on complaints (5) had received no or very 
few complaints  relating to  the Regulation.  Therefore a view on the effectiveness  of the 
complaints handling process could not be provided. 

On relevance, a significant majority of ECCs (10) across Member States stated that their 
decisions  are  not  binding  for  transport  operators  and  that  they  cannot  award  additional 
damages  or  compensation  beyond  what  is  stated  in  the  Regulation.  On  coherence,  no 
relevant responses were provided. 

124 DK, EL, FR, HU, IE, IT, PT, SE, and 4 European wide organisations. 

76 

 
 
 
                                                      
Alternative Dispute Resolution organisations  

As  is  the  case  with  ECCs,  almost  all  ADRs  with  details  on  complaints  (14,  excluding 
Germany, Norway and Austria) who responded had received no or very few complaints 
relating to the Regulation, and therefore could not provide a view on the effectiveness of 
the complaints handling process. 

ADRs’ had no significant comments relating to relevance, efficiency or coherence.  

Others 

This  analysis  includes  responses  given  by  one  independent  pan-European,  multi-modal 
transport policy association focussing on the relevance and coherence of the Regulation. 

On  relevance,  it  was  assessed  that  the  priority  needs  of  passengers  as  a  result  of  the 
Regulation  are  the  same  as  at  the  time  of  implementation.  It  was  also  noted  that  the 
nature  of  bus  and  coach  travel  has  changed  significantly  since  the  Regulation  was 
implemented  due  to  the  emergence  of  new  transport  providers,  a  relatively  fast 
consolidation of carriers in Germany and France, and technological advances. 

With respect to coherence, the stakeholder criticised the Regulation’s lack of protections 
afforded to multi-modal passengers. In a similar vein, it was assessed that the focus of the 
Regulation should be to ensure that the passenger experience is aligned across all modes 
of transport. 

2.1.1 Problematic questions  

Significant  issues  were  identified  in  relation  to  responses  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Regulation as well as its EU added value.  

Concerning  the  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  in  achieving  its  general  and  specific 
objectives,  many  stakeholders  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  provide  a  response. 
Furthermore,  most  of  stakeholders  found  it  difficult  to  do  so  robustly  due  to  a  lack  of 
data (both quantitative and qualitative). Nevertheless, it is clear that stakeholders broadly 
agree that the Regulation has had a positive impact on the achievement of at least some 
of its objectives (detailed in the previous sections). 

In terms of added value, although this question was generally answered correctly by the 
majority  of  stakeholders,  a  small  minority  misinterpreted  the  question.  Notably,  no 
passenger  or  PRM  representatives  responded  to  this  question.  However,  it  is  worth 
saying that those who interpreted the question correctly responded similarly. 

2.1.2 Areas of agreement  

There were a number of areas of agreement across stakeholder groups widespread across 
all evaluation topics.  

On  the  internal  coherence  of  the  Regulation,  both  carriers  and  NEBs  judged  that  the 
Regulation’s provisions were coherent and consistent with one another. Only one carrier 

77 

 
suggested  that  further  clarification  may  be  needed  on  some  provisions  to  allow  the 
Regulation to be evenly applied and enforced. 

With respect  to  relevance, stakeholder  groups (including carriers,  NEBs,  passenger  and 
PRM representatives, and terminals) agreed that the Regulation remains relevant with the 
priorities of passengers travelling by bus and coach similar to when the Regulation was 
implemented. 

As regards cost efficiency, the majority of both carriers and NEBs stated that the benefits 
of the Regulation were proportional to the costs encountered as a result. 

2.1.3 Areas of disagreement 

There  were  a  number  of  areas  of  disagreement  across  the  stakeholder  groups  but  no 
significant differences of views within stakeholder groups, with the exception of carriers 
and others. 

Concerning  the  coherence  across  transport  modes,  an  association  representing  carriers 
has  indeed  highlighted  that  journeys  below  250km  are  more  likely  to  be  local  urban 
multimodal journeys on public transport. These journeys are regulated on a national level 
and  interaction  of  the  Regulation  (if  extended)  would  likely  result  in  unforeseen 
difficulties for passengers. On the other hand, carriers believe that the current thresholds 
are still relevant to the priorities of passengers. 

2.2. Results of the public consultation 

The  public  consultation.  A  total  of  25  responses  were  received.  The  largest  respondent 
group  was  individual  EU  and  non-EU  citizens  (9);  a  significant  number  of  responses 
were also received from carriers (3), NEBs/MS (3) and others (4).  

2.2.1 Evaluation criteria 

Effectiveness 

Overall, many stakeholders (18 out of 25 respondents) assessed that the Regulation had 
improved  the  protection  of  bus  and  coach  passengers  at  least  slightly  since  the 
introduction in 2013. This applies to both carriers and passengers.125   

Stakeholders  agreed  on  several  positive  impacts  of  the  Regulation.The  comments 
received from respondents include:  

  A guaranteed right to assistance as a PRM; 
  An even playing field relative to other modes of transport, specifically travel by rail; 
  Generally,  a  simpler  and  more  responsive  complaint  handling  process  for 

passengers; 

  A minimum standard of assistance in cases of disruptions which passengers can rely 

on when travelling within the EU; 

125  See  the  analysis  of  the  views  expressed  by  stakeholders  who  took  part  in  the  public  consultation, 
Appendix A of the stakeholder consultation report.   

78 

 
                                                      
Increased clarity on responsibilities of carriers; and 

 
  An  increased  awareness  of  PRMs  needs  amongst  staff  due  to  mandatory  disability 

awareness training, which is also seen across other travel modes. 

With respect to the Regulation’s negative impacts, different views were identified among 
stakeholders.  One  terminal  operator  noted  that  the  costs  of  passenger  service  are 
increasing as a result of the Regulation’s requirements, negatively impacting profitability 
of terminals. One carrier noted that there is a higher administrative burden as a result of 
the  Regulation.  Citizens  noted  that  the  Regulation’s  exemptions  make  the  process  of 
understanding their rights across different Member States complicated.  

Efficiency 

According  to  the  view  expressed  by  PRM  representatives,  the  benefits  included  has 
raised  awareness  of  this  category  needs  during  travel,  with  a  positive  impact  on  staff 
awareness  and  assistance  provided  to  PRMs  on their  journeys.  Citizens highlighted  the 
benefits of easier complaint handling. Terminals assessed that costs are rising. 

Relevance 

Respondents to the public consultation have benefitted from the following EU passenger 
rights:  appropriate  and  comprehensible  information  on  passenger  rights,  access  to 
transport and specific assistance at no additional cost for PRM, choice between the right 
to  reimbursement,  continuation  of  the  journey  or  re-routing  in  case  of  denied  boarding 
for  PRMs  and  any  accompanying  person,  and  information  provided  to  PRMs  by  the 
travel agent or tour operator about any acceptable alternative service in case their ticket 
reservation is refused on the ground of their disability or reduced mobility. 

There  was  little  agreement  on  the  Regulation’s  provisions  being  obsolete.  A  few 
responses given to the public consultation stated that the provisions are obsolete, whereas 
a small number of responses indicated the opposite. 

This  highlights  that  there  is  still  further  work  required  to  make  progress  against  the 
original objectives of the Regulation, although a significant majority of the respondents 
agreed that the Regulation has improved the protection of passengers and PRMs. 

Coherence  

One  PRM  representative  highlighted  how  limiting  the  PRM  assistance  service  to  only 
‘designated terminals’ allow Member States to restrict the scope of the Regulation with 
respect to the rights of PRMs.  

EU added value 

The public consultation did not focus on the point of EU added value. The only question 
relevant to this evaluation point was answered positively with 16 of 17 respondents either 
somewhat or strongly agreeing that European level co-ordination of NEBs is needed. 

79 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

This  Annex  is  intended  to  provide  detailed  information  on  the  approach  already 
described under Chapter 4 of the Staff Working Document, as regards the methods and 
mix  of  different  models  used  throughout  the  ex-post  evaluation  process  of  Regulation 
(EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport.  

1. Short description of methodology 

The methodology of this evaluation has been developed and structured in light of the key 
evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value 
in order to address the 24 evaluation questions set forth by the Commission at the design 
stage  of  the  evaluation.  The  evaluation  approach  relies  on  a  series  of  techniques  and 
methods  for  the  data  collection  and  data  analysis  including  evaluation  matrix,  desktop 
research,  field  research  and  case  studies  developed  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation 
support  study.  The  support  study  took  place  in  parallel  with  the  various  waves  of  the 
COVID-19 crisis experienced throughout 2020. In agreement with the Commission, the 
support study went ahead but more time was offered to stakeholders to participate.   

Stakeholder consultation 

A programme of stakeholder engagement was identified to develop an understanding of 
the issues arisen since 2011. The approach followed during the consultation exercise was 
based on pilots interviews, targeted face to face and telephone interviews with at least 60 
participants,  targeted  questionnaires  to  industry,  public  consultation  and  a  participatory 
workshop.  

