COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of 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
Date: 2021-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, consumer protection, disabled person, equal treatment, indemnification, inland waterway transport, maritime safety, maritime transport, passenger rights

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2021  SWD(2021) 413 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of 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 {SWD(2021) 414 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 

1.1.  Overall context of passenger rights ................................................................................. 3 

1.2. 

Purpose and scope of this evaluation .............................................................................. 5 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 6 

2.1. 

Specific context of waterborne passenger rights ............................................................. 6 

2.2.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ........................................................... 8 

2.3.  Baseline and points of comparison ................................................................................ 14 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 17 

3.1.  Description of the current situation ............................................................................... 17 

3.2.  Member States implementation and monitoring ........................................................... 19 

3.3.  Major recent changes..................................................................................................... 24 

4.  METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 26 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology ................................................................................. 26 

4.2. 

Limitations and robustness of findings ......................................................................... 27 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 28 

5.1. 

Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 28 

5.2. 

Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 42 

5.3.  Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 47 

5.4.  Coherence ...................................................................................................................... 50 

5.5. 

EU added value ............................................................................................................. 55 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 59 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 62 

ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION............................................. 64 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 75 

ANNEX 4: REVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOGIC ......................................................................... 87 

ANNEX 5: COSTS – BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION (OVERVIEW) ........................ 90 

ANNEX 6: TABLES AND FIGURES ......................................................................................................... 91 

1 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ADR 

CPC 

EC 

ECC 

CJEU 

EEA 

EMSA 

EU 

EU27 

IMO 

NEB 

PRM 

PSO 

SCM 

SMS 

TFEU 

UNCRPD 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Consumer Protection Cooperation 

European Commission 

European Consumer Centre 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

European Economic Area 

European Maritime Safety Agency 

European Union 

The 27 Member States of the EU after 31 January 2020 

International Maritime Organisation 

National Enforcement Body 

Persons with disabilities or reduced mobility 

Public Service Obligation 

Standard Cost Model 

Short Message Service 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities 

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 & 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). 

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

-  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 flights2, keeping in mind that denied boarding3 and carrier’s liability in the 
event  of  accidents4  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 air5; 

-  Regulation  (EC)  No  1371/2007  rail  passengers’  rights  and  obligations6,  which 
will be repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2021/782 as of 7 June 20237; 

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)  2021/782  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 waterway8 whose ex-post evaluation is presented 
in this report (hereafter “the Regulation”); and 

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

coach transport.9 

After  the  adoption  of  passenger  rights  Regulations  for  all  four  transport  modes,  the 
Commission  published  in  2011  its  Communication  entitled  a  "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,  underpinned  by  the  so-called  ten  core  passenger 
rights (presented in Table A6.5 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  policy12, 
building on international conventions and the general consumer protection framework of the 
Union.  

In its recent Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy13, 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 sanctions if the rules are not properly applied” and expressed its intention to 
take  actions  to  achieve  this  aim.  This  exercise  is  also  in  line  with  the  recommendations 
presented by the European Court of Auditors in their special report on passenger rights in 
November 2018.14 

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’, COM(2011) 898 final.  
11 Analysis of EU Transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook, European Commission 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2020_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 Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the future, paragraph 
92; Annex (Action Plan) Action 63, COM(2020)789 final 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2021-mobility-strategy-and-action-plan.pdf. 
14 ECA Special report no 30/2018: EU passenger rights are comprehensive but passengers still need to fight 
for them. https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47547. Recommendations from ECA are 
the  following:  (1)  improve  the  coherence  of  the  EU  passenger  rights  framework;  (2)  improve  the  clarity 
within the passenger rights framework; (3) increase passengers’ awareness about their rights; (4) improve 
the effectiveness of the passenger rights framework; (5) further empower the national enforcement bodies 
4 

 
                                                           
1.2. 

Purpose and scope of this evaluation 

The  purpose  of  this  ex-post  evaluation  is  to  assess  whether  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1177/2010  has  delivered  the  intended  rights  to  passengers  in  waterborne  transport,  in 
accordance  with  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines.  This  evaluation  was 
initiated in 201915, more than eight years after its adoption, and more than six years after 
it started to apply (18 December 2012). 

The  evaluation  covers  the  period  from  18  December  2012  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”)16 carried out by an external contractor, 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  

-  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 study includes the EU 27 Member States, Iceland, Norway 
and the United Kingdom.18  

(NEBs) s with more rights to enforce the Regulation and enable  the Commission to receive the necessary 
information from NEBs about the state of play of the enforcement of passenger rights. 
15 Roadmap on https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11878-Sea-and-
inland-waterway-transport-passengers-rights-evaluation-_en 
16 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b737f78e-1b4e-11ec-b4fe-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231263313  

17  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  application  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when  travelling  by  sea  and  inland 
waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, COM(2016) 274 final. 
18  As  regards  the  EEA  countries,  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  was  incorporated  in  Annex  XIII 
(Transport)  and  Annex  XIX  (Consumer  Protection)  to  the  EEA  Agreement  [2016/1299]  by  way  of 
Decision  No  116/2015  of  30  April  2015  of  the  EEA  Joint  Committee  (OJ  L  211,  4.8.2016,  p.  74): 
DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE  - No 116 / 2015 - of 30 April 2015 - amending Annex 
5 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
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.  

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1. 

Specific context of waterborne passenger rights 

Waterborne services within the scope of European passenger rights legislation comprise sea 
and inland waterway ferry and cruise services.  

Waterborne  transport  is  heavily  concentrated  among  Member  States  with  main  sea  and 
inland  waterways,  particularly  among  Member  States  with  well-populated  islands.  At  the 
same  time,  traffic  is  concentrated  between  major  ports:  services  between  the  top  20 
European ports accounted for nearly 40% of the total number of passengers19 as also visible 
in the map below showing ferry services in 2017. 

XIII  (Transport)  and  Annex  XIX  (Consumer  Protection)  to  the  EEA  Agreement  [2016/  1299]  (efta.int). 
The  case  of  Liechtenstein,  which  is  in  the  scope  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010,  was  not  analysed, 
given the small size of the country and the fact that no major sea and inland waterways exist. Switzerland 
was not included as the Regulation does not apply in this country. 
19 Analysis of Support study, Paragraph 1.22-1.25. 

6 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Figure 1 – European Ferry Network 

Source: EPSON Publication, Accessibility by the sea indicators, January 2017, Figure 1320 

With  respect  to  seaborne  passenger  traffic,  the  number  of  passengers  embarking  and 
disembarking at the ports of the EU27 Member States as well as Iceland, Norway and the 
United Kingdom reached almost 451 million passengers in 2019, equating to 225 million 
passenger  journeys.21  Denmark,  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain  account  all  together  for  more 
than  half  of  the  EU  seaborne  passenger  traffic.  Because  they  are  landlocked,  Austria, 
Czechia, Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia do not have any seaborne passenger traffic. 
After  a  decrease  between  2010  and  2014,  the  total  volume  of  passengers  recovered 
between 2016 and 2019 as illustrated in figure 2 below. 

20 https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/AccessibilityBySea_D2_FinalReport.pdf  
21  Eurostat  ’Statistics  Explained’:  Passenger  Transport  Statistics,  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Passenger_transport_statistics&oldid=503247#Maritime_passengers. In order to 
understand  these  statistical  figures,  please  note  that  in  EU  statistics  in  case  of  passengers  carried  by 
national  or  intra-EU  ferry  services,  the  same  passengers  are  counted  twice  (once  when  they  embark  the 
ferry in one EU port and once when they disembark the same ferry in another EU port). 

7 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 2 - Seaborne passengers (million) embarking and disembarking by EU Member 
State (ranked on 2019 passengers) 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 1.20, analysis of Eurostat data. 

The  vast  majority  (96,4%)  of  seaborne  traffic  is  made  on  ferry  services,  whilst  cruises 
account for 3,3% of the total number of passengers only.22 Most ferry services are operated 
privately,  on  a  commercial  basis  or  operated  under  public  service  obligations  (PSO) 
contracts. 

Domestic ferry services dominate intra-EU maritime passenger transport: 61% of seaborne 
passenger  transport  within  the  European  Union  is  operated  between  ports  situated  in  the 
same Member State, while cross-border seaborne passenger traffic amounts to 39%.23 

With respect to inland waterway passenger traffic, comprising mainly river cruises and ferry 
transport,  data  is  limited.  Industry  sources  indicate  that  river  cruises  carried  1.62  million 
passengers in 2019 (of which 44% to 49% came from non-European countries) with 75% of 
the  total  traffic  concentrated  on  Central European waterways  (e.g.  Danube, Main-Danube 
canal, Elbe-Oder, Main and Rhine).24 

2.2.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation  at  EU  level  legislation  granted  protection  to 
passengers25  in  the  event  of  death  of  or  personal  injury  to  a  passenger  and  the  loss  of  or 

22 Support study, Paragraph 1.22. 
23 Eurostat ’Statistics Explained’: Passenger Transport Statistics (2019) 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Seaborne_transport_of_passengers_between_main_ports_in_the_reporting_
country_and_their_partner_ports_grouped_by_main_geographical_areas,_2019.png 
24 Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CNNR), Inland navigation in Europe - market 
observation, Annual Report 2021, p. 102. 
25Or the person(s) entitled to receive compensation in case the passenger’s death in an accident. 

8 

01002003004005002010201120122013201420152016201720182019Passengers by MS, millionsOtherEstoniaFinlandFranceUnited KingdomSwedenGermanyCroatiaSpainDenmarkGreeceItaly 
 
                                                           
damage  to  luggage  in  an  accident  on the  basis  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 392/200926,  which 
implemented  certain provisions of the 1974 Athens Convention in EU law relating to the 
carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea (as amended by the 2002 Protocol).27 

At national level the situation was complex. In some Member States national legislations 
did not protect passengers at all. If there was any legislation at national level, the rights 
protecting  PRM  passengers  (non-discrimination  and  assistance),  were  not  in  the  same 
piece  of  legislation  as  the  rights  protecting  passengers  in  case  of  transport  disruptions.  
In addition, the level of protection granted by national legislations varied Member State 
by Member State: 

(a)  prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation,  national  legislation  protecting  PRM 
waterborne passengers was in force in five Member States (Denmark, Finland, Italy, 
Spain and Sweden) as well as in Norway granting PRM similar levels of passenger 
rights as they currently receive from the Regulation. In nine Member States (Austria, 
Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherlands  and  Portugal),  as 
well  as  in  the  United  Kingdom,  national  legislation  granted  some  rights  to  PRM 
before the introduction of the Regulation; however, this national legislation was not as 
comprehensive as the Regulation. No protection was available in two Member States 
(Cyprus  and  Poland).28  There  is  no  information  on  the  situation  in  the  remaining 
eleven  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czechia,  Hungary,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) nor in Iceland.29 

(b)  regarding  rights  of  passengers  in  the  event  of  cancellation  or  delay,  prior  to  the 
introduction  of  the  Regulation  the  national  legislation  of  six  Member  States 
(Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Sweden) as well as in Norway granted 
passengers  similar  levels  of  rights  as  they  currently  receive  from  the  Regulation. 
Additionally,  further  six  Member  States  (Estonia,  Germany,  Ireland,  Netherlands, 
Poland and Spain) and the United Kingdom granted some rights to passengers in the 
event of disruption before the Regulation was introduced, however these legislations 
were not as comprehensive as the Regulation.30 No protection was available in three 
Member States (Cyprus,  France and  Malta), while there is no information available 
related  to  the  national  legislation  for the  remaining  twelve  Member States (Austria, 
Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czechia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, 
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) and Iceland.31 

26Regulation  (EC)  No  392/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2009  on  the 
liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 24-46). 
27Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 has been evaluated in 2017, SWD(2017) 329 final. 
28The Convention establishes a regime of liability for damage suffered by passengers carried on a seagoing 
vessel.  It  declares  a  carrier  liable  for  damage  or  loss  suffered  by  a  passenger  if  the  incident  causing  the 
damage occurred in the course of the carriage and was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier. 
29Support study, Paragraph 1.12, Table 1.1. 
30Analysis  and  assessment  of  the  level  of  protection  of  passenger  rights  in  the  EU  maritime  transport 
sector, 2006, conducted by the Institute of Transport Economics Legislation, commissioned by DG Energy 
and Transport. 
31Support study, Paragraph 1.14, Table 1.2. 

9 

 
                                                           
The  Commission’s  impact  assessment  (IA)32  accompanying  the  2008  legislative 
proposal33 had identified four areas in which rights needed to be strengthened: 

- 
the rights of PRM; 
-  quality of service; 
-  assistance to passengers in the event of delay or cancellation; 
- 

the right to information and non-discrimination issues. 

The specific objectives of the intervention included: 

- 
- 

- 

- 
- 

asserting the principle of non-discrimination and assistance to PRM; 
asserting  the  principle  of  assistance  in  the  event  of  travel  cancellations  and 
delays; 
ensuring  a  level  of  minimum  quality  standards  of  services  and  defining 
information obligations; 
setting up a procedure for handling complaints; and 
ensuring appropriate enforcement of applicable legislation. 

The  impact  assessment  identified  a  number  of  issues:  passengers  in  general  often 
received  poor  quality  assistance  in  the  event  of  a  travel  disruption  (notably  delays  and 
cancellations), information to passengers was not sufficient, there were no authorities at 
national level to monitor compliance with the Regulation, PRMs needed more accessible 
ports  and  accessible  information  and  assistance  to  enable  them  to  use  waterborne 
transport. 

The  final  text  was  adopted  on  24  November  2010  and  it  contained  moderate  changes 
compared to the Commission’s original proposal: 

- 

- 

the  Commission’s  proposal  did  not  contain  any  limitation  based  on  the  size  of  the 
ship, while the Regulation excludes ships certified to carry up to 12 passengers;34 

compared  to  the  Commission’s  proposal  the  right  to  information  was  reinforced  by 
introducing the obligation to provide such information in accessible formats. 