The consultation targeted the following seven stakeholders groups: passenger and PRM 
organisations,  NEBs,  bus  and  coach  carriers  and  representative  associations,  terminal 
operators and representative associations, ADR bodies, ECCs and other relevant industry 
associations (e.g. travel agents).  

The NEBs of five Member States declined to participate, whereas one Member States did 
not participate.  

Case studies  

The  ex-post  evaluation  has  been  supported  by  three  case  studies  which  addressed  the 
following topics: re-routing of bus and coach passengers facing disruption, provision of 
information  to  passengers  in  the  event  of  disruption  of  bus  and  coach  services,  and 
passenger  rights  when  the  ticket  was  issued  by  a  party  other  than  that  operating  the 
service.  

Country-fiches 

Country-specific  information  were  presented  for  each  of  the  27+4  countries  included 
under the geographic scope of the evaluation. The information provided by the country-
fiches  focused  on  national  enforcement  system  (focusing  on  strength,  weakness, 
opportunity,  threat  –  SWOT)  and  individual  passenger  redress  procedure  (step-by-step 
description). 

Carrier review 

A  review  of  selected  bus  and  coach  operators’  websites  was  performed  in  December 
2020  and  January  2021  with  the  objective  of  understanding  the  carriers’  approach  to 
passenger rights and how those are presented to customers. The selected bus and coach 

80 

 
operators included a range of different-sized organisations, located/registered in different 
Member States as shown in Table A3.1 below. The review was done in December 2020 
and January 2021, and therefore reflects information found on these operators’ websites 
during this period.  

Table A3.1 – Carrier operators included in the review  

Main carriers 

Member State 

Abildskous Rutebiler  

Denmark  

ALSA 

Autotrans 

Avanza 

Biomet  

BlaBlaBus 

Bus Éireann 

Citylink 

CroatiaBus 

Spain  

Croatia  

Spain 

Bulgaria 

France  

Ireland  

UK 

Croatia  

DeutscheTouring (BusBud) 

Germany 

Ecolines 

Express Bus 

FlixBus 

Gråhundbus  

Intercity Buses  

KAPNOS 

Kautra 

KTEL 

Lux Express 

Estonia 

Finland  

Germany 

Denmark 

Cyprus 

Cyprus 

Lithuania  

Greece 

Latvia 

81 

 
Megabus 

National Express 

Norway BusExpress 

ÖBB Postbus 

Onnibus 

Regiojet 

UK  

UK 

Norway 

Austria 

Finland  

Czechia 

Reykjavik Excursions / Flybus 

Iceland  

Slovak Lines Bus 

Union Ivkoni 

Ybuss 

Slovakia 

Bulgaria 

Sweden 

Source: Stakeholders consultation report attached to the Support study, Para. 2.41, Table 2.4. 

Workshop 

A  participatory  workshop  was  conducted  virtually  via  a  Zoom  teleconference  on  1 
December 2020. The full-day workshop was attended by a total of 29 stakeholders from 
all over the EU+4 including 7 NEBs, 6 PRM and passenger representatives, 3 terminals, 
11 operators and 2 ADRs. 

The  discussion  was  centred  on  three  themes:  pre-notification,  safety,  and  ensuring  the 
Regulation remains fit for purpose. During the workshop, stakeholders were subdivided 
into three groups and the emerging findings on the five evaluation topics were presented. 
Afterwards, group discussions took place on three themes: “the scope of the Regulation”, 
“the coach industry and the Regulation” and “looking forward”.  

Analysis of the evaluation baseline  

The analysis of the evaluation baseline aims at assessing the impact of the policy changes 
introduced  by  the  Regulation  over  time  through  comparing  the  actual  recorded 
performance  against  a  potential  scenario  without  policy  intervention.  The  aim  of  the 
analysis was to assess (from 2013 until today) what the situation would have been, had 
the Regulation or any other EU-level legislation not been implemented. For such reason, 
the following scenarios were considered:  

 

 

the situation regarding passenger rights in 2013 in the 27 Member States, as well as 
Iceland,  Switzerland,  Norway  and  the  UK,  for  passengers  within  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation; 
the assumption that the legal framework in each Member State would have remained 
intact if the Regulation had not been in place; and  

82 

 
 
 

the application of consumer law in each Member State. 

The  reference  year  for  the  analytical  approach  is  2013.  The  evaluation  of  the  situation 
before  and  after  the  introduction  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  was  based  on  data 
collected for the period 2010-2018. 

The  impact  of  the  Regulation  was  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  data  collected  and 
assumptions  derived.  In  particular,  it  was  estimated  that  between  2010  and  2018  the 
number  of  passengers  travelling  by  long  distance  bus  remained  relatively  constant,  the 
majority  of  them  travelling  on  a  scheduled  domestic  routes  of  less  than  250km.  
The proportion of the overall passengers travelling on these routes has declined slightly 
since 2010. Additionally, around 6% of total passengers were found to be travelling on 
scheduled  domestic  services  with  a  journey  length  of  250km  or  more.  Passengers 
travelling  on  non-scheduled  services  were  the  second  most  sizable  group,  making  up 
approximately 15% of total passengers. 

With regard to the application of the Regulation, 81.4% of passengers became eligible for 
basic rights from the Regulation in 2013, with a further 3.1% also becoming eligible for 
extended rights. The proportions of overall passengers in Europe eligible for each group 
of  rights  remained  broadly  consistent  until  2018,  when  the  proportion  of  passengers 
eligible  for  extended  rights  increased,  consequently  reducing  the  proportion  of 
passengers eligible for basic rights only. 

In  order  to  calculate  the  overall  impact  of  the  Regulation,  it  was  necessary  to  first 
calculate the number of passengers who were already eligible for PRM assistance from 
previous  Member  State  legislation.  The  Regulation  extended  PRM  rights  to  all 
passengers  with  PRM  requirements  increasing  the  share  of  passengers  with  protection 
from 28% to 100%. In 2013 this equated to an additional 10.7 million passengers gaining 
rights from the Regulation, rising to 12.5 million in 2018. 

Concerning the right to assistance in case of disruption, passengers eligible for extended 
rights  on  their  journey  became  eligible  to  receive  assistance  in  the  event  of  delay  or 
cancellation,  delayed,  lost  or  damaged  luggage  and  personal  injury.  Of  the  9.3  million 
passengers affected by delays of more than 90 minutes on departure in 2013, 4.9 million 
passengers (53%) were eligible for assistance from the Regulation in 2013. In 2018 the 
number of passengers eligible for assistance increased to 10.8 million (95%). Of the 4.5 
million passengers affected by cancellation in 2013, 2.6 million passengers (57%) were 
eligible  for  assistance  from  the  Regulation  in  2013.  In  2018  the  number  of  passengers 
eligible for assistance increased to 5.3 million (93%). Of the 1.8 million passengers who 
experienced personal injury when travelling in 2013, 1.1 million passengers (62%) were 
eligible  for  assistance  from  the  Regulation  in  2013  as  they  were  covered  by  extended 
rights. In 2018 the number of passengers eligible for assistance increased to 2.1 million 
(97%). 

2. Evaluation matrix 

For this evaluation, a number of operational sub-questions were identified to support the 
development of response to the main evaluation question set out by the Commission in 
the  terms  of  reference.  The  evaluation  matrix  has  been  further  specified  and  updated 
through the whole evaluation process.  

83 

 
This  section  presents  the  updated  version  of  the  evaluation  matrix  as  developed  by  the 
Commission through the input of the external contractor. The operational sub-questions 
are summarised in Table A3.2 below along with the information and analysis used. 

Table A3.2 – Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 

84 

 
 
Operational sub-questions 

Methodology 

Effectiveness  

A1.1 

How has the Regulation been implemented in practice? 
What  differences  are  there  in  levels  of  protection 
provided in different Member States? 

 

The following information from operators of bus and coach services and their agents and corporate 
customers (ticket retailers, travel agents and tour operators) were requested: 

Policies relating to provision of information to passengers, including during disruption 

  Approach to setting tariffs 
 
  Arrangements for assisting PRMs 
  Arrangements for supporting passengers during long delays 
  Complaints  procedures,  including  communication  to  passengers  on  how  to  make  a 
complaint  and  procedures  in  the  event  that  the  carrier  and  ticket  vendor  are  different 
parties 
Policy and procedures on compensation and re-routing 

 
  Wider service quality standards 
 

The  extent  to  which  different  policies,  procedures  and  arrangements  apply  to  services 
above and below the 250-kilometre threshold 

 

 

 

The information received was to be tested/supplemented through a review of information available 
on the websites of five operators. 
Stakeholders were also asked about changes in policies and procedures made since 2013 when the 
Regulation started to apply. 
In parallel, information were requested to transport ministries and NEBs on changes in the level of 
protection provided to passengers following implementation of the Regulation and on any instances 
of a material breach of obligations. 

  NEBs and Passenger and consumer representative organisations were asked for their views on the 
effect of the Regulation and whether they are aware of differences of approach to implementation in 
different Member States. 
This information  was  used  to document changes since  implementation  of  the  Regulation and  any 

 

85 

 
 
A1.2 

To  what 
discriminatory treatment? 

extent  do  passengers 

complain  of 

 

 Information on the breakdown of complaints from operators, their agents and corporate customers, 
terminals, NEBs and passenger and consumer representative organisations were requested in order 
to identify evidence of discriminatory treatment of passengers. 

differences in levels of passenger protection across Member States. It also supported the three case 
studies on passenger rights in bus and coach transport. 

A1.3 

How  many  PRMs  travel  by  bus  and  coach  and  how 
does  this  number  compare  with  the  extent  of  PRM 
travel  before  the  Regulation  (taking  account  of  any 
general  growth  in  traffic)?  To  what  extent  do  PRMs 
complain of discriminatory treatment? 

 

 

 

Information were requested to operators and terminals on the volume of PRM travel and the share 
of PRMs in total passengers for 2019 and previous years. This was intended  to provide evidence of 
any overall effect on the propensity for PRMs to travel by bus and coach following implementation 
of the Regulation. 
Shares of PRM travel can be sense-checked against data from the recent Eurobarometer report on 
passenger  rights,  which  includes  information  on  the  share  of  survey  respondents  requesting 
assistance for PRM travel. 
Examination  of  the  differences  in  values  reported  by  different  operators  and  terminals  was 
performed to determine whether there is any relationship between the share of PRM traffic and the 
level of service offered in each case. This should provide further evidence of any impact on travel 
behaviour as a result of the provision of assistance to this group of travellers. 

A1.4 

How  many  accidents  have 
since 
implementation  of  the  Regulation?  What  has  been  the 
passenger  experience  of  making  claims  following 
accidents? 

there  been 

  Operators, NEBs and consumer and passenger representative organisations were asked to provide 
information  on  accidents  involving  vehicles  being  used  to  provide  passenger  services  and  on  the 
subsequent treatment of passengers. 

  Based  on  a  review  of  the  information  received,  common  issues  concerning  difficulties  in 

interpreting, or gaps in, the Regulation were identified. 

A1.5  What  has  been  the  trend  in  delays  and  cancellations 

  Operators were asked to explain how they define delays and cancellations and how these definitions 

since the Regulation was implemented? 

 

link to the triggering of protection, in particular assistance and compensation. 
Information collected on delays and cancellations from operators by asking them where possible to 
provide  data  for  the  last  ten  years  by  category  and  length  of  delay  (for  example,  distinguishing 
between force majeure and other events). 

  By combining this data with information on the number of passengers by operator and/or route, it 

86 

 
A1.6 

To  what  extent  has  the  level  of  compensation  paid  to 
the  Regulation  was 
since 
passengers  changed 
implemented? 

A1.7  What are the channels available for making complaints? 
How  easy  is  it  to  make  a  complaint?  To  what  extent 
does  this  different  between  operators,  terminals  and 
routes? 

A1.8 

How many complaints from passengers are handled and 
how has this changed over time? 

was planned to produce normalised measures (delays and cancellations per scheduled departure) for 
comparison over time and between operators. 

  Data requested from operators on levels of compensation and costs of assistance provided for the 

delays and cancellations identified under B1.5.  

  Compensation/cost of assistance and incident data was planned to be combined to identify trends in 
the level of compensation and cost of assistance per passenger/passenger-kilometre. This allowed  
to  assess  the  effects  of  the  Regulation  over  time  and  compare  effects  between  operators  and 
Member States. 

  NEBs and consumer and passenger representative organisations were also asked for their views on 

the effects of the Regulation on payment of compensation and support during long delays. 

  Revision  of  the  operator  websites  was  conducted  (see  B1.1)  to  identify  information  on  levels  of 
compensation/assistance  available  in  different  circumstances.  Operators  were  asked  about  the 
extent to which provision for compensation/assistance was made in response to the Regulation. 

 

 

Investigation of complaints channels were conducted for a selection of five operators, simulating a 
mystery shopping process (but stopping short of actually registering a complaint). For each channel 
(letter, telephone, email, website, app, other), it was assessed the ease of access of relevant contact 
information (for example, the number of website links before reaching a complaints window), the 
usefulness of any guidance provided and the number of languages in which it is provided. 
The  views  of  consumer  and  passenger  representative  organisations  were  considered  on  the 
adequacy  and  quality  of  channels  for  making  complaints.  The  findings  from  this  exercise  were 
planned to be used to cross-check the conclusions of our own review. 

  Data were requested on the number of complaints received by operators, terminals and NEBs since 
the  Regulation  started  to  apply  in  2013.  Complaints  volumes  will  be  normalised  (expressed  per 
passenger or passenger-kilometre) to enable comparisons both between different organisations and 
over time. 
It was thought that it may have been possible to undertake further analysis of different measures of 
the quality of the complaints handling process, for example time taken to acknowledge complaints 

 

87 

 
A1.9  What is the experience of passengers who have sought 
to  exercise  their  rights/make  complaints?  Has  the 
experience of passengers changed since liberalisation of 
long-distance coach markets? 

and time taken to resolve them, although we are not confident of obtaining sufficient baseline data 
for comparison. 

  Revision  of  the  2020  Eurobarometer  report  on  passenger  rights,  which  includes  information  on 

 

various measures of passenger satisfaction on different transport modes. 
Information  requested  on  the  actions  taken  by  operators,  terminals  and  NEBs  to  monitor  quality 
standards any ask them to indicate any key changes following implementation of the Regulation. 
  Views were gathered from consumer and passenger representative organisations on the experience 
of passengers using bus and coach transport and how far this has changed since the Regulation was 
implemented. 

  Operators  providing  services  in  Member  States  that  have  recently  liberalised  their  markets  were 
asked whether liberalisation has had any impact on passenger protection, for example as a result of 
increased competition. 
Examples of where the treatment of passengers has been subject to political comment/investigation 
or adverse press comment were identified and operators and terminals were asked about the extent 
to which the potential for adverse publicity influences their approach. 

 

  Where  available,  revision  of  any  surveys  undertaken  by  consumer  and  passenger  representative 

organisations at the EU or national level and identify apparent trends. 

  Additional evidence from operators, terminals and NEBs on the experience of passengers seeking to 
exercise  their  rights  were  asked,  while      seeking  to  infer  conclusions  from  the  analysis  of 
complaints under A1.8. 

A1.10  What  mechanisms  do  NEBs  employ 
compliance with the Regulation? 

to  enforce 

  NEBs were asked to provide information on the enforcement action available to them and examples 

A1.11  How  does  the  experience  of  bus  and  coach  travel  in 
Europe  compare  with  the  experience  of  travelling  in 
third countries or other regions? 

of enforcement applied in specific cases. 
The  monitoring  by  NEB  of  cross-border  services  and  of  services  provided  by  European-wide 
carriers was considered. 

The  protection  provided  through  any  relevant  legislation  or  voluntary  codes  of  practice  in  ten 
countries was reviewed . 
The  transport  ministries  located  in  these  countries  were  contacted  and  asked  for  information  on 

 

 

 

88 

 
their  respective  frameworks  for  protecting  passengers  (including  PRMs)  using  bus  and  coach 
transport. 

  Operators and passenger and consumer representative organisations were asked for their views on 
how the protection provided in the legislation compares with that provided in other countries. 
The information collected should have enabled a systematic comparison of levels of protection. 

 

A1.12  To  what  extent  does  the  Regulation  provide  clarity  on 
in  extraordinary 
obligations 
circumstances  such  as  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19  and 
subsequent government action to contain it? 

towards  passengers 

 

 

The  views  of  all  stakeholders  on  how  the  obligations  in  the  Regulation  should  be  interpreted  in 
extraordinary  circumstances  such  as  those  prevailing  following  the  response  of  national 
governments to the COVID-19 outbreak were collected. 
Following a review of the responses, we planned to draw conclusions on: 

 
 
 

issues arising 
possible policy implications 
indicators to monitor with a view to informing future policy initiatives. 

  Note that as it was not be possible to assess the impact of COVID-19 within the timescale of the 
support study, we did not expect to make firm recommendations in respect of policy changes. 

A1.13  Have  there  been  any  unexpected  impacts  following 

implementation of the Regulation?  

  All  stakeholders  were  asked  for  their  views  on  whether  the  Regulation  has  had  any  unexpected 
consequences,  whether  good  or  bad.  They  were  asked  to  provide  evidence  of  the  link  between 
specific aspects of the legislation and the impacts identified. 

A1.14  How is the requirement  for non-discrimination applied 
in  practice  and  how  does  this  compare  with  its 
interpretation in other sectors? 