Lastly, the time thresholds for the respective rights were aligned to 90 minutes, although 
the  Commission’s  proposal  had  foreseen  a  threshold  of  60  minutes  for  the  right  to 
assistance  and  a  threshold  of  120  minutes  for  re-routing  and  reimbursement. 
The Regulation has put in place the following measures aimed to address the identified 
needs and to  achieve the specific objectives: obligations  on  carriers to  adopt  and apply 
non-discriminatory transport conditions, to provide assistance to PRMs in order to enable 
them  to  use  waterborne  transport,  to  provide  assistance  to  all  passengers  in  case  of 

32Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when  travelling  by  sea  and  inland 
waterway  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities 
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws - Impact Assessment concerning the rights of 
passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway, SEC(2008) 2950. 
33Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  the  rights  of 
passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on 
cooperation  between  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws 
COM(2008) 816 final. 
342008/0246 (COD) 
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0246(COD)&l=en  

10 

 
                                                           
cancelled  or  delayed  departures  and  to  provide  them  with  compensation  under  certain 
circumstances,  re-route  or  reimburse  them  in  case  of  cancellation  or  long  delay,  to 
publish  and  apply  quality  standards  of  services,  to  provide  information  to  passengers, 
including PRM, and to  establish a harmonised procedure to allow passengers to submit 
complaints to NEBs in case they consider that their rights are breached. 

The Regulation was in particular meant to contribute to reducing the negative impact of 
travel  disruption  on  users  of  waterborne  transport  and  to  improving  service  quality  for 
passengers. It was also intended to contribute to the creation of a level playing field for 
waterborne  operators  in  the  EU  and  to  provide  a  European  standard  of  passenger 
protection.  The  Regulation  requires  NEBs  to  take  the  measures  necessary  to  ensure 
imposing  effective, 
compliance  with 
proportionate  and  dissuasive  penalties  on  operators  in  case  of  infringements.  Other 
measures necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation could for example 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.  These  measures 

include 

The Regulation was designed to address these issues as described in Table 1. This table 
summarises specifically the structure of the Regulation and the subject of its Articles. 

Table 1: Content of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 

Chapter 

Subject of Articles 

Content of Articles 

I  General 

provisions 

1 

2 

3 

Subject matter 

Scope 

Definitions 

4(1)  Tickets and non-discriminatory 

contract conditions 

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

4(2) 

5 

Other performing parties 

6 

7 

Exclusion of waiver 

Right to transport 

8(1)  Exceptions and special conditions 

8(2) 

8(3) 

11 

Contracts and tariffs may not discriminate based 
on the nationality or place of establishment of the 
carrier/ticket vendor.  

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

Obligations to passengers shall not be limited or 
waived. 

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

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

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

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

II  Rights of 

persons with 
disabilities 
and persons 
with reduced 
mobility or 
disability 
(PRMs) 

 
 
 
 
Chapter 

Subject of Articles 

Content of Articles 

8(4) 

8(5) 

9 

Accessibility and information 

In case of refusal to transport the PRM, the carrier 
may request the person concerned to be 
accompanied by another person who can provide 
the assistance required and who shall be 
transported free of charge. 

In case of recourse to paragraphs 8(1) and 8(4), the 
person concerned shall immediately be informed of 
its reasons and, upon request, in writing within 5 
working days. 

Carriers and terminal operators shall establish non-
discriminatory access conditions for the transport 
of PRM and such access conditions shall be made 
publicly available and physically distributed at the 
request of the passenger whilst assistance shall be 
confirmed by any means available 

Right to assistance in ports and on 
board ships 

Carriers and terminal operators shall provide 
assistance free of charge to PRM 

10 

11 

12 

Conditions under which assistance is 
provided 

Reception of notifications and 
designation of meeting points 

Carriers and terminal operators shall provide such 
assistance provided the request is notified in 
advance and the person presents herself on time. 

Carriers, terminal operators, travel agents and tour 
operators shall take all measures necessary for the 
request for and reception of notifications and such 
notification shall be transferred without delay 
while a meeting point for PRM shall be designated 

Terminal operators and carriers operating 
passenger services with a total of more than 100 
000 commercial passenger movements during the 
previous calendar year shall set quality standards 
for PRM assistance 

Carriers or terminal operators shall establish 
disability-related training procedures, including 
instructions, for their personnel, providing direct 
assistance to PRM and their personnel who are 
otherwise responsible for the reservation and 
selling of tickets or embarkation and 
disembarkation 

Compensation for loss of or damage to mobility 
equipment equal to the cost of its replacement or 
repair. 
Every effort shall be undertaken to rapidly provide 
temporary replacement equipment or devices, with 
similar technical and functional features. 

In the case of reasonable expectation of a 
cancellation or a delay in departure, passengers 
shall be informed by the carrier or by the terminal 
operator as soon as possible or in any event no 
later than 30 minutes after the scheduled time of 
departure as well as of alternative connections, in 
accessible formats. 

13 

Quality standards for assistance 

14 

15 

16 

III  Obligations of 
carriers and 
terminal 
operators in 
the event of 
interrupted 
travel 

Training and instructions 

Compensation in respect of mobility 
equipment or other specific 
equipment 

Information in the event of cancelled 
or delayed departures 

12 

 
Chapter 

Subject of Articles 

Content of Articles 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

In the case of reasonable expectation of a 
cancellation or a delay in departure for more than 
90 minutes, passengers shall be offered free of 
charge snacks, meals or refreshments and, where 
necessary, free of charge adequate accommodation 
on board, or ashore, and transport to and from the 
port terminal, which may be limited to EUR80per 
night, for a maximum of three nights. 

In the case of reasonable expectation of a 
cancellation or a delay in departure for more than 
90 minutes or in the case of cancellation and delay, 
the passenger shall immediately be offered the 
choice between reimbursement within 7 days, or 
re-routing. 

In the case of delay in the arrival at the final 
destination as set out in the transport contract, 
passengers may request compensation amounting 
to at least 25 % of the ticket price, without losing 
the right to transport 

Exemptions of Articles 17, 18 and 19 for open 
tickets, travel passes or season tickets, information 
before the purchase of the ticket or cancellation or 
delay caused by the fault of the passenger and 
delays caused by weather conditions endangering 
the safe operation of the ship or natural disasters. 

No preclusion of damages in accordance with 
national law, including under Directive 
90/314/EEC. 

Passengers shall be provided with adequate 
information throughout the travel. 

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 two 
months, and receive the reply within two months. 

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

NEBs shall publish reports on enforcement every 
two years. 

Assistance in the event of cancelled 
or delayed departures 

Re-routing and reimbursement in the 
event of cancelled or delayed 
departures 

Compensation of the ticket price in 
the event of delay in arrival  

Exemptions 

Further claims 

Right to travel information 

Information on passenger rights 

Complaints 

National enforcement bodies 

Report on enforcement 

Cooperation between enforcement 
bodies 

Exchange of information on their work and 
decision-making principles and practice 

Penalties 

Report 

The Member States shall lay down rules on 
penalties applicable to infringements of the 
provisions of this Regulation 

Report by Commission to European Parliament 
and to the Council on the operation and the effects 
of the Regulation 

Amendment to Regulation (EC) No 
2006/2004 

Amendment in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 
2006/2004 

Entry into force 

20th day following its publication and application 
starting on 18 December 2012 

13 

IV 

General rules 
on 
information 
and 
complaints 

V 

Enforcement 
and national 
enforcement 
bodies 
(NEBs) 

VI 

Final 
provisions 

 
 
Source: Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010, analysis based on support study. 

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 waterborne 
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 
baseline scenario that would have happened without policy intervention. 

The  reference  year  is  2012  for  the  Regulation.  For  the  purposes  of  modelling,  it  was 
assumed  that  it  was  in  force  from  1  January  2013  as  the  baseline  is  modelled  on  an 
annual  timeline.  To  show  “from  2012  until  today  what  the  situation  would  have  been, 
had  the  Regulation  or  any  other  EU-level  legislation  not  been  implemented”,  the 
following was considered: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

the situation regarding passenger rights in 2013 in the EU 27 Member States, as well 
as Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom, 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 introduced and that no harmonised rules across 
Member States would have been developed; and 
the application of consumer law in each Member State. 

The situation before the introduction of the Regulation was analysed and it was assumed 
that the resulting level of passenger rights in each Member State remained constant in the 
no  policy  intervention  scenario.  It  was  assumed  that  other  variables,  such  as  total 
passengers travelling from and within each Member State, remained the same across both 
scenarios.  The  situation  across  both  scenarios  between  2013  and  2018  was  then 
evaluated. 

Passenger rights in the event of major disruption 

Since no Member State has exempted PSO services from the scope of the Regulation, all 
waterborne passengers have been in scope of the Regulation since its entry into force in 
December 2012. 

In 2012, before the Regulation became applicable, approximately 31 million passengers 
(15%) had no rights  in  the event  of  a  major disruption, a further 49 million  passengers 
(24%)  were  covered  by  some  rights,  which  were  not  as  comprehensive  as  those 
established  by  the  Regulation.  The  remaining  122  million  passengers  (61%)  were 
protected  by  national  legislation  that  provided  them  a  level  of  coverage  and  protection 
comparable to those provided under the Regulation.35 

Assuming  that  the  provision  of  rights  available  prior  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Regulation would have remained constant in Europe, the number of passengers, with no 

35 Support study, Paragraph 3.194. 

14 

 
                                                           
rights would have risen to 37 million (17%) by 2019, whilst those receiving some rights 
would  have  risen  to  57  million  (26%).  131  million  (58%)  would  have  had  rights 
comparable to those provided under the Regulation, as shown in Figure 3 below. 

Figure 3 - Availability of passenger rights in the event of disruption 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.195, Baseline analysis. 

Rights of passengers with disabilities and passengers with reduced mobility 

A number of Member States had adopted legislation concerning waterborne transport of 
PRM  prior  to  the  Regulation.  Prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation  in  2012,  the 
support study estimated that approximately 56.000 (5%) of passengers who would have 
requested assistance had no such rights, whilst a further 565.000 (51%) were covered by 
some  rights,  albeit  not  as  comprehensive  as  those  provided  under  the  Regulation.  The 
remaining 488.000 (44%) of passengers with disabilities or with reduced mobility were 
eligible for rights, providing a similar level of protection as the Regulation.36 

However,  even  for  those  PRM  already  benefitting  from  some  rights  established  at  the 
national level, at the time the Regulation was drafted, it remained unclear whether, and to 
what  degree,  they  were  able  to  demand  access  to  maritime  transport  and  assistance. 
National  legislation  specifically  varied  in  scope  and  content,  so  that  disparate  rules 
applied  to  international  routes,  which  resulted  in  difficulties  for  PRM  when  travelling 
across  borders  by  sea.  Had  this  situation  remained,  the  protection  provided  to  PRM 
would have varied considerably throughout the European Union, potentially reducing the 
confidence of PRM passengers when travelling.37 

After the entry into force of the Regulation, all passengers requesting PRM assistance in 
the European Union could rely on a pan-European framework of rights, improving their 
access to travel opportunities and providing a right to assistance. Hence, approximately 
600.000 passengers witnessed an improvement in the quality of rights as a consequence 

36 Support study, Paragraph 3.196. 
37 Support study, Paragraph 3.197. 

15 

3132313231323335363749494950525253545657134129122121117116115122129131203199201201210221225-501001502002502010201120122013201420152016201720182019Passengers, millionsNo protectionSome protectionHigh level of protectionRegulation 1107/2010 
 
                                                           
of  the  Regulation,  whilst  a  further  85.000  passengers  were  given  access  to  rights  were 
previously  they  had  none.  By  2019,  approximately  800.000  passengers  experienced  an 
improvement  in  rights  available  and  approximately  200.000  passengers  were  able  to 
benefit from  rights  when prior  to  the Regulation  they had none38, as  shown in  Figure  4 
below. 

Figure 4 - Availability of rights to passengers with disabilities and passengers with reduced 
mobility 

Source: Baseline analysis of support study, Paragraph 3.199. 

38 Support study, Paragraph 3.198. 

16 

0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.50.50.60.60.60.60.70.70.80.80.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.61.21.21.31.31.41.51.50.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82010201120122013201420152016201720182019Passengers, millionsNo rights (prior)Some rights (prior)High level of rights (prior)Regulation 1107/2010 
  
 
 
                                                           
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY  

3.1.  Description of the current situation 

The  Regulation  is  applicable  to  most  ferry  services  departing  from  or  arriving  at  EU 
ports: 

- 

- 

it applies in respect of passengers travelling on passenger services (ferries) where 
the port of embarkation is situated in the territory of a Member State; and 
it  also  applies  on  passenger  services  where  the  port  of  embarkation  is  situated 
outside the territory of a Member State and the port of disembarkation is situated 
in  the  territory  of  a  Member  State,  provided  that  the  service  is  operated  by  a 
Union carrier. The Union carrier as defined under Article 3(e) of the Regulation is 
a carrier established within the territory of a Member State or offering transport 
by passenger services operated to or from the territory of a Member State, which 
is  a  specifically  broad  notion  compared  to  passenger  rights  in  other  modes, 
encompassing  all  passenger  services  operating  from  a  third  country  to  a  port 
within the European Union. 

In addition, the Regulation applies to cruises39 where the port of embarkation is situated 
in the territory  of  a Member State with  the exception of Articles 16(2)  on information, 
Article  18  on  re-routing  and  reimbursement,  Article  19  on  compensation  and  Articles 
20(1) and (4) on exemptions. 

The Regulation does not apply in respect of passengers travelling: 

-  on ships certified to carry up to 12 passengers; 
-  on ships which have a crew responsible for the operation of the ship composed of 

not more than three persons; 

-  on  ships  where  the  distance  of  the  overall  passenger  service  is  less  than  500 

metres, one way; 

-  on excursion and sightseeing tours other than cruises; and 
-  on  ships  not  propelled  by  mechanical  means  as  well  as  original  and  individual 

replicas of historical passenger ships. 

Additionally, cruise services of less than two overnight stays on board are also out of the 
scope of the Regulation. 

In waterborne transport and from a broad perspective, passenger rights are protected by 
different pieces of legislation, including: 

-  Passenger  rights  legislation  as  such,  i.e.  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  
concerning the right of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway; 
-  Other  rights  stemming  from  transport  related  regulations,  including  Regulation 
(EC) No 392/2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of 
accidents; 

39 Article 3(t) defines cruises as transport services by sea or inland waterway, operated exclusively for the 
purpose  of  pleasure  or  recreation,  supplemented  by  accommodation  and  other  facilities,  exceeding  two 
overnight stays on board. 