 

 

Passenger and consumer representative organisations and NEBs were asked for their views on the 
extent of discriminatory behaviour. These organisations were asked for a view on how application 
of the  non-discrimination principle  varies  between sectors.  PRM representative  organisations  will 
be asked about the extent to which PRMs are subject to particular discrimination. 
Information requested on the extent to which operators and terminals invoke other legislation (for 
example, safety legislation) in order to refuse boarding. Where available, operators were asked to 
provide information on refused boarding broken down by reason. 

  Based on a review of this information, the aim was to identify differences of view on the meaning 
of  non-discrimination  and  the  reasons  given  for  treating  different  passenger  groups  (including 

89 

 
Efficiency  

A2.1  What are the reported costs of compliance and how do 
these  compare  with  the  overall  cost  base  of  operators 
and terminals? 

PRMs) differently. 

  Data  were  requested  on  the  costs  of  compliance  with  the  Regulation  from  operators,  their  agents 
and corporate customers and terminals, noting that it may be difficult for them to disaggregate the 
costs of complying with passenger rights legislation from broader cost categories, at least in some 
cases. Where such costs were available, the cost was calculated per passenger value and compare 
this across organisations. 

  Cost per passenger data can be set alongside information of the level of service quality provided by 
different  operators  and  ports/terminals  (derived  from  B1.1  and  B1.9)  to  enable  an  assessment  of 
how far lower costs might be the result of a lower quality of service. Depending on the quality of 
data provided, that may have allowed an estimate of the efficient costs of compliance to be made. 
Information requested from transport ministries and NEBs on administrative costs incurred by them 
in implementing and enforcing the legislation. 

 

A2.2 

Are  the  reported  costs  of  compliance  consistent  with 
those  anticipated  before 
the 
Regulation?  Are  there  any  aspects  of  compliance  that 
appear particularly costly compared with others? 

implementation  of 

  All  stakeholders  were  asked  for  their  views  on  the  most  significant  compliance  costs  and  on 

whether these are proportionate to the associated benefits. 

  Based  on  the  information  provided,  we  seek  to  draw  conclusions  on  whether  compliance  costs 

appear proportionate. 

A2.3 

Have operators and/or terminals identified any potential 
cost savings that would not materially reduce passenger 
protection? 

  All stakeholders were asked for their views on how costs might be reduced while ensuring the same 

 

level of protection and/or enhanced protection might be provided at the same cost. 
 Critical  assessment  of  proposals,  for  example  by  testing  them  with  different  stakeholders  during 
follow-up discussions to gauge reactions from a passenger and supplier perspective. 

  Operators  and  terminals  were  asked  whether  they  have  undertaken  any  analysis  of  potential  cost 

savings and to share the results. 

Relevance 

A3.1  What  level  of  protection  do  passengers  (including 
PRMs) seek and how does this compare  with the  level 

 

Passenger  and  consumer  representative  organisations  were  asked  for  their  views  on  passengers’ 
priorities when traveling by bus and coach and on how these have changed since implementation of 

90 

 
provided before the Regulation? 

the  Regulation.  We  also  asked  them  whether  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation  are  still  well-
aligned  with  passenger  needs.  PRM  representative  organisations  were  asked  to  explain  the 
particular needs of different groups of PRMs. 

  Views  of  operators,  terminals  and  their  agents  and  corporate  customers  on  how  the  level  of 
protection  for  passengers  (including  PRMs)  currently  offered  in  comparison  with  that  provided 
before implementation of the Regulation and/or how it has changed over time.  
This  information  was  planned  to  be  used  to  assess  how  far  the  Regulation  continues  to  capture 
passenger needs. It was considered alongside information on changing technologies obtained under 
B3.2. 

 

A3.2  What  technological  advances  have  been  made  since 
2011  that  change  the  travel  experience  for  passengers 
(including PRMs)? Have operators and terminals made 
use of these? 

  All  stakeholders  were  asked  for  views  on  (1)  how  technology  has  changed  the  way  in  which 
passengers  plan  and  make  journeys  by  bus  and  coach  and  (2)  how  it  has  enabled  the  industry  to 
better respond to passenger needs. We asked stakeholders to consider the effects of: 

  General  technological  improvements  affecting  all  passengers  using  bus  and  coach 

 

 

transport (for example, changes in communication technology); 
Specific  technological  developments  in  the  sector  (for  example,  affecting  vehicle 
specification or terminal design); and 
Technological  developments  directly  affecting  PRMs,  such  as  changes  in  wheelchair 
design. 

 

 

Stakeholders  were  also  asked  for  any  relevant  reports  or  trade  press  articles  illustrating  the 
application of technology to support the desk research. 
This information was planned to enable us to draw conclusions about how technology has changed 
the travelling environment for passengers (including PRMs) and whether there are any implications 
for the Regulation. 

Coherence  

A4.1 

Is  there  any  evidence  of  difficulties  in  interpreting 
individual provisions in the light of others?  

  Operators,  their  agents  and  corporate  customers,  terminals,  NEBs  and  transport  ministries  were 

asked to indicate any difficulties in interpreting the Regulation. 

  We also undertook desk research to identify any infringement issues that might indicate loopholes 

91 

 
 

of lack of clarity. 
The  findings  were  used  to  prepare  a  systematic  analysis  of  gaps  and  inconsistencies  in  the 
legislation. 

A4.2 

Are there any aspects of passenger bus and coach travel 
that are not addressed by the Regulation? 

  All  stakeholders  were  asked  to  respond  to  this  question,  but  we  also  drew  on  the  findings  under 

A1.9 and A3.1 to undertake the analysis. 

A4.3 

Have  there  been  any  cases  under  competition  or 
consumer legislation raising issues of passenger rights? 
How  were 
the 
these 
implications for the Regulation? 

resolved  and  what  were 

A4.4  What are the  specific requirements of the  international 
regulatory framework applying to bus and coach travel? 
How  do  these  compare  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Regulation? 

A4.5 

Have  stakeholders 
between international rules and the Regulation? 

identified  any 

inconsistencies 

 

 

 

Information requested from NEBs and operators on cases of which they are aware and examine any 
published conclusions of regulators and courts where available. 
These stakeholders were asked for the views on whether the outcome of specific cases has created 
any anomalies or otherwise appeared inconsistent with the requirements of the Regulation.  
This evidence was supplemented, where possible, with legal commentary on the interaction of the 
Regulation and domestic competition and consumer legislation. 

 

The following legislation was reviewed: 

  Other  EU  legislation,  including  Directive  2015/2302/EU  on  package  travel  and  linked 
travel  arrangements,    Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  on  enforcement  of  consumer 
protection  laws  repealed  by    Regulation  (EU)  No  2017/2394  on  Consumer  Protection 
Cooperation (CPC) and Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 on approval requirements for the 
safety of motor vehicles.  

  Relevant  international  regulatory  frameworks,  including  the  UN  Convention  on  the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

  We  also  undertook  desk  research  into  legal  commentary  on  the  legislation  and  its 

relationship with other regulatory frameworks. 

  Based on the review, we compared and contrasted different requirements and identify any 

apparent inconsistencies between the Regulation and other frameworks. 

  All  stakeholders  were  asked  for  their  views  on  inconsistencies  between  the  Regulation  and  the 
wider legal and regulatory framework. They were also asked to give examples of specific cases in 
which  courts  have  considered  inconsistencies  or  other  issues  of  potential  relevance  to  the 

92 

 
Regulation. 

EU added value  

A5.1 

To  what  extent  is  protection  for  passengers  now 
embedded within the operational practices of operators 
and terminals? 

 

Information on relevant operating procedures and training material were requested from  operators 
and terminals. 

A5.2 

How  important  is  passenger  protection  to  operators  in 
terms of revenue and reputation? 

A5.3  Was  there  any  national  legislation  in  place  before  the 

Regulation? 

  Operators, their agents and corporate customers and terminals were requested about the importance 

 

 

of demonstrating protection of passengers’ interests in establishing their reputation. 
Information obtained under A1.9 on adverse press comment to gauge the impact of such comment 
on reputation was taken into account. 

Transport  ministries  and  NEBs  were  asked  to  provide  information  on  any  national  legislation  in 
place  before  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  as  well  as  any  supplementary  legislation 
introduced subsequently. 

  Based  on  this  information,  it  was assessed the extent  to  which  national  regulatory  frameworks  in 

different Member States might substitute for the provisions of the Regulation. 

Source: Support study, Appendix A, Para. A.1, Table A.1. 

93 

 
3.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

An important limitation of the analysis lies in the difficulties encountered to quantify the 
benefits  of  the  legislation  with  any  precision.  There  is  indeed  little  accurate  and  up-to-
date information on the overall size of the market affected by the Regulation as well as 
on the number and profile of passengers benefitting from it.  

However, the inputs obtained from a range of stakeholders, including  NEBs  and major 
European carriers groups, along with the data collected from recognised industry sources 
resulted  in  a  balanced  set  of  inputs  on  which  the  analysis  was  based.  Where  possible, 
suitable assumptions generated from gravity flow models, or obtained from other parallel 
evaluations  where  data is  more comprehensive  were used to  best  represent  the bus  and 
coach market as well as costs of complying with the Regulation. 