17 

 
                                                           
-  Consumer  rights  in  the  broader  perspective,  distinguishing  between  instruments 
regulating  rights,  including  in  particular  Directive  (EU)  2015/203240  (the 
“Package  Travel  Directive”)  which  becomes  applicable  where  carriage  of 
passengers  by  ships  is  combined  with  other  travel  services,  and  enforcement 
mechanisms as 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, waterborne 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).41 

In 2016, the Commission published a report42 on the application of the Regulation. 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,  including  information 
campaigns,  (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  expert  group  meetings  with  the  representatives  of  NEBs  and  stakeholders,  and 
through written correspondence with NEBs, stakeholder associations, individual operators 
etc. 

Regarding  the  awareness  of  passenger  rights,  the  Commission  has  included  waterborne 
passenger rights in its information campaigns since the Regulation became applicable. 

Regarding  the  awareness  of  passenger  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 
transport  modes  with  passenger  rights.  Online 
launched 
communication campaigns (online advertising) have proved 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.43 

in  2013  concerned  all 

40  Directive  (EU)  2015/2302  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2015  on 
package  travel  and  linked  travel  arrangements,  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive 
2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
(OJ L 326, 11.12.2015, p. 1-33). 
41 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.  
42 COM(2016) 274 final. 
43 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, waterborne passenger rights, and 
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/transport-disability/reduced-mobility/index_en.htm. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
The Commission regularly conducts Eurobarometer surveys on passenger rights. The results 
of  the  latest survey44  showed  that 45%  of  actual  sea  and  inland  waterway  passengers  are 
aware of their passenger rights, which is lower compared to air transport (49%), but higher 
compared to rail (43%) and bus and coach transport (39%). In addition, among respondents 
using  waterborne  transport,  only  7%  believe  that  they  are  very  well  informed  of  their 
rights and 24% consider themselves fairly well informed. 

The Commission holds meetings with experts from the NEBs to exchange experiences and 
clarify the interpretation of the Regulation. The main points of discussion have concerned 
the  state  of  play  with  the  enforcement  and  legal  interpretation  of  the  Regulation.  Other 
issues of  attention included addressing the low awareness of passengers about their rights 
and improving the processing of complaints through a standard complaint form. 

In the context of COVID-1945, the Commission published Interpretative Guidelines on the 
passenger  rights  Regulations46  and  a  Recommendation  on  vouchers.47  It  also  updated  the 
websites of Your Europe48 and added information on the Coronavirus Response website.49 
In  July  2020,  the  Commission  launched  infringement  proceedings  against  two  Member 
States  for  failure  to  comply  with  EU  rules  protecting  waterborne  passenger  rights.  The 
procedure has been closed in October 2020 because the Member States concerned amended 
their laws.50 In August 2020, the Commission started informal dialogues51 with all Member 
States and the United Kingdom regarding the application of passenger rights in all modes of 
transport  in  the  context  of  COVID-19  and  the  obligations  of  NEBs  to  report  on  their 
activities. These procedures are still ongoing. 

3.2.  Member States implementation and monitoring 

The  choice  to  intervene  at  EU  level  through  a  Regulation  had  a  direct  impact  on  the 
extent  of  the  implementation  obligations  for  Member  States.  Member  States  were 
required to designate a new or existing body for the enforcement of the Regulation as a 
NEB,  to  inform  the  Commission  thereof  and  to  lay  down  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive sanctions for infringements of passenger rights. 

44 Special Eurobarometer 485 on passenger rights (survey carried out in February/March 2019) 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6814. 
45  EMSA  Report  of  2021,  EMSA-Impact-Of-Covid-19-On-The-Maritime-Sector-In-The-EU-2021_06.pdf 
(safety4sea.com). 
46  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). 
47 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 
48 https://europa.eu/youreurope/index_en.htm. 
49 https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response_en 
50 Infringement decisions of 2 July 2020, 
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 Greece and Italy. 
51 The  EU Pilot  process, established by the Commission  and the  member states to exchange information 
and resolve problems concerning the application of EU law or the compliance of national law with EU law, 
is designed for the phase prior to the formal opening of an infringement procedure. 

19 

 
 
                                                           
Member States are required to inform the Commission of the body or bodies designated 
in  line  with  Article  25(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010,  which  the  Commission 
publishes on a designated platform.52  It  can be summarised that the current  situation of 
NEBs is the following: 

- 

in 2020 there were 45 NEBs (including the Icelandic, Norwegian and the United 
Kingdom NEBs)53; 

-  most States have a single national NEB for all waterborne services, and in several 
of  them,  the  same  body  also  enforces  passenger  rights  for  other  modes  of 
transport. 

-  Some States have designated more than one NEB at national or regional level. 

The Regulation grants passengers the right to submit complaints to a NEB or to another 
body designated. NEBs may require passengers, as a first step, to submit the complaint to 
the  carrier  or  port  operator.  Currently  19  Member  States  (Austria,  Croatia,  Cyprus, 
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain)54 and Norway as well as the 
United  Kingdom55  require  passengers  to  submit  their  complaint  to  the  carrier  or  port 
operator  first  and  only  turn  to  the  NEB  if  the  carrier  or  port  operator  does  not  give  a 
satisfactory answer to the complaint or does not reply to the complaint at all. 

There are significant differences between the roles of the NEBs. It could be highlighted 
in particular that:  

-  Most States have a single national NEB, while some have designated more than 
one  NEB,  at 
level  or  dealing  with 
international/domestic  affairs  e.g.  in  Poland,  where  each  regional  NEB  has  a 
jurisdiction covering ports in its respective region; 

the  national,  regional  and 

local 

-  Most  NEBs  have  the  competence  gathered  in  one  NEB,  whilst  other  have 
different  authorities  for  different  aspects  such  as  the  NEBs  in  Denmark  and 
Hungary,  where  different  authorities  deal  with  the  compliance  with  the 
Regulation  by  ports  and  by  carriers,  respectively,  and  in  the  Slovenian  and 
Swedish  NEBs,  where  separate  NEBs  deal  with  the  enforcement  of  the 
Regulation’s provisions related to the rights of PRM; 

-  Some  NEBs  handle  individual  complaints  and  others  do  not  as  is  seen  in 
Germany, where the NEB does not help individual passengers to receive redress 
as  a  result  of  infringements  of  the  Regulations,  but  only  deals  with  systemic 
monitoring and enforcement of the Regulation; 

-  Six  NEBs  act  as  both  NEBs  and  ADR  (Austria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Latvia, 

Romania and Slovakia).56 

52 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/0ae26167-3fd5-4125-8092-32e8987fb125 
53 Annex 6, Table A6.1: National enforcement bodies (NEBs) as well as 
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/0ae26167-3fd5-4125-8092-32e8987fb125. 
54  In  instance  of  Finland,  Ireland  and  Poland  passengers  can  contact  the  NEB  initially,  but  are  generally 
asked to contact the operator first. 
55 Support Study, Annex D Country Fiches. 
56 Support study, Annex D Country Fiches. 

20 

 
 
                                                           
Overall  the  roles  of  the  NEBs  (including  complaint  handling,  monitoring  and 
enforcement) are organised quite differently across the EU. 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 

Different NEBs deal with a varying number of complaints. It must however be noted that 
different NEBs report on the complaints they receive differently: some include statistics 
and report complaints that are within the scope of the Regulation and others report any 
complaint  received  for  any  reason  (e.g.  complaints  about  the  crew  being  rude  to  the 
passenger,  theft  of  baggage,  etc.).  The  overall  number  of  complaints  appears  to  be 
growing57,  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  submit  complaints.  However  there  are  still  a  large  number  of  NEBs  not 
receiving  any  complaints.  The  exact  reasons  for  the  complaint  level  are  impossible  to 
identify  due  to  limited  data  available,  in  particular  as  regards  the  motivation  for  a 
passengers decision to complain or not to complain.  

The total number of complaints received (approximately 560 in 2019 across all Member 
States as well as Iceland and the United Kingdom) is low, equating to one complaint per 
million waterborne passengers transported. 

Figure  5 shows the average number of complaints  reported by NEBs in  years in  which 
they provided data. Complaints are heavily concentrated among States with higher levels 
of  waterborne  passenger  traffic  (in  particular  Italy  and  Greece).  On  the  other  hand 
Czechia, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia did not report any complaints 
between 2013 and 2019.58 The preliminary numbers for 2020 show the same trend of a 
growing number of complaints in the Member States with  much waterborne traffic and 
few to none complaints in other States, however it is still to be determined how COVID-
19 has affected these numbers and passenger behaviour.59 

57 Figure 5, below. 
58 Support study, Table 3.1. 
59 Data from NEBs reporting in accordance with Article 26. 

21 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 5 - NEB reports of complaints 2010-2019, in years provided, by NEBs60 

Source: NEBs providing data for at least one year 2010 to 2019, Support study, Paragraph 3.9. 

The  complaints  submitted  concern  primarily  delays  of  services,  followed  by 
reimbursement and compensation issues and cancellations, as presented in Figure 6. 

Figure 6 - Nature of complaints received by NEBs 

Source: Support study analysis of stakeholder consultation, Paragraph 3.14. 

60  The  Irish  NEB,  which  received  between  1  and  3  complaints  in  2015  -  2017,  received  more  than  200 
complaints in 2018. The reason behind this is that a ferry company cancelled ferry sailings on a new route 
due to a delay in the delivery of a new ship. As a result, it had to arrange the re—routing of approximately 
20.000  affected  passengers,  some  of  whom  considered  that  the  ferry  company  did  not  fully  respect  their 
passenger  rights,  see  also  the  related  judgment  of  the  CJEU  2.9.2021,  Irish  Ferries  Ltd  v  National 
Transport Authority, C-570/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:664. 
22 

 
 
 
                                                           
There  has  been  no  emergence  of  claim  agencies  to  handle  complaints  from  passengers 
against  waterborne  carriers  on  the  basis  of  the  Regulation  contrary  to  what  has  been 
observed in air transport for instance. 

Monitoring activities 

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 
NEBs  may  take  action  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  rules  by  carriers  and  port 
infrastructure  managers.  Some  NEBs  report  that  they  take  a  proactive  approach  to  the 
protection of passenger rights and the monitoring of how the Regulation is applied, while 
others have reported to do little beyond complaint handling.61 In concrete terms, most of 
the 25 (out of 30)62 States that participated in the stakeholder consultation indicated that 
they,  with  a  significant  degree  of  variety,  carry  out  one  or  more  of  the  following 
monitoring activities: 

- 
- 
- 

-  monitoring of the homepages of waterborne carriers (e.g. to ensure that carrier’s 
general  terms  and  conditions  are  not  contrary  to  the  Regulation)  and  ports  and 
terminals (e.g. to check whether their quality standards are published); 
audits of ports and terminals and some also carriers; 
targeted inspections of carriers or ports and terminals; 
contact with port and terminal operators and carriers (in the form of meetings or 
by  written  correspondence)  to  inform  them  of  their  obligations  and  ensure  that 
they comply with them; 
cooperation  with organisations of persons with disabilities to gather information 
about  the  application  of  the  Regulation  (to  complement  the  information  they 
receive from the few formal complains  PRM submit to them); 
collection of data from carriers or ports and terminals concerning the application 
of the Regulation (by two NEBs at least).63 

- 

- 

Based on their monitoring activities, 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. From the information provided 
by  NEBs  it  is  clear  that  the  passenger  focused  maritime  transport  varies  a  lot  between 
Member  States  and  NEB  monitoring  activities  like  so.  It  is  worth  recalling  that,  in  the 
context of the support study, the NEBs that participated provided information about their 
monitoring activities for the period 1 March 2013 – 31 December 2019, as summarised in 
Table A6.2 in Annex 6. 

Sanctions 

Only  NEBs  from  four  Member  States  (Croatia,  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain)  indicated  that 
they imposed sanctions until 2019: the Croatian NEB imposed two sanctions, the Greek 
NEB imposed 25 sanctions, Italy and Spain imposed 60 sanctions each.  

61 Annex 6, Table A6.2 and support study, Appendix D. Responses reflect the period before COVID-19. 
62 Stakeholder Consultation Report, Paragraph 2.33. 

63 Support study, Appendix D. 

23 

 
                                                           
The  amount  of  sanctions  differs  a  lot  between  NEBs  with  e.g.  the  total  amount  of 
penalties imposed by the Greek NEB was EUR 6,530 compared to total amount of EUR 
877,495 which the Italian NEB imposed on operators as penalties. The minimum amount 
of penalty imposed by the Greek NEB was EUR 50 compared to the minimum EUR 500 
penalties  imposed  by  the  Italian  and  Spanish  NEBs.  The  maximum  amount  of  penalty 
imposed  was  EUR  1,000  in  case  of  the  Greek  NEB  and  EUR  106,300  by  the  Italian 
NEB.64  

NEBs  from  17  other  countries  (Austria,  Belgium,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, United 
Kingdom and Iceland) indicated that they did not impose any sanctions.65 

Litigation before national courts 

The support study found that there is very little litigation based on the Regulation before 
national courts and tribunals.66 

Litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union 

In September 2021, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered its first preliminary 
ruling related to the Regulation (C-570/19).67 

3.3.  Major recent developments 

Since the Regulation began to apply in 2012, there have been two major changes to the 
EU waterborne market with potential implications for passengers’ needs. 

Firstly,  along  with  the  increasing  digitalisation  in  the  sector,  carriers  sell  a  majority  of 
tickets  and  provide  much  information  online  or  via  an  app,  rather  than  at  ports.  Since 
2010,  there  has  been  strong  growth  in  online  bookings  and  the  use  of  IT-tools  to  plan 
journeys  has  increased  the  demand  for  real-time  information  available  to  passengers. 
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 
waterborne  market,  digitalisation  has  improved  services  for  the  majority  of  passengers 
but  has  resulted  in  the  exclusion  of  citizens  who  have  no  access  to  new  technologies, 
unable to use them or for whom the digital information is not provided in an accessible 
format.  This  was  confirmed  by  many  stakeholders,  including  operators,  NEBs  and 
passenger groups. 

Secondly,  the  unexpected  outbreak  of  COVID-19  caused  disruptions  in  waterborne 
traffic and made the health aspects of travel much more important for passengers. It also 
forced  NEBs  to  take  swift  action  with  regard  to  the  provision  of  information  to 

64 The sanction was calculated by multiplying the amount of the fine per passenger (between EUR 100 and 
EUR  600)  by  all  passengers  (1063)  travelling  on  the  ship  delayed  at  departure,  Support  study, 
Paragraph 3.20. 

65 Support study, Appendix D. 
66 Support study, Appendix D. 

67CJEU  2.9.2021,  Irish  Ferries  Ltd  v  National  Transport  Authority,  C-570/19,  ECLI:EU:C:2021:664 
Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 26 July 2019  — Irish Ferries Ltd v 
National Transport Authority OJ C 328, 30.9.2019, p. 30–32. 

24 

 
                                                           
passengers  and  ensuring  effective  reimbursements.  Associations  representing  operators 
indicated  to  the  Commission  that  reimbursement  of  passengers  in  case  of  cancelled 
services  by  the  operators  put  certain  carriers  in  a  very  difficult  financial  situation. 
However, they did not quantify this issue during the stakeholder consultation. 

Apart  from  these  changes  occurring  in  several  sectors,  no  specific  changes  to  the 
waterborne market have been observed. 

25 

 
 
 
4. 

METHODOLOGY 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

The evaluation of the Regulation started with the publication of a roadmap68 on 11 July 
2019 and was  overseen  by  an  Inter-Service Steering  Group  (see details  in Annex 1).  It 
builds  on  the  outcome  of  the  public  consultation  conducted  from  3  July  2020  to  23 
October  202069,  and,  to  a  large  extent,  on  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.70 

The support study findings are supplemented by  additional information gathered by the 
Commission  during  its  monitoring  of  the  Regulation’s  implementation  across  Member 
States, 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 people affected by the Regulation.  

This  evaluation  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. 

The support study referred to above was based on: 

-  Analysis of the  public consultation responses;  
-  Targeted stakeholder consultation, via questionnaires and interviews;  
-  Desktop research; 
-  Three case studies; 
-  Country  fiches  developed  for  all  EU27  Member  States,  Iceland,  Norway  and  the 

United Kingdom;  

-  A participatory workshop with selected stakeholders;  
-  Development of a baseline position; and 
-  A cost-benefit analysis. 

The stakeholder consultation targeted the following six stakeholder groups: 

passenger organisations, including representatives of persons with disabilities; 

- 
-  NEBs; 
- 
- 
-  ADR bodies and ECCs; and 
- 

ferry, cruise and inland waterway operators and their associations; 
port operators and their association; 

other relevant industry associations (e.g. travel agents). 

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 

68https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11878-Sea-and-inland-waterway-
transport-passengers-rights-evaluation-_en  
69https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11878-Sea-and-inland-waterway-
transport-passengers-rights-evaluation-_en 
70 Support study, Chapter 2. 

26 

 
                                                           
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  allows  to  address  the  costs  of  the  Regulation  for  Member  States 
(NEBs), industry stakeholders and passengers. It allowed for the quantification of actual 
costs  (i.e.  financial  or  monetised  time  costs)  resulting  from  the  requirements  of  the 
Regulation. 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

While  Eurostat  has  data  related  to  maritime  passenger  transport  in  the  EU  based  on 
figures  communicated  by  Member  States,  there  is  little  accurate  and  up-to-date 
information  on  the  particularities  of  the  market  affected  by  the  Regulation  and  the 
specific    profile  of  passengers  benefitting  from  it  (e.g.  there  is  no  information  on  the 
number  of  PRM  travelling  by  waterborne  transport  or  passengers  travelling  with  their 
cars).  Consequently,  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  benefits  of  the  legislation  with  any 
precision, although costs and benefits have been quantified where possible. 

During  the  evaluation,  inputs  from  a  range  of  stakeholders  were  gathered:  NEBs, 
passenger  organisations  (including  PRM  organisations),  carriers,  ports  and  their 
organisations, ADRs, etc. including from NEBs. In addition, the biennial activity reports 
of NEBs – and the homepages of major European carriers were analysed, together with 
data from recognised industry sources.  

However,  carriers  from  the  Baltic  and  ports  from  Mediterranean  region  were 
underrepresented  in  the  stakeholder  consultation.  In  addition,  some  of  this  information 
was  provided  in  the  context  of  the  support  study  on  a  confidential  basis.  Furthermore, 
quantity and quality of data was limited in several instances, for example sources do not 
always  differentiate  between  cruise  and  non-cruise  passengers  and  there  is  very  little 
information available on passengers travelling on inland waterways. Also, the number of 
passengers requiring assistance was not recorded. In these instances, it was necessary to 
derive assumptions from a combination of data. 

Further  appropriate  assumptions,  based  on  information  provided  during  the  stakeholder 
consultation  and  industry  press  articles,  were  used  to  make  up  for  a  relatively  low 
availability  of  data.  When  data  directly  related  to  the  waterborne  industry  were  not 
sufficient  to  build  these  assumptions,  e.g.  on  PRM,  more  robust  data  from  the  support 
study to the ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 was incorporated. 

27 

 
 
 
5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This chapter presents the findings on how the Regulation performs 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 and assistance to passengers travelling by sea and inland 
waterway  transport  throughout  Member  States?  To  what  extent  have  the  measures 
adopted in the Regulation ensured the same level of passenger rights protection across 
the EU? 

The  objective  of  the  Regulation  is  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  for  passengers, 
comparable  to  the  level  of  protection  in  other  modes  of  transport.  This  objective  is 
reflected in the preamble of the Regulation, where it is recognised that the maritime and 
inland  waterway  passenger  is  the  “weaker  party  to  the  transport  contract”  and  that  all 
passengers  should  be  granted  “a  minimum  level  of  protection”  within  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation covering most types of waterborne services within the European Union. 

The  Regulation  granted  harmonised  substantive  rights 
travelling 
throughout  the  Member  States.  As  mentioned  earlier,  in  some  Member  States  national 
legislation  did  not  grant  rights  to  waterborne  passengers,  and  there  were  significant 
differences between the levels of national protection of waterborne passengers. 

to  passengers 

The  comprehensive  scope  of  the  Regulation  contributes  to  the  general  objective  of  the 
Regulation. In particular as no major exemptions were made. Whilst Article 2(4) of the 
Regulation  permits  Member  States  to  exempt  services  covered  by  PSO  from  the 
application of the Regulation, provided that the rights of passengers under the Regulation 
are comparably guaranteed under national law, this exemption has not been used in any 
Member States. This contributes significantly to an equivalent protection of passengers. 

There are significant variations between the NEBs powers to enforce the Regulation and 
their approach to monitoring and sanctioning. In addition, many NEBs decisions related 
to complaints are not legally binding. As a result, the Regulation so far did not ensure in 
practice  the  same  level  of  passenger  protection  across  the  EU.  However,  data  on 
monitoring and enforcement is very limited to provide a more detailed assessment on the 
differences across Member States. 

There are a few external circumstances of the waterborne sector which can significantly 
affect the implementation of waterborne passenger rights: 

-  Vessel  accessibility  varies  across  operators  and  it  affects  whether  PRM  can  use 
the respective waterborne  services: usually there  is  a strong correlation  between 
the  age  of  a  vessel  and  its  accessibility  among  others  because  Directive 

28 

 
 
2009/45/EC  on  safety  rules  and  standards  for  passenger  ships71  establishes 
requirements  for  certain  categories  of  ships  which  were  built  later  than  2004. 
Consequently,  it  can  be  very  important  from  the  point  of  view  of  accessibility 
whether  the  ship  was  built  before  or  after  this  date.  In  addition,  accessibility  of 
different  ports  also  differs  and  accessibility  of  ports  is  not  regulated  neither  by 
this Regulation nor any other EU legislation; 

-  Services  offered,  frequency  and 

the  number  of  operating  carriers  vary 
significantly  by  route,  and  this  can  limit  the  scope  for  offering  passengers  re-
routing options with comparable conditions; and 

-  Terminal and port facilities differ across Member States and at specific locations, 
affecting  the  extent  to  which  passengers,  particularly  PRMs,  are  provided  with 
assistance and information. 

As  regards  service  offers,  passengers  not  travelling  with  their  cars  or  by  coach  (the  so 
called “foot passengers”), are not allowed on services operated by a number of carriers, 
including those operating on some of the most important routes in Europe.72 It is unclear 
why  operators  impose  these  restrictions,  which  tend  to  be  route-  or  timetable-specific. 
The  restrictions  may  reflect  a  lack  of  port  handing  services  or  a  lack  of  availability  of 
customs or immigration services able to handle this category of passengers. In practice, 
foot  passengers  are  mostly  travelling  on  rural  services  or  on  those  operating  to  tourist 
destinations. 

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

(a) Non-discriminatory fares and contract conditions apply to every passenger? 

The Regulation requires that “without prejudice to social tariffs, the contract conditions 
and  tariffs  applied  by  carriers  or  ticket  vendors  shall  be  offered  to  the  general  public 
without  any  direct  or  indirect  discrimination  based  on  the  nationality  of  the  final 
customer or on the place of establishment of carriers or ticket vendors within the Union”. 
Unfortunately  the  scarce  data  available  on  this  aspect  is  not  sufficient  to  make  any 
conclusions related to this aspect. 

Analysing  the  available  NEB  reports  covering  the  years  2013-2018,  only  one  Member 
State reported complaints concerning discriminatory contract conditions or tariffs, whilst 
another  Member  State  reported  complaints  concerning  ticket  sales.  However,  in  both 
instances,  no  additional  details  on  the  substance  of  complaints  were  provided.73  NEBs 
indicated  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  that  they  monitor  the  application  of  this 
provision of the Regulation through audits and based on passenger complaints.74 

An analysis of the terms and conditions of the largest ferry operators by revenue in each 
of  the  top  four  Member  States  by  numbers  of  embarking  and  disembarking  seaborne 
passengers  and  has  shown  that  none  of  these  include  provisions  which  discriminate 

71 Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on safety rules and 
standards for passenger ships (OJ L 163, 25.6.2009, p. 1–140).  
72  Support  study,  Paragraph  3.52  and  Table  3.7  shows  that  Brittany  Ferries,  DFDS,  Irish  Ferries,  P&O, 
Stena Line and TT Line all have restrictions on foot passengers on some of their routes or in specified time 
periods. 
73 Support study, Paragraph 3.3. 
74 Support study, Stakeholder Consultation. 

29 

 
                                                           
directly  or  indirectly  based  on  nationality.  A  random  check  on  fares  for  specific  ferry 
services available on carriers’ websites  confirmed that fares for a  given  service did  not 
differ between country websites.75 All carriers consulted indicated that the Regulation has 
not  influenced  how  they  ensure  that  non-discriminatory  fares  and  contract  conditions 
apply to every passenger.76 

(b) Passengers are informed of their rights and are able to exercise them by complaint 
procedures set up by carriers? 

The  text  of  the  Regulation  is  generally  available  on  operators’  and  NEBs’  websites  as 
well  as  on  the  dedicated  website  of  Your  Europe.77  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. 

As  several  provisions  of  the  Regulation  require  carriers  and  operators  to  communicate 
their  legal  responsibilities  to  passengers  with  respect  to  passenger  rights  and  PRM 
assistance,  communicating  information  is  a  broad  issue  and  involves  provision  of 
information about rights before, during and after the journey. 

The only indicator of the increasing awareness of the passenger rights, including the right 
to  complain  is  the  recent  increase  in  the  number  of  complaints  submitted  to  NEBs  and 
ADRs.78  Although  NEBs  count  and  report  the  number  of  complaints  they  receive 
differently  (as  mentioned  earlier,  some  NEBs  include  in  their  statistics  all  complaints 
received  while  others  only  include  complaints  within  the  scope  of  the  Regulation)  and 
differences  with  respect  to  handling  complaints  can  be  based  on  different  structures  of 
NEBs  and  ADRs,  an  increase  in  the  number  of  complaints  can  be  measured.  The 
increasing trend in complaints in the countries with the highest level of waterborne traffic 
does not appear to correlate with the fluctuating traffic levels since 2012, thus suggesting 
that passengers have become more aware of their rights. It must however be noted that as 
the  number  of  complaints  is  low,  it  is  not  possible  to  draw  firm  conclusions  from  the 
analysis.  Also,  the  evidence  is  insufficient  to  draw  firm  conclusions  on  the  degree  of 
compliance with the requirements of the Regulation as the number of complaints may be 
increasing  solely  because  passengers  are  more  aware  of  their  rights,  or  alternatively 
because instances of non-compliance are increasing. 

It seems from the information gathered by the support study that there are no complaints 
related  to  the  breach  of  PRM  rights,  either  because  according  to  PRM  representatives 
PRMs are less likely to complain than other passengers or because NEBs do not need to 
distinguish  between  complaints  related  to  PRM  rights  and  complaints  related  to  other 
passenger rights when registering them.79 Another reason might be that PRM passengers 
could be less likely to face some of the issues they experience on other transport modes, 
especially in case of car ferries which can be accessed by PRM with their own vehicle, 

75 Support Study, Paragraph 3.5. 
76 Support study, Stakeholder consultation, Paragraph 3.15. 
77 https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/ship/index_en.htm.  
78 Figure 5 - NEB reports of complaints 2010-2019 provided by NEBs. 
79 Support study, Paragraph 3.14. 

30 

 
                                                           
thus solving issues of assistance and accessibility when embarking or disembarking the 
ferry. 

In any case, as explained above, according to the latest Eurobarometer survey, awareness 
of waterborne passenger rights is still lower compared to awareness of passenger rights in 
aviation. 

Most  carriers  have  indicated  that  the  Regulation  has  influenced  their  approach  to 
communicating  information.  They  also  indicated  that  the  Regulation  has  affected  their 
customer care departments, as it was necessary to provide sufficient resources.80 

(c)  PRMs  have  opportunities  for  waterborne  travel  comparable  to  those  of  other 
passengers. 

PRM tend to book their travel in the same way as other passengers and afterwards notify 
the carrier or terminal operator of their need for assistance. This leads to a cumbersome 
process for PRM, as the booking for them involves two steps as compared to the one-step 
process  for  other  passengers.  However,  it  ensures  that  PRM  are  not  denied  boarding. 
Also, according to the Regulation, pre-notification is not compulsory, ensuring that PRM 
are not penalised for failing to pre-notify, and that “carriers and terminal operators shall 
nonetheless make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the assistance is provided in such a 
way  that  the  person  with  disability  or  person  with  reduced  mobility  is  able  to  embark, 
disembark and travel on the ship”. 

The stakeholder consultation indicates that most NEBs consider that the Regulation has 
provided PRM with more opportunities for waterborne travel, and that such opportunities 
are mostly comparable to those of all other passengers. 