Member State reporting 

The  findings  on  the  number  of  complaints  made  and  any  penalties  issued  due  to  non-
compliance  with  the  Regulation  built  on  the  biennial  NEB  reports,  from  which  all 
information concerning the impact of the Regulation was also extracted.  

However, some reports did not contain this information and instead it was necessary to 
obtain this via the stakeholder consultation exercise. 

Stakeholder consultation 

The stakeholder consultation exercise was performed through the use of a variety of tools 
to  collect  evidence,  including  the  public  consultation,  detailed  targeted  questionnaires, 
interviews, a stakeholder workshop and targeted data requests. 

Overall,  the  majority  of  responses  received  were  generally  well-detailed  and  provided 
valuable quantitative and qualitative information for the support study. Interviews proved 
effective  at  investigating  gaps  in  the  qualitative  data  and  gave  stakeholders  the 
opportunity to raise or stress particular points of importance.   

However, a number of limitations were observed: 

–  not  all  the  NEBs,  of  which  the  Commission  has  been  informed,  have  provided 

responses to the questionnaires or other data;   

–  not all stakeholders were able to send responses in time although additional time 

was offered for those who highlighted it as an issue; 

–  stakeholders  were  not  always  able  to  share  the  data  that  was  asked  for  in  the 

questionnaires, often because this data was unavailable to them as well. 

Data collection 

Significant limitations to the quantity and quality of data available were identified. Bus 
passengers  at  total  level  are  not  available  from  Eurostat.  This  may  arise  from  the 
significantly  more  complex  network  of  routes  and  stops  on  bus  networks,  as  well  as 
ticketing methods, which make it considerably more difficult to account for all journeys 
as well as their origin and destination. 

94 

 
 
Some  Member  States  statistical  institutions  do  collate  data  covering  the  bus  and  coach 
transport in their respective markets, however methods of collation and disaggregation of 
data are inconsistent across all Member State. 

It  was  necessary  to  construct  a  model  to  estimate  journey  lengths  given  that  neither 
Member  States  statistical  sources  nor  NEBs  collated  data  on  the  different  rights  for 
passengers  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  services  (scheduled  vs  no-scheduled)  or  the 
two-tiered threshold (services below 250 km or equal to 250 km or more).  

The Special Eurobarometer 485 survey on passenger rights126 provided some core inputs 
to  the  evaluation,  including  proportions  of  passengers:  requesting  PRM  assistance; 
experiencing a delay of 90 minutes or more; and experiencing a cancellation. 

Impact of COVID-19 

The most important impact of COVID-19 has been delayed responses from stakeholders. 
More consultation time than originally planned was provided which allowed stakeholders 
to  still  send  detailed  and  meaningful  responses,  although  the  questions  asked  were  not 
altered  due  to  the  pandemic.  A  question  was  added  to  ensure  views  on  all  aspects  of 
COVID-19 could be collected. 

126 Special Eurobarometer 485 - Passengers rights - Data Europa EU 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
ANNEX 4: REVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOGIC  

The  ex-ante  intervention  logic  is  summarised  in  Figure  A4.1.  The  five  key  evaluation 
criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  are  also 
presented below.  

Figure A4.1: Simplified intervention logic and the five key evaluation criteria  

Source : Support study, Appendix B, Para. B.19, Figure B.1. 
Note: This diagram does not refer –in section on “other EU policies”- to Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 on 
waterborne passenger rights, as the latter started to apply only in December 2012. 

Key policy elements identified by the 2008 Impact Assessment  

The  key  policy  elements  identified  by  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  2008 
legislative proposal are presented in Table A4.1.  

Table A4.1: Key elements of the proposed policies 

Key elements 

Content 

Principle  of  non-
discrimination  and 
assistance 
to 
people 
with 
disability 

Non–discrimination  clause:  reservation  cannot  be  refused  on  the  ground  of 
disability/reduced mobility 

Assistance with embarking/disembarking/interconnecting 

A  requirement  to  provide  notification  in  good  time;  failing  such  notification,  the 
operator would have to make reasonable efforts to provide assistance 

Mandatory transport of mobility equipment 

Care facilities at coach terminals 

Travel information in the required format 

Physical assistance at any stage 

Mandatory accessibility of buses and coaches 

96 

 
 
 
Key elements 

Content 

of 
in 

of 
Principle 
the 
liability 
operators 
the 
event  of  death  or 
injury 
of 
passengers 

Establishment 
basic 
standards 
monitoring 

of 
quality 
and 

Cancellation, 
denied 
and delays 

boarding 

Harmonisation of liability system across the EU 

Unlimited liability in case of death and injury 

A liability system comparable to that in air, rail and maritime transport with regard 
to death or injury of passengers 

Claims up to a certain amount cannot be contested 

Advance payments in the event of death or injury 

Strict liability up to the amount comparable to air/rail transport in the event of loss 
of or damage to baggage 

Establishment of quality standards at the EU level 

Monitoring of compliance with quality standards 

Defining the set of information that should be available to passengers 

Improvement of access to information on conditions of carriage and fares 

Compensation for cancellation: refund of  ticket price and compensation related to 
ticket price or length of journey 

Assistance: meals, refreshments, accommodation 

Return service to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity 

Continuation  or  re-routing  to  the  final  destination  (under  comparable  transport 
conditions) 

No compensation scheme, only the obligation of bus and coach carriers to provide 
assistance 

Complaint 
handling 
and monitoring 

service 

Existing regulatory mechanisms plus consumer feedback 

Air transport model 

Operators to keep a file of all complaints received 

Quality standards certificate 

Independent institution at EU level 

Source: SEC(2008) 2954. 

97 

 
 
ANNEX 5: COSTS – BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION (OVERVIEW) 

A cost-benefits analysis of the Regulation has been conducted over the period 2013-2018 
and was based on the Standard Cost Model (SCM).  The SCM allows to address the costs 
of  the  Regulation  for  Member  States  (NEBs),  industry  stakeholders  and  passengers, 
including PRMs. All values were presented in 2018 prices. 

The  total  costs  associated  with  the  Regulation  were  estimated  to  be  EUR  739  million 
(2018  prices).  The  primary  benefit  of  the  Regulation  refers  to  persons  with  disabilities 
and  persons  with  reduced  mobility,  now  able  to  benefit  from  their  rights  to  free 
movement, freedom of choice and non-discrimination, contrary to the previous situation. 
In addition, operators can benefit from increased revenues from ticket revenues derived 
by the Regulation and estimated to be EUR 14 million (2018 prices). 

The  overall  cost  of  the  Regulation,  resulting  from  the  difference  between  costs  and 
benefits, can be estimated as being EUR 725 million (2018 prices), of which the cost of 
processing complaints makes up the majority (92%). Table A5.1 shows an overview of 
the costs and benefits resulted by the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011. 

Table A5.1 – Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 
No 181/2011 over the 2013-18 period 

I. Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation (EUR million, 2018) 

Citizens/Co
nsumers  

Quantitative 
/ monetary 

Operators 

NEBs 

PRM passengers 

Quantitativ
e / 
monetary  

Quantitativ
e / 
monetary  

Qualitati
ve 

Quantitat
ive / 
monetary 

Administrative  NEBs’ 

administrative 
costs  

No additional 
costs/benefits 
versus the prior 
legislation 

Assistance costs 
incurred by 
operators  

Compensation 
and assistance 
in the event of 
accidents 

Rights of 
persons with 
disability and 
persons with 
reduced 
mobility 

Passenger 
rights in the 

Costs of providing 
assistance to in 

0 

 0 

0 

32 

 0 

0 

0 

- 11 

0 

0 

- 11 

 0 

98 

0 

0 

0 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
event of 
cancellation or 
delay 

Claims 

Sanctions 

Benefits 

scope passengers in 
the case of 
cancelled or 
delayed departures 

Cost of time 
concerned with 
making/processing 
complaints   

Costs of sanctions 
issued by NEBs 

Monetary benefits 
for operators due to 
increased ticket 
revenues / Social 
benefits for PRMs 

-  122 

-  563 

 0 

-  0.2 

0 

0 

0 

14  

 0 

Very 
High 

TOTAL 

-  122 

-  571 

- 32 

Source: Support study, Appendix H, Para. H.5, Table H.1.. 