There  is  evidence  suggesting  significant  room  for  improvement  of  the  assistance 
provided  to  PRM.  In  particular,  the  entrance  to  the  port  area  is  often  far  from  the 
boarding terminal and it is not always clear where assistance is available between the two 
locations.81  Although  PRM  assistance  tasks  on  board  vessels  and  at  ports  are  listed  in 
Annexes II and III of the Regulation, the allocation of responsibilities of PRM assistance 
between carriers and port operators could be further clarified. Several stakeholders have 
also  noted  the  critical  importance  of  making  both  vessels  and  ports  more  accessible, 
which might need investment. Furthermore, whilst the Regulation determines that travel 
agents  and  tour  operators  should  communicate  the  relevant  information,  it  leaves  them 
the choice of liaising with ports or carriers. It is also not clear whether these agents and 
operators  can  be  relied  upon  to  liaise  with  one  another  to  ensure  that  assistance  is 
seamless. Furthermore, unlike in air transport, no specific communication channels exist 
between agents, ports and operators, which requires them to contact one another using ad 
hoc channels, based on information available. 

With respect to the obligation of the Regulation requiring terminal operators and carriers 
operating  port  terminals  or  passenger  services  with  more  than  100.000  passenger 
movements per calendar year to publish quality standards for assistance of PRM (Art. 13 
of  the  Regulation),  the  support  study  examined  the  homepages  of  several  ports  and 

80 Support study, Paragraph 3.6. 
81 Support study, Paragraph 3.32. 

31 

 
                                                           
carriers:  while  only  a  very  limited  number  of  ports  and  ferry  companies  published  on 
their  website  information  on  such  quality  standards,  all  cruise  operators  examined 
published such information on their websites.82 

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

It cannot be determined whether the obligations imposed by the Regulation on operators 
have  created  an  incentive  to  improve  reliability  and  therefore  to  reduce  the  number  of 
cancellations or delays, as no quantitative data can be identified on trends in the number 
of cancellations, the number and duration of delays, or the scale and type of re-routing  
available. 

It can however be concluded that the inconvenience to passengers has been reduced as a 
result  of  the  obligations  in  the  Regulation  to  reimburse  or  to  re-route  in  the  case  of 
cancellation  or  significant  delay  of  the  service.  The  Regulation  includes  multiple 
provisions  in  the  case  of  cancellation  or  delay,  notably  the  obligation  to  provide 
information (Article 16), assistance (Article 17), options for re-routing or reimbursement 
(Article 18), and compensation (Article 19), which must be paid independently of when 
such  cancellation  or  delay  is  communicated  to  passengers.  However,  according  to  the 
Eurobarometer  2019  survey,  only  38%  of  respondents  who  experienced  significant 
disruptions during their waterborne journeys benefitted from some form of remedy. 

Re-routing, can be in practice a complex process, as it depends on the service frequency 
and  availability  of  alternative  service  providers  on  different  routes,  and  therefore  re-
routing options must be established case-by-case.  

With  respect  to  compensation,  a  majority  of  stakeholders  during  the  stakeholder 
consultation  expressed  the  view  that  the  flat  rate  of  25  and  50%  of  the  ticket  price 
(depending  on  the  length  of  delay)  were  set  at  appropriate  levels.  Two  NEBs  however 
noted that the time thresholds are longer comparable to those for other transport modes.83 

In the cruise sector (both maritime and inland waterways cruises), delays tend to be less 
important during the cruise than delays at the destination, which may lead to passengers 
missing their land connection. 

Around  70%  of  carrier  stakeholders  participating  (8  out  of  11)  in  the  consultation 
consider that the Regulation has not had an impact on carriers’ operating practices. Those 
carriers  indicating  that  the  Regulation  impacted  their  operating  practices  indicated  that 
this impact did not relate to vessel operations, but rather to investments on notification of 
information to passengers. 

(e)  Member  States  and  National  Enforcement  Bodies  take  the  measures  necessary  to 
ensure the enforcement of the Regulation? 

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 

82 Support study appendices C (notable the case study on cruises) and E (“Carrier Review”) and paragraph 
3.33. 
83 Support study, Paragraph 3.26. 

32 

 
                                                           
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 
(among other actions the use of sanctions) vary significantly from one Member State to 
another,  as  mentioned  in  Chapter  3,  which  may  hinder  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Regulation. 

The  low  number  of  complaints  filed  to  NEBs  can  be  explained  by  different  reasons, 
however  it  is  important  to  take  note  of  the  fact  that  the  evidence  available  is  often 
insufficient  to  make  any  final  conclusions  on  the  root  cause  of  the  low  number  of 
complaints. 

The following reasons are nevertheless reckoned to contribute to the fact that passengers 
submit very few complaints:  

-  Many passengers may still not be aware of their rights; 

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

and do not handle complaints of individual passengers; 

-  Passengers in general do not experience many cancellations or delays; 

-  Carriers deliver a high degree of service on the spot, e.g. when a delay occurs or they 

handle the complaints they receive to the satisfaction of the passenger; 

-  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  binding  on 
operators,  passengers  must  seek  another  instrument  to  obtain  redress,  resulting  in 
passenger rights not being effectively enforced.84 

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.  

Although  there  is  in  general  a  low  number  of  complaints,  there  has  been  an  increasing 
trend in the amount of complaints to the NEBs in recent years from under 100 complaints 
before 2015 to more than 500 complaints in 2018 and 2019. It remains that the number is 
still very low taking the number of passengers carried into consideration (one complaint 
per million passengers).85 

Monitoring activities of carriers, terminals and other parts of the industry’s supply chain 
carried  out  by  the  NEBs  contribute  to  ensure  the  enforcement  of  the  Regulation.  This 
may  help  improve  the  effectiveness  in  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation.  Although 
the  Regulation  obliges  NEBs  to  take  all  the  measures  necessary  to  ensure  compliance, 
there is no uniform approach to monitoring activities. Where most NEBs have informed 
that they “monitor and oversee compliance with the Regulation” other NEBs have added 

84As  shown  by  Special  Eurobarometer  Survey  No  485  on  passenger  rights  the  share  of  those  who 
experienced a disruption experienced a disruption, which say that remedial action was taken was relatively 
low  in  respect  to  other  modes:  38%  in  waterborne,  compared  to  53%  in  air,  43%  in  rail,  38%  in  bus  & 
coach. 
85 Figure 5 - NEB reports of complaints 2010-2019 provided by NEBs. 

33 

 
                                                           
more proactive monitoring such as anonymous purchase tests, they inspect the safety and 
accessibility  of  passenger  ships,  audit  terminals  and  ticket  vendors  and  others  again 
check carrier websites.86 Where such monitoring activities are undertaken, they consist of 
periodic  assessments  of  carriers’  and  terminal  operators’  websites  to  ascertain  whether 
information  on  passenger  rights  is  available  and  the  carriers’  general  conditions  of 
carriage  are  compliant  with  the  Regulation.  In  other  Member  States,  no  such  proactive 
monitoring was reported during the consultation.  

Moreover, some Member States use PSO contracts, which gives the contracting authority 
a greater ability to oversee the performance and behaviors of carriers (including aspects 
related to passenger/consumer) than if they were operating on a purely commercial and 
competitive basis. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  some  Member  States  have  also  worked  on  supporting  the 
enforcement  through  other  means,  e.g.  through  information  campaigns  and  runs 
information services.  

Whether the approaches taken by Member States, 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. 

A common approach among Member States with respect to imposing sanctions is also 
missing. As mentioned in Chapter 3, only four NEBs (Croatia, Greece, Italy and Spain) 
have imposed penalties87,  which means that the sanction procedures remain untested in 
most Member States. The  total  number of sanctions  were very low (only 127 penalties 
imposed  by  all  NEBs  in  the  period  between  2013  and  2019)  and  often  the  sum  of  the 
penalties is low (e.g. most of the 25 penalties imposed by the Greek NEB are of a sum of 
EUR 150 or less).88 

Only  a  limited  number  of  NEBs  provided  information  on  the  maximum  values  of  the 
penalties  they  can  impose.  Where  such  data  is  available,  it  can  be  noted  that  there  are 
significant differences in the minimum and maximum amount of the penalties that can be 
issued.89 

The  relatively  low  amounts  of  penalties  could  raise  doubts  whether  the  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. 

86 Annex 6, Table 6.2 – Enforcement approach of NEBs. 
87  The  majority  of  sanctions  concerned  the  breaches  of  the  Regulation  with  respect  of  obligations  to 
provide  information  for  passengers,  re-routing  and  reimbursement  and  the  lack  of  appropriate  complaint 
handling. 
88 Table A6.3: Financial Sanctions issued by NEBs. 
89 Table A6.2: Enforcement approach of NEBs. 

34 

 
                                                           
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 of data.90 If not foreseen under national 
law  or  by  Article  13  of  the  Regulation,  the  NEBs  cannot  rely  on  reports  of  carriers, 
because these are not in general obliged to report 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  order  to  implement  the  Regulation  and 
statistics on complaints and sanctions applied (Article 26).  

When  coming  to  the  establishment  of  some  NEBs  and  their  enforcement,  some 
weaknesses  have  been  identified:  The  Italian  and  the  United  Kingdom  NEBs  are  for 
instance not  empowered to impose sanctions if certain provisions of the Regulation  are 
not respected.92 

In  addition,  although  most  NEBs  can  impose  sanctions  directly  as  an  administrative 
procedure,  the  Irish  and  the  United  Kingdom  NEBs  must  refer  the  matter  to  a  court, 
whilst  the  Danish  and  Portuguese  NEBs  must  report  the  infringement  to  another  body 
which decides whether to impose sanctions or not.  

Without  sufficient  monitoring  activities  and  enforcement  measures  backed  up  by 
effective  sanctions,  the  effectiveness  of  NEBs’  powers  is  and  will  remain  limited.  
This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  in  practice,  differences  do  occur  with  respect  to  the 
effective level of protection provided to passengers in different Member States, which is 
especially an issue for passengers travelling across borders. It also leads to differences in 
an  otherwise  level-playing  field  across  the  European  Union  because  operators  do  not 
compete on a similar basis. 

Furthermore, EU carriers competing on specific routes with  carriers established outside 
the EU, such as routes to or from North Africa, might have disadvantages compared to 
their  non-EU  competitors.  Whilst  the  Regulation  applies  to  carriers  established  outside 
the EU and operating to and from Member States, non-EU countries do not necessarily 
have regulatory bodies with responsibilities comparable to those of NEBs. The fact that 
these  carriers  are  established  outside  the  EU  might  lead  to  difficulties  to  ensure  the 
payment  of  penalties  (this  particular  observation  by  is  based  on  anecdotal  evidence  by 
EU  carriers  and  no  other  supporting  evidence  was  identified  to  confirm  these 
difficulties). 

In order to assess the effectiveness of the enforcement of passenger rights by NEBs in the 
context of the COVID-19 pandemic, recent information has been analysed, focusing on 
the reimbursement of tickets to passengers in the event of cancellation of travels. 

90 See also Annex 3 on Limitations and robustness of findings and Annex 6, Table A6.4: Reports by NEBs 
according to Article 26 of the Regulation. 
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. 
92 The IT NEB cannot impose sanctions for infringement of Article 19, and the UK NEB can only impose 
sanctions for infringements of some provisions (see those articles in the UK legislation adopting sanctions 
The Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) Regulations 2013). Support study, Paragraph 3.45. 

35 

 
                                                           
Only  in  about  half  of  the  Member  States  where  passengers  were  affected  by  a  service 
cancellation  were  they  refunded  or  at  least  granted  the  choice  between  reimbursement 
and  vouchers,  in  the  event  of  journeys  cancelled  by  carriers.  Specifically,  based  on  the 
data received, the solutions found on the issue of reimbursement in the form of vouchers 
include  refunds  granted  on  demand,  refunds  upon  NEB  request  and  resolution  of 
complaints  in  an  amicable  way.  Nevertheless  the data available so  far of complaints  to 
NEBs do not show a significant rise in the number of complaints in 2020. 

As mentioned above, the Commission started in August 2020 informal dialogues with all 
Member  States  regarding  the  application  of  passenger  rights  in  all  modes  of  transport 
including waterborne in the context of COVID-19 and the obligations of NEBs to report 
on their activities. These procedures are still ongoing. 

The protection of the waterborne passenger rights can be complemented by wider public 
enforcement  mechanisms  established  under  the  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation 
Regulation as underlined by Recital 28 of the Regulation. So far, this Regulation has not 
been used for waterborne 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 waterborne 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. 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 exchange between them. 

In any case, the interaction between the specific system of redress dedicated to passenger 
rights  (carriers and NEBs)  by the Regulation and the other enforcement tools  available 
more widely (ADR, courts), also adds to the complexity of the system. 

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

Several factors have contributed to the achievement of the objectives of the Regulation: 

- 

the  Regulation  entrusted  NEBs  with  monitoring  compliance  and  with 
enforcement,  following  a  similar  approach  to  that  followed  in  other  European 
passenger rights legislation; 

93  Recently  the  CPC-Regulation  has  been  used  for  the  better  enforcement  of  air  passenger  rights, 
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. 

36 

 
                                                           
- 

- 

the  Regulation  built  on  a  pre-existing  requirement  to  ensure  the  accessibility  of 
vessels  providing  passenger  services  within  the  European  Union  imposed  by 
Directive 2009/45/EC; 
the  expansion  of  digital  technology  and  the  availability  of  services  and 
information  via smart devices  have  complemented the Regulation by improving 
accessibility of information and broader aspects of customer service. 

- 

- 

Other factors have prevented the potential benefits of the Regulation from being realised: 
some NEBs have been less proactive than others in enforcing the requirements of 
the Regulation. The lack of consistent enforcement activities and the limited level 
of interaction suggests that potential for common approaches  to the same issues 
remains unused; 
the  availability  and  quality  of  services  and  facilities  (such  as  waiting  rooms, 
toilets and facilities offering refreshments) vary considerably across ports across 
the European Union. This can be explained by the fact that most ports are heavily 
geared  towards  freight  traffic  and  less  focussed  on  passengers  or  are  only 
equipped  for  passengers  arriving  and  leaving  the  terminal  by  vehicle.  Limited 
terminal  facilities  can  constrain  carriers  seeking  to  meet  their  obligations  under 
the Regulation. Also, a lack of PRM assistance points in ports was identified; 
the availability or opening times of catering facilities can hinder the realisation of 
the  obligation  to  provide  free  of  charge  snacks,  meals  or  refreshments  in 
reasonable relation to the waiting time which is an obligation for carriers in case 
of delayed or cancelled services; 
it  is  unclear  whether  channels  of  communication  between  carriers,  ports,  travel 
agents  and  passengers  are  adequate  as  in  instances  where  tickets  are  purchased 
other than from the carrier, such information of contact details must be passed to 
the carrier or port; 

- 

- 

-  The  general lack of sanctions could  also  suggest  that incentives  to  comply  with 

the legislation can be weak. 

5.1.4.  What  have  been  the  effects  (positive  or  negative  impacts)  of  the  Regulation? 
Were  there  any  unintended  or  unexpected  effects?  Could  all  the  changes  observed 
since the entry into force of the Regulation be credited to the Regulation?  

Some evidence can be found that the Regulation has led to improvements for passengers, 
including  PRM,  across  the  European  Union.  In  particular,  the  following  improvements 
can be named: 

-  greater  awareness  of  the  needs  of  passengers  during  disruption  in  terms  of 

information provision as well as broader care and assistance; 

-  greater  awareness  of  the  needs  of  PRMs,  even  if  the  situation  remains  varied 

across Member States; 

-  greater consistency of treatment across operators, ports and Member States; and 
- 

a system for addressing complaints. 

As indicated in the baseline analysis, in 2013, 50 million passengers benefitted from an 
improvement  in  the  quality  of  rights,  and  the  Regulation  benefitted  passengers  by 
37 

 
 
 
providing access to assistance in the event of a cancellation to 1 million passengers, and 
improving the quality of rights available to further 1.4 million passengers. 

However, it must be taken into account that few NEBs commented on the impact of the 
Regulation  in  the  course  of  the  consultation  exercise.  Also,  one  NEB  stated  that  no 
specific studies on the effect of the Regulation have been undertaken, suggesting that no 
firm conclusion can be drawn. The scarce evidence provided indicates that, in practice, 
the  effects  have  varied  between  Member  States,  partly  as  a  result  of  variations  in  the 
extent  to  which  NEBs  have  been  empowered  to  enforce  the  requirements  of  the 
legislation: 

- 

two  NEBs  reported  that  the  Regulation  has  influenced  the  behaviour  of  many 
carriers,  while  one  noted  it  reflected  in  the  improved  information  on  passenger 
rights and on complaints procedures; 

-  one  NEB  explained  that  operators  are  aware  of  costs,  so  they  ensure  to  have 
replacement  vessels  at  their  disposal,  although  another  NEB  stated  that  carriers 
have not increased their operational times to reduce the risk of delays.95 

It  must  also  be  noted,  that  some  elements  of  the  Regulation  have  not  been  fully 
implemented. This  must be said  with  respect  to  the information  on passenger rights  on 
ports’ websites that often have no such mention but in a few instances with the indication 
of passenger facilities or contact details.96 

A  further  concern,  which  cannot  be  directly  attributed  to  the  Regulation,  relates  to  the 
transport  industry’s  increasing  reliance  on  information  technology.  Foremost,  it  can  be 
considered  positive  that  the  use  of  such  technology  allows  carriers  to  forward 
information  to  passengers  in  real  time,  and  can  be  particularly  helpful  in  managing 
cancellations,  delays,  re-routing,  complaint-handling  and  reimbursement.  Whilst  this  is 
helpful to the majority of passengers, a substantial proportion of whom have access to a 
smart  device,  it  can  result  in  some  passengers  being  ‘left  behind’,  particularly  where  it 
leads to a decline in the use of other methods of communication, including the provision 
of ticket offices and information desks. 

Whilst it is not clear which changes can be linked to the Regulation and which changes 
would have occurred also as a result of competition, technology and broader changes in 
social  awareness,  most  stakeholders  have  indicated  that  carriers  did  not  change  their 
operational practices such as service schedule and fleet allocation to routes as a result of 
the  Regulation.  A  number  of  carriers  also  emphasised  that  customer  satisfaction  is  an 
important  business  objective  by  itself.97  Thus,  the  management  of  customer  relations 
would be undertaken regardless of the requirements of the Regulation. 

No  unexpected  effects,  neither  positive  nor  negative,  related  to  the  Regulation  were 
identified.  Especially,  no  evidence  could  be  found  that  fares  have  been  affected  by  the 
Regulation. These depend mainly on demand, price elasticity, competition scenarios, and 
target return on investment. 

95 Support study, Paragraph 3.39. 
96 Support study, Paragraph 3.40. 
97 Support study, Paragraph 3.42. 

38 

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

The  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  has  been  limited  due  to  the  fact  that  several  of  its 
provisions have been difficult to interpret, particularly because there has been an absence 
of case law of the CJEU until recently. 

NEBs  and  carriers  indicated  that  they  had  difficulties  in  particular  in  interpreting  the 
following notions: “re-routing under comparable transport conditions” and “at the earliest 
opportunity”, the scope of extraordinary circumstances, or what is comprised in the ticket 
price which serves as the basis to compensate for delays and cancellation.98 

In its recent preliminary ruling (C-570/19)99, delivered in September 2021 (i.e. after the 
evaluation period), the CJEU interpreted some of these notions. Among others, the CJEU 
ruled that: 

-  passengers  are  entitled  to  receive  compensation  in  case  they  request  rerouting  and 
their service arrives later than the initial booking at the final destination even if the 
carrier  informed  passengers  well  in  advance  about  the  cancellation  of  the  original 
service or change in the schedule; 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the concept of ‘ticket price’ includes costs related to the additional optional services 
chosen  by  the  passenger,  such  as  the  booking  of  a  cabin  or  a  kennel,  or  access  to 
premium lounges; 

in case there is no alternative ferry service on the same route, the carrier is required to 
offer the passenger, by virtue of the passengers right to re-routing under comparable 
conditions and at the earliest opportunity to the final destination provided for in that 
provision,  an  alternative  service  that  follows  a  different  itinerary  from  that  of  the 
cancelled service or a maritime service coupled with other modes of transport, such 
as rail or road transport, and is required to bear any additional costs incurred by the 
passenger in re-routing to the final destination; 

the right of passengers to be re-routed at “no additional costs”  means that the carrier 
must  bear  any  additional  costs  incurred  by  the  passenger  in  re-routing  to  the  final 
destination, “such as fuel or road tolls which the passenger incurred in order to travel 
to  the  alternative  port  of  embarkation,  or  to  leave  the  alternative  port  of 
disembarkation and travel to the port of disembarkation originally scheduled, or costs 
incurred  by  the  passenger  when  travelling  by  road  or  rail  in  connection  with  a 
landbridge“100; 

the term of “extraordinary circumstances” must be interpreted strictly, by taking into 
account recitals 17 and 19 of the preamble as well as the CJEU case-law relating to 
that  concept,  developed  in  the  context  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  261/2004  on  air 
passenger  rights.  In  the  Case  Irish  Ferries,  the  Court  specifically  stated  that 
“Article 20(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that 

98 Example C.46, C.64, footnote 95 and Table C16 of the support study. 
99 CJEU 2.9.2021, Irish Ferries Ltd v National Transport Authority, C-570/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:664. 
100  CJEU  2.9.2021,  Irish  Ferries  Ltd  v  National  Transport  Authority,  C-570/19,  ECLI:EU:C:2021:664, 
Paragraph 66. 

39 

 
                                                           
the late delivery  of a passenger transport vessel  which led to  the  cancellation of all 
sailings to be operated by that vessel in the context of a new maritime route does not 
fall  within  the  concept  of  ‘extraordinary  circumstances’  within  the  meaning  of  that 
provision”.101 

The CJEU’s preliminary ruling is a significant step towards improving the legal clarity of 
certain  provisions  although  it  does  not  solve  all  the  legal  questions  related  to  these 
provisions. 

Lack of clarity and gaps 

Compensation of the ticket price in the event of delay at departure 

The  right  to  compensation  in  the  event  of  delay  at  departure  needs  clarification,  as  the 
Regulation does not specify whether a “delay” should be calculated at the time the ship 
berths or the time the doors are opened. 

The  Regulation  requires  carriers  to  pay  compensation  for  delays  even  though  these 
delays  may  depend  on  the  efficiency  of  towage  operations  or  port  berthing  activities. 
Whilst in other Regulations such as Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on air passenger rights 
(Article  13)  it  is  clarified  that  the  rights  of  carriers  regarding  redress  against  any  third 
party responsible for the disruption are not to be interpreted in such a way as restricting 
this  right  of  redress,  no  such  clarification  is  made  in  the  Regulation  on  waterborne 
transport. 

Information in the event of cancelled or delayed departures 

The  provision  of  information  about  delays  and  cancellations  is  a  dynamic  process 
including regular updates on the status of the service. The Regulation mandates carriers, 
or  where  appropriate  the  terminal  operator,  to  inform  passengers  about  delays  and 
cancellations. Communication via contact details provided by passengers can be essential 
in  this  context.  The  recollection  of  such  information  may  however  be  difficult.  The 
Regulation  neither  requires  passengers  to  provide  contact  details,  nor  does  it  set  out 
obligations  on  carriers  or  terminals  to  exchange  such  contact  details  with  the  aim  of 
informing the passengers about cancellations and delays. When contact details have not 
been  passed  on  in  the  case  of  a  booking  with  a  travel  agent  or  tour  operator,  no  such 
information can be given. Particularly, sharing this type of personal data is governed by 
the General  Data  Protection  Regulation (GDPR).102 Travel  agents  or tour operators  also 
regard such contact details as commercially sensitive, since these passengers form their 
customer base. Another key issue is the actual capacity to provide passengers with real 
time  information  on  the  status  of  the  service,  regardless  of  where  the  passenger  is  at  a 
given  time  and  which  technologies  the  passengers  are  in  possession  of.  Contact  details 

101  CJEU  2.9.2021,  Irish  Ferries  Ltd  v  National  Transport  Authority,  C-570/19,  ECLI:EU:C:2021:664, 
Paragraph 177. 
102  Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such  data,  and  repealing  Directive  95/46/EC  (General  Data  Protection  Regulation)  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance)  OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
would need to  be in  a format such as an e-mail or a mobile device number that allows 
carriers to provide information both regularly, with updates on the status of the transport 
service,  and  independently  of  the  location  of  the  passenger.  Information  should 
furthermore be provided in several different accessible formats, rather than only through 
voice message or only through display screens. 

Lack of differentiation with respect to passengers travelling with their car 

Whilst data on the number of passengers travelling by ferry with a car are not generally 
reported, there is consensus across the industry that such passengers represent a very high 
proportion  of  total  ferry  traffic.  The  Regulation  however  is  silent  on  the  special  issues 
that  passengers  travelling  with  their  cars  might  face.  If  a  passenger  is  entitled  to 
compensation  as  a  result  of  a  delay  or  cancellation,  does  the  “ticket  price”  of  the 
“passenger service” which serves as the basis to calculate compensation include the costs 
of transporting the car?103 When passengers are informed of delays only after they have 
boarded with their vehicle it is impractical to disembark them (which would cause even 
more delays) are they then still allowed to renounce travelling and disembark? 

Extraordinary circumstances 

The notion of “extraordinary circumstances” is  an area  where there is  a lack of clarity. 
The  passenger  is  entitled  to  compensation  of  the  ticket  price  in  the  event  of  a  delay  in 
arrival  in  accordance  with  Article  19  of  the  Regulation.  However,  Article  19  does  not 
apply  if  the  cancellation  or  delay  is  caused  by  weather  conditions  or  by  extraordinary 
circumstances.  A  further  explanation  of  extraordinary  circumstances  is  provided  by 
Recital 17104, however this definition is not exhaustive, which can lead to differences in 
interpretation between NEBs and can make it difficult for passengers to be sure of their 
rights.  The  recent  CJEU  case  defines  that  the  term  of  “extraordinary  circumstances” 
should  be  interpreted  strictly  and  has  given  a  ruling  on  the  specific  case.  Nevertheless, 
there are still many other circumstances,  not  in  the scope of the individual  case, which 
might be of relevance in this respect, depending on the case at hand, on which the CJEU 
did not yet have to decide. It is also noted that “extraordinary  circumstances” also is an 
issue concerning air passenger rights resulting in many court cases. During spring 2020, 
the  Commission  advised  NEBs  and  carriers  on  the  assessment  of  the  pandemic  as  an 
extraordinary circumstance in order to ensure an EU-wide approach.105  

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

103  CJEU  2.9.2021,  Irish  Ferries  Ltd  v  National  Transport  Authority,  C-570/19,  ECLI:EU:C:2021:664 
touches on the notions of ticket price, however does not mention the notion of cars. 
104  Recital  17  of  the  Regulation  indicates  that:  “Extraordinary  circumstances  should  include,  but  not  be 
limited to, natural disasters such as fires and earthquakes, terrorist attacks, wars and military or civil armed 
conflicts,  uprisings,  military  or  illegal  confiscations,  labour  conflicts,  landing  any  sick,  injured  or  dead 
person,  search  and  rescue  operations  at  sea  or  on  inland  waterways,  measures  necessary  to  protect  the 
environment,  decisions  taken  by  traffic  management  bodies  or  port  authorities,  or  decisions  by  the 
competent authorities with regard to public order and safety as well as to cover urgent transport needs”. 
105 Interpretative Guidelines on EU passenger rights regulations in the context of the developing situation 
with COVID-19, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020XC0318(04)&from=EN 

41 

 
                                                           
First and foremost, passengers must be aware of their rights in order to claim them. As 
noted in Chapter 3 a lack of awareness among waterborne passengers is still prevalent.  

The analysis of carriers’ websites106 demonstrates that most of the main ferry and cruise 
operators provide information on the Regulation to passengers. This is confirmed by the 
consultation  where  carriers  noted  that  the  Regulation  has  affected  their  approach  to 
providing  information  (in  contrary  to  the  ports,  where  such  passenger  oriented 
information rarely can be found as explained above). 

However, a lack of information provided to PRMs can be identified. In several instances, 
no clear explanation on how PRMs can request assistance from ports can be found, and 
in  other  instances,  the  focus  is  on  certain  types  of  disability.  This  is  confirmed  by 
statements  of  organisations  representing  PRMs  noting  that  complaint  procedures  are 
difficult  to  access  or  to  understand.  Most  NEBs  have  indeed  not  sought  to  introduce 
harmonised complaint forms that can easily be used by all passengers.107 

5.2.  Efficiency 

Evaluation questions 

5.2.1. What are the costs and administrative burdens associated with the Regulation? 
How  significant  are  they  and  what  are  they  influenced  by?  How  are  they  distributed 
among the stakeholders?  