0 

0 

 0 

 0 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table  A6.1:  National  enforcement  bodies  (NEBs)  of  which  the  Commission  has  been 
informed 

MS 

AT  Austria 

BG  Bulgaria 

CY  Cyprus 

DE  Germany 

EE  Estonia 

FR  France 

HR  Croatia 

HU  Hungary 

IE 

Ireland 

IS 

Iceland 

IT 

Italy 

LU  Luxembourg 

MT  Malta 

NL  Netherlands 

PT  Portugal 

LV  Latvia 

RO  Romania 

SI 

Slovenia 

DK  Denmark 

LT  Lithuania 

EL  Greece 

NO  Norway 

SK  Slovakia 

BE  Belgium 

Number of NEBs 
notified to EC 

Single bus and 
coach NEB in 
the MS 

Single multimodal 
NEB in the MS 

Subdivision of NEB roles, 
where this is relevant 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumers, 
complainants 

other 

Complaints, enforcement 

International 
domestic by region 

central, 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FI 

Finland 

SE  Sweden 

UK  UK 

CZ  Czechia 

PL  Poland 

ES  Spain 

CH  Switzerland 

3 

3 

7 

16 

17 

20 

1 

Consumers, 
cases, business 

collective 

National, 
where devolved 

regional, 

and 

International 
domestic by region 

central, 

National, regional, local 

National, regions 

 

Source: European Commission list of NEBs. NEB responses in the context of the Support study, Para. 3.35, Table 3.2. 
Note: The European Commission may not have been informed of all bodies with duties of NEBs. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6.2: Examples of national enforcement bodies (NEBs) in different Member States 

Type of body 

Consumer 
protection body 

Member 
State(s) 

Slovakia 

Issue 

Consumer protection bodies handle general consumer affairs, but may be 
widely known to citizens and residents. 

Dedicated 
passenger 
body 

Austria 

rights 

Agentur  für  Passagier-  und  Fahrgastrechte  (AFP,  Agency  for  Passenger 
Rights) is the single NEB for air, rail, waterborne and coach transport. 

National bodies 

Czechia 

Separate NEBs for each mode. 

For bus and coach, international travel is covered by a national body, but 
domestic travel is covered by 15 regional bodies. 

Finland 

Three different bodies deal with: collective complaints; private complaints; 
and business complaints. 

Netherlands 

Inspectie  Leefomgeving  en  Transport  (ILT,  Human  Environment  and 
Transport Inspectorate) acts as NEB for all modes. 

It operates from separate offices in The Hague (air) and Utrecht (bus and 
coach). 

Regional bodies 

Poland 

17 regional bodies for bus and coach + a central body. 

Spain 

20 regional bodies for bus and coach.+ a central body (Ministerio de  

Fomento) 

Road 
authorities 

transport 

United 
Kingdom 

Separate  regional  bodies  for  England,  Northern  Ireland,  Scotland  and 
Wales. 

Separate complaints handling body services in London and Victoria Coach 
Station. 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.37, Table 3.3. 

Table A6.3: Enforcement approach of selected NEBs  

MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

BE  Yes 

Enforcement 
activities 

Monitoring 
activities 

Other activities  Max. fine 

Total 
sanctions 
issued? 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

information 
No 
provided by NEB 

EUR 25,000  ✗ 

Investigates 
infringements; 
Issues 
warnings 
Issue 
sanctions 

official 

financial 

BG  Yes 

of 

Investigates 
infringements 
the Regulation; 
Commences 
sanction procedures 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

Issue 
licenses 

operator 

✗ 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

CZ  Yes 

Issues sanctions 

Carries 
inspections 

out 

Oversight 
and 
regulation of road 
transport 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

72,  but  they 
may  not  all 
relate  to  the 
Regulation 

102 

 
 
 
MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

DK  No,  only  as 
evidence  of 
infringeme
nt  

DE  No,  only  as 
evidence  of 
infringeme
nt 

EE  Yes  (ADR 
is  part  of 
the NEB) 

Enforcement 
activities 

Monitoring 
activities 

Other activities  Max. fine 

Total 
sanctions 
issued? 

and 
Oversight 
monitoring 
of 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

and 
Oversees 
monitors 
of 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

Oversees 
and 
of 
monitors 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

Commence 
administrative 
proceedings  against 
non-complaint 
operators 

Issue  of  precept 
(order) requiring an 
operator  to  comply 
with the regulation 
Issue  sanctions 
if 
an  operator  does 
not  comply  with  a 
precept 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

✗ 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

EUR 30,000 

1, EUR 1,000 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

✗ 

6,400 

EUR 
for 
infringement 
by 
a 
person. 

legal 

1,300 

EUR 
for 
infringement 
by  a  natural 
person. 

IE  No,  only  as 
evidence  of 
infringeme
nt 

Commencing 
criminal 
proceedings  against 
who 
operators 
infringe 
the 
Regulation 

and 

Oversees 
monitors 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

Licensing  public 
transport 

✗ 

4,000 

EUR 
per 
conviction 

EL  Unclear 

Initiates a sanctions 
procedure  (it  is  not 
clear how sanctions 
are issued) 

Supervisory 
activities 
to 
monitor compliance 
with the Regulation 

information 
No 
provided by NEB 

✗ 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

ES  Yes 

FR  Yes 

Handles  passenger 
complaints; 
Issues sanctions  

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

information 
No 
provided by NEB 

EUR 4,000 

21 

Imposes  sanctions 
on  operators  who 
do not comply with 
the Regulation 

and 
Monitors 
oversees 
of 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

information 
No 
provided by NEB 

✗ 

EUR  45,000 
if  by  a  legal 
person 
against 
PRM. 

a 

EUR  15,000 
if  by  a  legal 
person 
otherwise. 

EUR  9,000  if 
by  a  natural 
person 
against 
PRM. 

a 

EUR  3,000  if 
by  a  natural 
person 
otherwise. 

103 

 
MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

HR  Yes 

IT  Yes 

CY  Yes 

LV  Yes 

LT  No,  only  as 
evidence  of 
infringeme
nt  

LU  Yes 

HU  Yes 

Enforcement 
activities 

Monitoring 
activities 

Other activities  Max. fine 

Total 
sanctions 
issued? 

and 
Monitors 
oversees 
of 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

out 
Carries 
and 
monitoring 
inquiry activities on 
bus 
coach 
and 
services; 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

✗ 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

25, total EUR 
46,950 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

Imposes  sanctions 
(unclear if it can be 
done  directly  by 
NEBs  or 
through 
court process)  

Initiates 
and 
proceedings 
assess  passengers' 
complaints  in  order 
any 
to 
identify 
the 
breaches  of 
laid 
obligations 
down 
the 
in 
Regulation; 
Assesses 
any 
of 
infringements 
the  provisions  of 
the  Regulation  and 
impose 
the 
penalties  provided 
for 
the 
in 
Legislative Decree. 

Issues  fines  in  the 
non-
of 
case 
compliance 

Carries 
out 
to 
inspections 
monitor compliance 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

contractual 
Issues 
on 
penalties 
operators 
(under 
PSO’s)  who  do  not 
the 
comply  with 
Regulation 

✗ 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

or 

Suspends 
revokes 
operators' 
licenses  who  do 
not  comply  with 
the regulation 

Imposes  sanctions 
for non-compliance 

Carries 
inspections 

out 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

EUR 140 

2 

Refers  an  operator 
to  the  tax  authority 
for  sanctions  to  be 
issued,  in  the  case 
of non-compliance 

Commences 
administrative 
procedures  against 
operators  who  do 
not comply 

and 

Monitors 
oversees 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

and 
Monitor 
oversee  compliance 
with the Regulation 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

✗ 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

information 
No 
provided by NEB 

EUR 2,800 

60 

104 

 
 
 
MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

MT  Yes 

Total 
sanctions 
issued? 

✗ 

Enforcement 
activities 

Monitoring 
activities 

Other activities  Max. fine 

of 

Investigates 
potential 
infringements 
the Regulation; 
Commences 
judicial 
proceedings  against 
operators  who  do 
not comply 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

EUR  47,000, 
with 
an 
additional 
per-day 
penalty  in  the 
case 
of 
continuing 
non-
compliance 

NL  Yes 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

AT  Yes 

PL  Yes 

PT  Yes 

Handles  individual 
complaints  as  an 
ADR body 
Investigate 
complaints 
as 
evidence  of  non-
compliance  with 
the Regulation; 
Commences 
administrative 
charges 
against 
operators  who  do 
not comply with the 
Regulation 

Commences 
administrative 
procedures  against 
operators  who  do 
not comply 

Refers 
operators 
who do not comply 
with the Regulation 
transport 
to 
for 
authorities 
sanctions 
be 
issued. 

local 

to 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

7,267 

EUR 
per 
infringement 

✗ 

Procedure 
was 
once 
discontinued 

begun 
but 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

✗ 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No 
information  

and 

Monitors 
oversees 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

out 
Carries 
inspections 
and 
audits  of  operators 
to 
ensure 
compliance 

RO  No,  only  as 
evidence  of 
infringeme
nt 

fines 

Issues 
operator 
infringe 
Regulation 

on 
who 
the 

Carries 
inspections 
roadside 
monitoring 

out 
and 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

EUR 1,500 

sanctions 
been 

3 
have 
imposed 

SI  No,  only  as 
evidence  of 
infringeme
nt  

Information 
the 
inspections 
sanctions 

from 
fiche: 
and 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No 
information 
provided  by 
NEB 

105 

 
 
MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

SK  Yes 

FI  Yes 
there 
two 
NEBs) 

(but 
are 
other 

SE  No. 