The specific regulatory costs associated with the Regulation are mainly monitoring and 
enforcement costs and are as such not extensive. 

Stakeholders’ views on specific regulatory costs, including in relation to monitoring and 
enforcement, are analysed in detail in the cost-benefit analysis part of the support study, 
which  provides  rough  estimates  and  can  be  found  in  Annex  5.  While  stakeholders 
highlighted a range of costs as a result of the Regulation, the majority of the costs can be 
considered  transfers  from  carriers  and  terminal  operators  to  passengers,  the  costs  of 
which are subsequently recovered through higher fares and absorbed through lower profit 
margins. 

Monitoring  and  enforcement  costs  are  expected  to  be  incurred  mostly  by  NEBs  and 
carriers, although neither stakeholder group provided estimates of these costs.  Different 
stakeholder groups incur different costs: 

-  Passengers  bear  enforcement  costs  with  respect  to  time  required  to  research 
rights,  collect  evidence  and  correspond  with  the  carrier/port  operator  or  NEB 
when he or she submits a complaint, with respect to inconvenience and risk and 
with respect to legal fees where advice is procured and especially where NEBs’ 
decisions  are  non-binding  and  they  have  to  sue  the  carrier  or  port  operator  at 
national courts; 

106 Support study, Annex E. 
107 Support study, Paragraph 3.59. 

42 

 
                                                           
-  NEBs  bear  enforcement  costs  with  respect  to  monitoring  (communication  with 
stakeholders,  collection  and  verification  of  evidence,  assessing  compliance  of 
carriers’  and  terminal  operators’  procedures,  general  conditions  of  carriage  and 
websites, and inspections and audits) and to enforcement; 

-  Both  carriers  and  terminal  operators  bear  implementation  costs  with  respect  to 
monitoring  (collection  and  submission  of  evidence  of  compliance  to  NEBs  and 
internal  quality  audits)  and  to  enforcement  (additional  staff  training,  updating 
company  policies,  operating  procedures,  general  conditions  of  carriage  and 
websites, and the if sanction by a NEB, payment of penalties.  

The cost-benefit analysis estimates that in the period between 2013 and 2018 NEB costs 
amounted  to  EUR  20.3  million  (in  2018  prices).  This  suggests  that  the  bulk  of 
compliance costs are likely to be incurred by carriers responding to passenger complaints 
as  very  few  cases  are  escalated  before  NEBs  as  well  as  ADRs.  The  analysis  further 
delivers the estimate that costs of processing complaints for carriers amounted to EUR 57 
million in the same period (also in 2018 prices). For passengers, the cost-benefit analysis 
estimates  that  their  costs  amounted  to  EUR  6.5  million  in  2018  prices,  however  their 
benefits  were  EUR  26.3,  which  gives  an  added  value  of  EUR  19.8  million  for  the 
passengers. In addition, the cost-benefit analysis estimates that the extra cost for carriers 
per  passenger  associated  with  the  Regulation  (i.e.  the  costs  incurred  from  providing 
assistance,  re-routing,  reimbursement  and  compensation)  amounted  to  approximately 
EUR 0.05 per passenger.108 

The majority of these costs would not be incurred in the absence of the Regulation, as for 
example carriers  and terminal  operators would probably not  have addressed complaints 
as thoroughly in the absence of the Regulation. However, for passengers pursuing legal 
action, the Regulation  may  not  have reduced the associated  costs materially although  a 
more consistent legal framework was established, and for NEBs, the costs cannot always 
be attributed to  the Regulation,  notably  where  Member States had implemented similar 
national legislation prior to the Regulation’s entry into force. 

5.2.2. What types of benefits have been achieved for different stakeholder groups? 

Different  benefits  of  the  Regulation  can  potentially  accrue  to  different  stakeholder 
groups: 

-  passengers receive direct benefits from the establishment of rights across Europe 
and  a  framework  through  which  they  can  exercise  their  rights.  This  can  lead  to 
increased passenger confidence and improved accessibility to services for PRM. 
-  NEBs receive no direct benefits, although they develop a better understanding of 

- 

operators’ processes. 
carriers  may  receive  indirect  benefits  from  better  operational  processes, 
reputational  benefits  and  possible  increased  passenger  demand;  however  few 
carriers indicated having direct benefits from the Regulation;. 

108 Annex 5 – Costs and Benefits identified. 

43 

 
                                                           
- 

- 

terminal  operators  may  benefit  from  harmonised  operational  processes  and 
increased legal certainty. 
travel  agents  and  tour  operators  receive  no  direct  benefits,  although  service  is 
better delivered for their customers, including PRM. 

For  passengers,  the  overall  impact  of  the  Regulation  has  been  positive,  in  that  the 
Regulation increased their rights, although in some cases the enforcement of those rights 
is  rather  complex  or  not  efficient.  In  particular,  the  stakeholder  consultation  named 
several benefits for passengers: 

- 

- 

- 

increased  travel  confidence  and,  as  a  result,  increased  demand  for  waterborne 
services; 
time  saving  based  on  a  single  set  of  enhanced  rights  for  passengers,  including 
PRM; 
compensation in the case of disruption to be claimed from carriers with clear time 
limits with a further means of mechanism to seek redress before NEBs; 

- 

-  PRM assistance services are free of charge for PRM (generally recovered through 
general  ticket  prices  as  an  economic  transfer  from  other  passengers  to  PRM, 
although data to precisely allocate costs is lacking); 
assistance services in the case of transport disruption for passengers, offering the 
choice  of  continuation,  re-routing  or  reimbursement  (although  in  practice, 
constraints can be noted); 
formal complaint procedure for passengers, before NEBs (although not all NEBs 
processes  are  set  up  for  individual  passenger  redress  as  some  are  unable  to 
investigate  complaints  on  behalf  of  passengers,  the  non-binding  nature  of  some 
NEB decisions tends to dilute the benefit as passengers need to turn to courts, and 
the ability of some NEBs to thoroughly investigate a complaint can be questioned 
due to a lack of investigative resources and enforcement powers). 

- 

5.2.3. Can the costs and administrative burden incurred by stakeholders be considered 
proportionate to the benefits established? 

The  Regulation  primarily  places  the  economic  burden  onto  carriers  and  terminal 
operators,  who  in  turn  pass  it  on  to  passengers,  through  waterborne  fares,  although 
theoretically  it  could  be  absorbed  through  reduced  margins.  In  addition,  the  legislation 
creates additional regulatory costs (in the form of compliance and enforcement costs) for 
some  groups  of  stakeholders.  The  evidence  provided  by  stakeholders  offered  various 
views on the distribution of costs and benefits. 

Passenger  representatives  of  PRM  and  non-PRM  passengers  mostly  confirmed  that  the 
passenger  benefits  attributable  to  the  Regulation  exceeded  any  costs  incurred  by  them. 
Thus,  most  stakeholders  named  several  benefits  for  passengers  and  named  the 
proportionality of costs “positive” or “somewhat positive”. The only costs to passengers 
identified  by  these  stakeholders  are  those  represented  by  the  time  commitment  and 
inconvenience to pursue complaints. 

44 

 
The vast majority of the NEBs considered the costs associated with the Regulation to be 
proportionate to the benefits brought by the Regulation. They highlighted the realisation 
of  significant  indirect  benefits,  primarily  relating  to  greater  passenger  welfare.  Such 
indirect benefits identified were mainly: 

service quality improvements; 
an established process for complaint-handling; 
timely access to information regarding delays; 

- 
- 
- 
-  greater transparency and accountability of operators; 
- 

simplification  through  the  harmonisation  of  passenger  rights  regimes  across 
Europe; 
improved passenger confidence and greater consistency across operators; 
clarity on stakeholders’ rights and obligations; and 
improved understanding of the operators’ complaint handling procedures. 

- 
- 
- 

NEBs carry mostly administration costs, while it can be noted that: 

-  NEBs’  costs  ranged  from  0.25-4.3  FTEs  with  other  costs  (e.g.  legal)  being 

relatively insignificant in all but one Member State; 

-  no information was provided on the distribution of administration costs between 
complaint-handling,  monitoring  and  enforcement  tasks.  NEB  costs  generally 
appear to be correlated with the average number of complaints received; 

-  many  NEBs  reported  little  workload  related  to  the  Regulation,  considering 
complaint-handling,  the  inspection  of  operators  and  monitoring  of  websites, 
regular  contact  with  the  waterborne  industry,  promotion  of  passenger  rights, 
imposing of sanctions and drafting the biennial reports.109 

Carriers  expressed  diverging  views  on  the  proportionality  of  costs  of  the  Regulation 
compared to its benefits. The carriers which participated in the stakeholder consultation 
mentioned the following: 

- 

smaller  carriers  do  not  appear  to  have  incurred  significant  compliance  costs, 
while  one  rather  large  carrier  highlighted  the  costs  of  developing  passenger 
information systems and reimbursement platforms;  

-  no  carrier  however  indicated  that  the  ongoing  costs  associated  with  compliance 
were  significant,  except  for  structural  changes  to  vessels  in  order  to  improve 
accessibility, which is outside the Regulation’s scope; 
the  costs  of  compensation  tends  to  be  lower  than  the  cost  of  re-routing  and 
reimbursement,  whilst  it  is  possible  that  several  of  these  costs  would  also  have 
been incurred in the absence of the Regulation; 

- 

-  no  data  is  available  on  the  costs  associated  with  the  provision  of  the  PRM 

assistance service.110 

One  port  operator  considered  the  costs  incurred  as  a  result  of  the  Regulation 
disproportionate, while the other port operators had a neutral  view. They  have incurred 

109 Support study, Appendix D Country Fiches. 
110 Support study, Paragraph 3.110-3.114. 

45 

 
                                                           
direct costs as a result of the Regulation while enjoying relatively few indirect benefits. 
Particularly: 

- 

substantial  costs were  arising from  fixed, one-off capital  investments  relating to 
the purchase of mobility equipment; 

-  port  operators  highlighted  investments  in  terminal  redesign  for  the  purposes  of 

improving accessibility, although this is outside the Regulation’s scope; 

-  only  two  port  operators  noted  that  they  benefitted  indirectly  from  an  improved 
passenger  experience,  passenger  confidence  or  greater  accessibility  for  PRM 
passengers.111 

In  summary,  the  evidence  suggests  that  the  Regulation  has  delivered  benefits  for 
passengers  and,  indirectly  for  NEBs  e.g.  because  of  simplification  of  rules  through 
harmonisation  and  clear  complaint  processes.  The  transfer  of  benefits  is  recovered  by 
carriers and terminal operators to some degree through higher fares. 

Administration costs appear relatively low and are primarily borne by NEBs, whilst  no 
carrier or terminal operator highlighted these costs and passengers only incur significant 
costs  when  they  have  to  submit  a  complaint,  primarily  the  time  required  to  submit  the 
complaint and to retrieve supporting information. 

5.2.4. 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 stakeholder groups?   

The analysis confirms that the overall impact of the Regulation for passengers has been 
positive, and in  the case of those travelling in  Member States which previously had no 
passenger  rights 
the  Regulation  has  clearly  delivered  a  significant 
improvement to the level of protection. Whether the cost was reasonable for passengers 
can only be partly assessed, due to limited evidence. 

legislation 

The costs of the Regulation, consisting mostly of monitoring and enforcement costs, are 
generally not extensive, which suggest the reasonability of the associated costs. This can 
possibly be explained by the following: 

-  Carriers and terminal operators receive a relative low number of complaints, thus 

- 

keeping the costs incurred by every category of stakeholders down; 
carriers  and  terminal  operators  may  have  already  been  observing  most  of  the 
requirements of the Regulation, thus not leading to a substantial increase in costs 
for any party. 

In practice, both these explanations appear to be true in part, as passenger representatives 
noted that the costs of making a complaint can be greater than the expected 
compensation, and carriers highlighted that re-routing costs were incurred prior to the 
Regulation’s introduction. It is likely that the volume of complaints increases as 

111 Support study, Paragraph 3.115-3.116. 

46 

 
                                                           
passengers become more aware of their rights, which may lead to a fuller realisation of 
the Regulation’s benefits, also causing costs for more parties to rise. 

Several ways are identified in which costs could be lowered. First, costs to passengers of 
raising a complaint could be lowered by encouraging carriers to automate the complaint-
handling process and disseminate delay information more effectively. Secondly, disputes 
could  be  more  efficiently  resolved  by  encouraging  the  creation  of  simple  and 
inexpensive,  out-of-court-dispute  resolution  procedures  and  agencies  such  as  ADRs,  as 
some  NEBs  already  stated  that  they  were  not  as  competent  as  ADRs  in  mediating 
disputes  due  to  a  lack  of  relevant  legal  expertise,  especially  when  complaints  involved 
consumer law. 
On the other hand, both carriers and terminal operators considered there was little scope 
for reducing costs without affecting the services provided to passengers. 

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

As the aim of the intervention was to establish uniform rights that citizens can exercise in 
the same way across the Union, it was decided to choose an EU regulation as the most 
appropriate  measure.  Regulations  are  directly  applicable  in  all  Member  States  and 
binding in their entirety. Compared to directives, regulations do not need implementation 
into  national  legislation,  therefore  they  can  be  applied  after  a  shorter  transition  period 
given  to  operators  and  Member  States  to  prepare  for  their  application.  Choosing  a 
Directive  could  have  also  created  a  higher  risk  that  Member  States  would  implement 
certain provisions differently. 

thus  recognising 

It  can  be  observed  that  the  Regulation  allows  for  some  flexibility  with  respect  to 
enforcement  and  monitoring, 
the  different  national  regulatory 
frameworks in place in different Member States, as the instruments listed in the Articles 
on enforcement rely on the application of the relevant national framework of consumer 
protection legislation in each Member State. This is also demonstrated in the variety of 
approaches  taken  by  Member  States  to  enforce  passenger  rights.  While  it  is  marked 
positive that the referral on national consumer protection or equality frameworks already 
in  place  reduces  the  costs  of  implementation,  it  makes  enforcement  procedures  more 
difficult for passengers and other stakeholders to navigate and introduces inconsistencies 
in  the  degree  of  enforcement  across  the  European  Union,  thus  tending  to  reduce  the 
efficiency of the instrument. 

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  sea  and  inland 
waterways identified at the outset of the intervention? 