Individual 
complaints 
are  referred 
to 
the 
Swedish 
Consumer 
Centre 

Enforcement 
activities 

Monitoring 
activities 

Other activities  Max. fine 

Total 
sanctions 
issued? 

Resolves  individual 
complaints  as  an 
ADR body; 
sanctions 
Issues 
against 
operators 
who do not comply 
with the Regulation 

One  NEB  can  act 
as an ADR body to 
individual 
resolve 
The 
complaints. 
remaining 
two 
NEB’s  can  carry 
system-level 
out 
supervision 
and 
issue sanctions 

Referrs  cases  of 
non-compliance 
to 
Consumer 
the 
for 
Ombudsman 
sanctions 
be 
imposed 

to 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

✗ 

and 

Oversees 
monitors 
compliance  with 
the 
Regulation 
(through 
inspections) 

information 

No 
provided by NEBs 

information 
by 

No 
provided 
NEBs 

No 
information 

✗ 

and 
Monitors 
oversees 
of 
compliance  with 
the Regulation 

No 
information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

✗ 

UK  At least one 
UK  NEB 
can  handle 
individual 
complaints 

sanctions 
Issues 
against 
operators 
who do not comply 
with the Regulation 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

and 

Issues 
monitors 
operating licenses 

EUR 

1, 
257.70 

GBP  550  per 
or 
vehicle, 
of 
10% 
annual 
turnover 

IS  Yes 

No information 

No information 

No information  No 

information  

No 
information 

NO  No 

sanctions 
Issues 
against 
operators 
who do not comply 
with the Regulation 

information 

No 
provided by NEB 

Supervises 
monitors 
operators 

and 

No 
information  

✗ 

CH  No 

No information  

No information  

No information   No 

information  

information  

No 
information  

Source:  Support study, Para. 3.41, Table 3.4. 
Note: information based on declarations by NEBs, covering the period 2013-2019. 

Table A6.4: Nature of NEB decisions 

Member State  

Are NEB decisions binding 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Not directly binding, but the NEB has indicated that it may impose sanctions in a situation 
where an operator does not resolve a complaint with a passenger 

It is not clear whether decisions on individual cases are binding, but the NEB has indicated 
that an individual case could lead to sanctions being imposed 

Czechia 

Decisions are not binding 

106 

 
 
 
Denmark 

The decisions of both NEB’s, in respect of individual cases, are non-binding 

Germany 

The NEB does not determine or suggest an outcome for individual cases 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

NEB decisions are non-binding 

NEB  decisions  contained  within  notices  are  legally  binding,  and  failure  to  comply  is  a 
criminal offence. Any other decisions are non-binding. 

No information provided 

It is not clear whether NEB decisions are binding 

No information provided 

NEB decisions are non-binding 

The NEB may not suggest the outcome to individual disputes 

It is not clear whether NEB decisions are binding 

It is not clear whether NEB decisions are binding 

Lithuania 

The NEB does not deal with individual complaints 

Luxembourg 

NEB Decisions are binding, but operators may lodge a formal objection at the administrative 
court. 

Hungary 

NEB decisions are binding 

Malta 

NEB decisions are binding 

Netherlands 

No information provided 

Austria 

NEB  decisions  are  binding  if  they  are  accepted  by  both  parties,  otherwise  they  are  non-
binding. 

Poland 

NEB decisions are binding 

Portugal 

Some NEB decisions are binding 

Romania 

It is not clear whether NEB decisions are binding 

Slovenia 

It is not clear whether NEB decisions are binding 

Slovakia 

NEB decisions are non-binding 

Finland 

Sweden 

The decisions of any of the three NEB’s in respect of individual cases are non-binding 

The decisions of the two Swedish NEB’s are non-binding 

United Kingdom 

The decisions of Bus Users UK are non-binding. It is unclear whether the decisions of the 
Traffic Commissioners are binding. 

Iceland 

NEB decisions are binding 

Norway 

The NEB does not deal with individual complaints 

Switzerland 

No information provided 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.53, Table 3.6.   

107 

 
 
 
Figure A6.1: Passengers with PRM requirements– EU27+4 

Source: Support study, Appendix F, Para F.105, Figure F.8.  

Table A6.5: Possible attributes of terminals 

Features 

Details 

Benefits PRMs  Benefits others  Trends 

Check-in counter 

Managing body 

Regulation 
definition 

Ticket office 

Staff 

Waiting room 

Core 

Heating/air conditioning 

Covered boarding bays 

Perceived security 

Beneficial 

Connections 

Toilets 

Refreshments 

Shops 

Accessible 

Regulation 
requirement 
at  designated 
terminals 

Accessible information 

PRM meeting point 

PRM assistance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Stakeholders, Support study, Para. 3.56, Table 3.7. 

108 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rarely provided 

Management  may  be  by  several 
bodies but not focused on coach 

Declining use, important to some 

Many have limited roles 

Probably a critical feature 

Often available on a smartphone 

Often available from coach driver 

444444555---111111121213141415151516161717-2468101214161820201020112012201320142015201620172018Passengers, millionsPassengers gaining protection from Regulation 181/2011Passengers with prior protectionTotal Passengers with PRM requirements 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6.2: Eligibility of rights 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.108, Figure 3.8. 

Figure A6.3: Proportion of disrupted passengers receiving remedial action 

Source: Eurobarometer 485, Support study, Para. 3.112, Figure 3.9.  Based on Eurobarometer Special No 485. 

109 

---2,2022,2122,2122,2092,2422,131---8486939496202---4194064383964014122,7182,7332,7092,7042,7032,7432,6992,7392,746-5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,000201020112012201320142015201620172018Passengers, millionsBasic rights onlyBasic and extended rightsOccasional servicesTotal Passengers87%76%73%70%57%53%52%41%39%37%35%35%33%33%29%28%28%28%26%16%15%12%10%9%3%40%0%20%40%60%80%100%PLPTATITHRESNLROEU28+UKSICZLVLUEEFRHUSKFISEBGDKBEIEELDEUKProportion of disruption passengers receiving remedial action (%) 
 
 
 
   
Table A6.6: Running costs for NEBs, where available 

MS 

Costs 

AT 

BE 

BG 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

8 FTEs, all modes, as NEB and ADR 

0.25 FTEs 

None 

11 employees 

EUR 3,000, complaints-handling only 

2 (all modes) 

No view 

EUR 250,000, 2.5 FTEs for all passenger rights and PRM tasks 

None 

2 FTEs 

1 FTE 

EUR 589,000, including 4.8 FTEs 

No view 

No view 

MT 

No view 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

IS 

NO 

No view 

EUR 445,000 

No view 

No view 

No view 

1 FTE 

No view 

No view 

No view 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.144, Table 3.11. 
Note: FTE = full-time equivalent. 

110 

 
 
 
 
Table A6.7: Running costs and benefits for bus and coach carriers 

Group 

Costs 

Benefits 

  Proportionate 

Potentially 
negative 

Potentially 
negative 

Potentially 
negative 

Unclear 

Unclear 

DiCarloBus (Italian carrier)  Costs are related to ticket refunds. 

No view 

FlixBus (German carrier) 

Cannot  be  distinguished  from  what 
would  otherwise  have  been  the  case 
without the Regulation.  

None 

Kautra  (Lithuanian  carrier 
and terminal operator) 

Cannot  be  distinguished  from  what 
would  otherwise  have  been  the  case 
without the Regulation. 

None 

CESMAD 
coach operator) 

(SK 

regional 

No view 

CONFEBUS  (Spanish  bus 
and coach association) 

No view 

UITP 
Association 
Transport) 

(International 
Public 

of 

No view 

(Federation 

FBBA 
of 
Belgian  Bus  and  Coach 
Operators) 

No view 

EPTO 
Passenger 
Operators) 

(European 
Transport 

No view 

(Pan-Hellenic 
POAYS 
Federation of Motorists for 
Intercity Transportation) 

No view 

Swedish  Public  Transport 
Association 

No view 

STAT (Italy) 

SAIS (Italy) 

SAJ (Italy) 

No view 

No view 

No view 

MarinoBus (Italy) 

No view 

ALSA (Spain) 

No view 

(Danish 

DPT 
Transport) 

Person 

No  view,  but  limited  impact,  given 
similar  pre-existing  provisions 
in 
national legislation. 

None 

No view 

No view 

Unclear 

No view 

Unclear 

No view 

Unclear 

No view 

Unclear 

No view 

Unclear 

No view 

No view 

No view 

No view 

No view 

No view 

Unclear 

Unclear 

Unclear 

Unclear 

Unclear 

Neutral 

CURCIO (Italy) 

No costs 

No view 

Neutral 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.148, Table 3.12.  
Note: Red means negative impact, green shows a positive impact, whereas grey is for unclear or neutral. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6.8: Comparison with other passenger rights Regulations 

Issue 

Assessment  of  possible  differences  between  Regulation  (EU)  No  181/2011  and  other 
passenger rights legislation 

Non-discrimination 

No difference with other transport modes based on residence, or on disability and/or reduced 
mobility 

Right to mobility 

Right to information 

Pre-notification requirement of 36h versus 24h for rail, 48h for waterborne and air 
Transmission of information to third-parties as soon as possible as in rail, whereas under 36h 

in air and no requirement in waterborne  

In  case  of  cancellation  before  travel,  no  requirement  as  there  is  in  air  for  passengers  to  be 
informed by written notice on the rules for compensation and assistance (alternative transport 
and care) as well as on the contact details of the NEB. 

In case of cancellation/denied boarding/delays before travel, requirement for information to 
be provided under 30 minutes (as in waterborne, vs. real-time for rail) but no requirement as 
there is in air for passengers to be informed by written notice on the rules for compensation 
and assistance (alternative transport and care) as well as on the contact details of the NEB. 

Time limits apply after travel for claims (as in waterborne and rail). No limits in air 

On the rights under the Regulation, to be provided at latest on departure, and at terminals and 
on internet. In waterborne, only have to be published on board and in ports, whereas in rail 
these obligations extent to ticket vendors and tour operators, and must be in provided either 
paper or electronic format or by any other means, including in accessible formats. 

Right 
to 
travelling 

renounce 

Possible if cancellation or delay at departure of more than 2h (5h delay on arrival in air, 1h in 
rail (delay at arrival) and 1h 30 in waterborne (delay at departure)) 

Right to rerouting and 
rebooking 

As  in  waterborne:  choice  between  reimbursement  and  re-routing  under  comparable 
conditions at the earliest opportunity and at no additional cost. No right to “self-rerouting and 
reimbursement of the necessary, appropriate and reasonable cost incurred” as in rail 

Right to assistance 

Right to compensation 

For  cancellation  or  delay  in  departure  of  over  3h  minutes  regardless  of  planned  journey 
duration  (same  as  waterborne  but  for  this  mode  journeys  must  be  over  1h30).  In  rail  for 
delays over 60 minutes. In air, for delays of more than 2h (flights of 1500 kilometres or less), 
3h (for cancellation or delay in departure of over 90 minutes) or 4h (all other). 

Bus and coach limited to 2 nights with a  maximum of  EUR 80/night but only for journeys 
over 3h. Does not apply to cancellation or delay due to severe weather conditions or natural 
disasters.  For  waterborne,  right  to  accommodation  limited  to  3  nights  with  a  maximum  of 
EUR 80/night with no right where cancellation or delay due to severe weather conditions. For 
rail, can be restricted to three days. In air, no limitations apply. 

In bus and coach linked to ticket price, but only possible if if re-routing and reimbursement 
was not offered. For waterborne, linked to the ticket price, but does not apply in exceptional 
circumstances.  In  air,  fixed  amounts  depending  on  distance  of  flight  and  the  actual  arrival 
time following re-routing, does not apply in exceptional circumstances. In rail, linked to the 
ticket price, but does not apply in exceptional circumstances.  

To be paid under 3 months of request (1 months for bus and coach, no time threshold in air or 
rail)  

Right 
liability 

of 

carrier 

For passengers, at least  EUR 220,000 in bus/coach, up to 250,000 SDRs127 for waterborne, 
vs. up to 128,821 SDRs in air, and unlimited in rail 

For  luggage,  at  least  EUR  1,200  per  piece  in  bus/coach  (accident  only),  waterborne:  up  to 
2,250 SDRs for cabin luggage, up to 12,700 SDRs for vehicles, up to 3,375 SDRs for other 
luggage. In air, up to 1,288 SDRs, in rail up to 1,400 SDRs per piece. 

127 Special Drawing Rights are a form of international money, created by the International Monetary Fund, 
and defined as a weighted average of various convertible currencies.  

112 

 
                                                      
Mobility  equipment:  Replacement  or  repair  value  (for  bus/coach,  waterborne  and  rail). 
Capped in air at up to 1,288 SDRs 

to  complaint 

Right 
handling 

To be submitted within 3 months (same for rail, 2 months for bus/coach and rail, unlimited 
for air apart for luggage (7 days)) 

Operators  to  respond  within  1  month  with  final  response  within  3  months  (2  months  for 
waterborne, 3 for rail, not specified for air).  

Right 
to 
enforcement 

law 

Right to use NEB as an appeal body 

Source: Support study, Para. 3.227, Table 3.15. 

Table A6.9: Possible areas for clarification of the Regulation 

Article 

Text or issue 

Issues 

3(m) 

14(4) 

Terminal  …  equipped  with 
facilities  such  as  a  check-in 
room  or 
counter,  waiting 
ticket office 

 
 

Are any of these facilities necessary to be a terminal? 
Are any other facilities sufficient to be a terminal? 

What is a reasonable effort? 

agents 

Terminal  managing  bodies, 
travel 
tour 
operators  shall  make  every 
reasonable  effort  to  ensure 
that the assistance is provided 

and 

19(1) 

Where  a  carrier  reasonably 
expects 

19(1) 

Departure from a terminal 

19(1) 

Immediately 

19(1)(a)  Re-routing 
destination 

to 

the 

final 

19(1)(a)  Under comparable conditions 

  What is a reasonable expectation? 
  Which  member  of  the  carrier’s  staff  is  the  first  who 
“reasonably expects”, where are they, and by what means can 
they  communicate  the  information  to  other  carrier  staff, 
terminal staff, and passengers likely to be affected? 

How do these staff communicate with the passengers? 

Article 3 defines a terminal as “staffed” and “equipped with facilities 
such  as  a  check-in  counter,  waiting  room  or  ticket  office”:  when 
unstaffed, or when facilities are closed, does a location cease to be a 
terminal and become a bus stop? 

The  Regulation  would  benefit  from  specifying  a  length  of  time 
rather than “immediately” which is not very specific and can lead to 
different interpretations.  

The  Regulation  should  be  more  specific  regarding  the  sort  of  re-
routing  that  the  carrier  has  to  provide  and  that  passengers  can 
expect.  The  text  leaves  too  much  room  for  interpretation,  more 
guidance  is  needed,  such  as  in  air  and  rail  where  the  Commission 
issued guidelines.  

These  comparable  conditions  could  be  defined  according  to  a 
number  of  criteria,  such  as  the  mode  of  travel,  departure  point, 
departure time, nature of journey (direct or connecting), comfort of 
the vehicle, baggage allowance, etc. 

19(1)(b)  A  return  service  by  bus  or 
coach  free  of  charge  to  the 
first point of departure 

 
 

How soon must this service be offered? 
Must it be comparable? 

What is to happen if it is cancelled or delayed? 

19(2) 

If the carrier  fails to offer the 
passenger the choice 

 

How is it determined whether, when and whom this choice has 
been offered? 

113 

 
19(2) 

19(3) 

19(3) 

 

How does the passenger inform the carrier of their choice? 

Submission of  the  request  for 
compensation 

What  defines  how,  or  by  when,  the  request  for  compensation  must 
be submitted? 

Continuation  of  the  service 
with another vehicle from the 
location  of 
inoperable 
the 
vehicle 

 

Can  a  carrier  arrange  to  obtain  another  vehicle  within  a 
reasonable timescale, such as during an overnight journey? 

May  a  carrier  require  passengers  to  wait  for  another  vehicle  rather 
than procure rapid but expensive repairs? 

Or transport from the location 
of  the  inoperable  vehicle  to  a 
suitable  waiting  point  or 
terminal 

 

How is a “suitable waiting point” defined? 

What if vehicles become inoperable in remote locations in extreme weather? 

19(4) 

Bus stop 

  Why is there no test that “a carrier reasonably expects”, as at 

terminals? 

  Why is there no right related to overbooking, as at terminals? 

20(1) 

The situation 

What information is required about “the situation”? 

Source: Support study, Para. 4.15, Table 4.1. 

Table A6.10: ten core passenger rights  

Core passenger rights  

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Right to non-discrimination in access to transport 

Right  to  mobility:  accessibility  and  assistance  at  no  additional  cost  for  passengers  with  disabilities  and 
passengers with reduced mobility (PRM) 

Right to information before purchase and at the various stages of travel, notably in case of disruption 

Right to renounce travelling (reimbursement of the cost of the ticket)  when the trip is not carried out as 
planned 

Right to the fulfilment of the transport contract in case of disruption (re-routing and rebooking) 

Right to get assistance in case of long delay at departure or at connecting points 

Right to compensation under certain circumstances 

Right to carrier liability towards passengers and their baggage 

Right to a quick and accessible system of complaint handling 

10  Right to full application and effective enforcement of EU law 
Source: COM(2011) 898 final. 

114