47 

 
The  Commission’s  impact  assessment  (IA)112  accompanying  the  2008  legislative 
proposal113  had  identified  four  areas  in  which  rights  of  persons  using  waterborne 
transport  needed  to  be  strengthened,  as  well  as  passengers’,  including  PRMs’,  needs 
when  planning  and  taking  journeys  using  waterborne  transport  within  the  European 
Union,  and  developed  specific  objectives,  which  each  contribute  to  the  Regulation’s 
overarching  objective  to  ensure  an  equivalent  level  of  protection  of  and  assistance  to 
passengers in waterborne transport throughout the European Union. 

For  all  passengers,  the  needs  identified  are  met  by  the  establishment  of  rights  in  the 
Regulation in terms of assistance needs, including in the case of disruption of travel, and 
in  terms  of  information  access.  A  gap  however  can  be  identified  in  the  need  related  to 
quality standards that are not explicitly included in the Regulation, as only Article 13 of 
the Regulation refers to such standards, solely encompassing the context of assistance of 
PRM.  The  need  to  create  a  framework  for  complaint  handling,  compensation  and 
enforcement was also met, however, it remains highly relevant. 

In  summary,  the  needs  of  passengers,  including  PRM,  that  were  identified  before  the 
intervention, are matched by the Regulation. 

5.3.2. Do the original objectives of the Regulation still correspond to the current needs 
of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways? 

Since  the  Regulation  began  to  apply  in  2012,  there  have  been  no  major  or  long-term 
changes to the EU ferry and cruise market, thus no potential implications for passengers’ 
needs and the objectives of the intervention could be identified. The structure of both the 
ferry and cruise market has remained stable. Potential implications reshaping the market 
can in the future result from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as Brexit. 

Only  a  limited  number  of  stakeholders  took  a  stance  in  the  consultation  exercise, 
however  all  of  them  stated  that  they  did  not  consider  that  the  needs  of  passengers  had 
changed relative to those identified when the legislation was introduced. This means that 
the  needs  identified  at  the  outset  of  the  intervention  are  still  valid  today.  Specific 
passenger needs highlighted included: 

-  by passenger and PRM representative organisations: 

  quick and safe journey in exchange for a value for money price; 
  clear information on journey times and fares; 
  clean, safe and comfortable vessels, piloted to a high standard; 
 
information on delays and how impacts can be mitigated; 
 
full accessibility of vessels and ports. 
-  by operators: 

  safety, comfort and quality of service; 
  accommodation of passengers with disabilities; and 
  accommodation of the needs of passengers travelling by car. 

-  by ports: 

112 SEC(2008) 2950. 
113 COM(2008) 816 final. 

48 

 
                                                           
  quick  and  safe  boarding,  good  Wi-Fi  connection  and  easy  access  to 

facilities; 

  smooth transit through the ports in order to catch the service; and 
  good and sufficient service for PRM. 

-  by NEBs; 

readily available information in the event of major disruptions; 

 
  availability  of  information  detailing  their  rights  in  the  event  of  major 

disruptions; 

  assistance following major disruptions; 
  PRM assistance; and 
 

recognition by operators that individual passenger needs will vary with the 
journey. 

Several  stakeholders  identified  areas  where  the  Regulation  could  be  improved  to  better 
address such needs already highlighted. These areas include: 

- 

in  the  event  of  a  major  disruption,  passengers  should  receive  all  relevant 
information  as  soon  as  possible,  also  via  SMS  or  e-mail  to  telephone  and/or  e-
mail  addresses  provided  upon  booking  (and  if  necessary  as  transmitted  to 
operators by travel agencies).  

-  PRM  require  maximum  transparency  of  information,  including  before  the 
journey, on the accessibility of the vessel and available cabins that are tailored to 
their needs. 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  brought  to  the  surface  the  issue  of  health  important  for 
most passengers, especially for groups at risk. For these passengers, a priority has been 
the possibility to keep their distance from other passengers, which can be difficult where 
carriers have been allowed to  sell all seats.  NEBs did  not report that passengers’ needs 
have specifically changed as a result of the pandemic. Rather, most NEBs stated that they 
were  following  the  Commission’s  guidelines  in  relation  to  extraordinary  circumstances 
pertaining to  the COVID-19 crisis  in  relation  to compensation for delayed or cancelled 
journeys. No significant issues on this point were raised by NEBs as most issues could be 
monitored, analysed and settled. One NEB however mentioned that the case in which the 
services  continued  to  operate  but  passengers  were  unable  to  travel  because  of 
government measures remains unaddressed by the Regulation.114 

Whilst  the  collection  of  data  is  still  ongoing,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  already 
illustrated the need for: 

- 

- 

rapid  and  coordinated  approaches  of  the  Commission  and  NEBs  during  mass 
disruption; and 
rapid and clear information to passengers and industry. 

In conclusion, it can be noted that the needs of passengers have not significantly changed 
since the Regulation entered into force. Stakeholders have identified several areas where, 

114 Support study, Paragraph 3.227. 

49 

 
                                                           
in  their  view,  the  needs  of  passengers  could  be  better  addressed  by  the  Regulation, 
however these relate primarily to needs previously identified. 

5.3.3. How well is the Regulation adapted to technological or scientific advances that 
may help passengers and PRM travelling by sea and inland waterways? 

Increased digitalisation has had a substantial impact on the waterborne industry in recent 
years.  Since  2010,  the  booking  processes  and  information  provided  to  passengers  has 
generally improved, as passengers can buy tickets online or on their mobile devices and 
receive real-time information about the status of their journey. These advances have been 
available to all passengers with access to a smartphone. For these passengers, access to 
passenger information was significantly improved and facilitated. 

At  the  same  time,  service  quality  has  deteriorated  to  passengers  who  do  not  have  or 
cannot use computers or smart phones, because information desks are less and less used 
and  call  centres  have  less  personnel  answering  phone  calls.  In  the  case  of  PRM 
passengers, depending on their specific needs and on the specific response of operators, 
terminals or NEBs to their accessibility and assistance requirements, these developments 
with respect to digitalisation may either represent an opportunity to improve accessibility 
or a new barrier to such access. 

Further  technological  developments  described  during  stakeholder  consultation  were  the 
equipment  of  gangways  with  escalators,  the  greater  use  of  electrical  wheelchairs  by 
PRM, and improved port infrastructure. Whilst many stakeholders noted the importance 
of  the  design  of  both  ports  and  vessels  in  facilitating  accessibility  and  assistance, 
especially for PRM,115 it must be noted that the Regulation does not directly address this 
issue  but  rather  issues  such  as  the  accessibility  of  information,  while  the  European 
Accessibility  Act  covers  mainly  digital  products  and  services  rather  than  transport 
infrastructure, vessels and vehicles. 

5.4.  Coherence 

Evaluation questions 

5.4.1. To what extent are the provisions of the Regulation coherent and consistent with 
one another (internal coherence)? Are there any overlaps, contradictions or 
inconsistencies? 

In general, the provisions of the Regulation are coherent and consistent with each other. 
However, especially one irregularity exists in the Regulation. 

Compensation of the ticket price in the event of delay in arrival 

Whilst  no  explicit  Article  governs  the  relation  between  Articles  18  and  19,  it  must  be 
noted  that  the  redress  available  under  Article  19  of  the  Regulation,  the  right  to 
compensation in the event of delay at arrival, and the redress provided for under Article 
18 of the Regulation, the right to re-routing and reimbursement in the event of cancelled 

115 Support study, Paragraph 3.233. 

50 

 
                                                           
or  delayed  departure,  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  Thus,  passengers  are  eligible  for 
compensation  irrespective  of  when  the  carrier  informs  them  of  a  delay  or  cancellation. 
Particularly, even if a carrier re-schedules a service and gives passengers advance notice, 
passengers still have the right to compensation according to Article 19 of the Regulation 
as also determined by the CJEU in the case of the Irish Ferries case presented in 5.1.5. 

5.4.1. To what extent are the provisions of the Regulation coherent and consistent with 
the  EU  legal  framework  and  international  legislative  acts  (external  coherence)?  Are 
there any overlaps, contradictions or inconsistencies? 

Legislation on safety 

EU  maritime  legislation  on  passenger  ship  safety  includes  Directive  2009/45/EC  on 
technical  requirements  for  passenger  ships  on  domestic  voyages.  The  scope  of  the 
Directive  is  limited  to  passenger  ships  made  of  steel  or  equivalent  material  and  high-
speed craft used to operate on domestic services over 24 metres long. Where applicable, 
the  Directive  is  based  on  internationally  agreed  standards,  namely  the  International 
Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea  (SOLAS)  1974.116  It  also  includes  specific 
access and public information requirements for persons with disabilities or with reduced 
mobility. 

Furthermore,  Directive  2003/25/EC  provides  for  additional  measures  for  certain 
passenger  vessels,  used  throughout  the  European  Union  on  both  international  and 
domestic voyages,  to  ensure their stability following damage. Other specific legislation 
governing  mandatory  inspections  for  these  passenger  ships  and  high-speed  craft  in 
regular  service  are  included  in  Directive  (EU)  2017/2110.  Additionally,  Directive 
98/41/EC on registration of persons on board also introduced the requirement to register 
passenger  data  digitally  using  harmonised  administrative  procedures  according  to 
Directive 2010/65/EU to facilitate search and rescue operations in case of emergency. 

No  issues  of  coherence  concerning  the  relationship  between  EU  maritime  safety 
legislation and the Regulation were identified, as these areas of legislation do not overlap 
in substance. 

Legislation on the liability of carriers in case of accidents 

Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event 
of accidents sets out harmonised rules on liability and insurance for shipping companies 
and  aims  at  an  adequate  level  of  compensation  in  the  event  of  an  accident.  The 
Regulation applies irrespective of the kind of operation of the vessel, and therefore to all 
carriers  engaging  in  international  carriage,  including  between  EU  Member  States,  and 
certain  types  of  domestic  carriage  over  five  miles  from  the  coastline.  Passengers  are 
under  certain  conditions  entitled  to  compensation  for  death  or  personal  injury,  loss  or 
damage to luggage or valuables, vehicle and mobility or other special equipment. 

116https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-
Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx  

51 

 
                                                           
On  coherence  with  the  Regulation  on  waterborne  passenger  rights,  it  can  be  confirmed 
that as far as passenger rights policy is concerned, both Regulations are complimentary, 
as  Regulation  (EC)  No  392/2009  is  more  specific  and  the  Regulation  on  waterborne 
passenger  rights  is  concerned  with  a  more  general  passenger  rights  framework.  Both 
frameworks are coherent, in particular through the Regulation’s information and advance 
payment  requirements,  as  well  as  the  special  provisions  on  mobility  equipment  for 
persons with reduced mobility. 

Package Travel Directive 

Directive (EU) 2015/2302 on package travel and linked travel arrangements117 sets out a 
framework of governance and the obligations of operators in relation to package travel. 
There  is  some  overlap  between  the  Directive  and  the  Regulation  in  case  any  part  of  a 
travel package includes waterborne transport. 

Directive  (EU)  2015/2302  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 
are also  consistent. The  Regulation  states  that in  the case of disruption where  a stay of 
one  or  more  nights  becomes  necessary,  operators  must  provide  accommodation,  whose 
length  may  be  limited  to  a  maximum  of  three  nights.  According  to  the  Directive,  the 
organiser shall also bear the cost of necessary accommodation for a period not exceeding 
three  nights.  The  Directive  also  applies  to  disruption  on  any  transport  mode  and  states 
that accommodation must be provided for longer than three nights if such longer periods 
are foreseen in existing or future Union passenger rights legislation.  

Another  issue  relates  to  cruises,  which  are  included  in  the  scope  of  the  Regulation 
although  they  are  a  leisure  product  rather  than  a  pure  mode  of  transport.  As  a  leisure 
product combining transport, accommodation and tourism services all for one price, they 
are also in the scope of the Package Travel Directive. Cruise passengers accordingly have 
two sets of rights deriving from the Regulation and the Directive.  

In particular, differences in these rights concern: 

- 

compensation, although  the Package Travel Directive clarifies that compensation 
under the Regulation and the Directive shall be deducted from each other in order 
to avoid overcompensation; 

-  PRM assistance, which is only available under the Regulation; 
-  protection of passengers in the case of carrier insolvency, which is only available 

under the Package Travel Directive. 

117Directive  (EU)  2015/2302  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2015  on 
package  travel  and  linked  travel  arrangements,  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive 
2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and  repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
(OJ L 326, 11.12.2015, p. 1–33). 

52 

 
                                                           
The scope of the Regulation and the Package Travel  Directive also  differs, whilst  both 
legislative acts apply regardless of whether they concern maritime or inland waterways: 

- 

- 

the Regulation excludes cruises of less  than two  nights  duration,  and cruises  on 
ships operated by a crew of less than four persons; 
the  Package  Travel  Directive  excludes  packages  and  linked  travel  arrangements 
of less than 24 hours unless overnight accommodation is included. 

These overlapping scopes may result in confusion for passengers on which rules apply.  

EU consumer policy and consumer protection network 

The EU programme for consumer action is expressed in the New Consumer Agenda118, 
which  has  several  objectives,  including  enhancing  knowledge  of  consumer  rights, 
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 provision of information and enforcement/NEBs. 

Since  January  2020,  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2394  on  cooperation  between  national 
authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  (CPC 
Regulation) provides an enforcement cooperation framework for the national authorities 
where cross-border consumer law infringements are concerned. It refers explicitly to the 
passenger rights framework. The CPC Regulation links national competent authorities to 
form an enforcement network, enabling authorities to share best practices and to provide 
a mechanism of mutual assistance.    However, NEBs indicated that they  do not  use this 
opportunity  because  the  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  requires  action  from  NEBs 
predominantly within a single Member State. 

EU competition policy 

Competition  policy  as  set  out  in  the  TFEU  and  passenger  rights  legislation  address 
different  issues,  although  they  both  aim  at  well-functioning  internal  market  and 
contribute through creating a level-playing field. 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. 

Other passenger rights regulations 

Although the needs  of passengers might  differ in  the other transport modes, it is  worth 
noting that the Regulation displays some inconsistencies with other EU passenger rights 
legislation. 

For instance, waterborne passenger rights  cover compensation linked to the ticket price 
as is seen in rail and bus & coach, whilst Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on air passenger 
rights foresees compensation of fixed amounts. Further differences relate to the length of 

118https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0696. 

53 

 
                                                           
delay,  which  entitles  to  compensation  as  well  as  the  liability  of  carriers  for  passengers 
and for luggage in terms of its maximum amount. 

Passenger needs might be different in a situation where a ticket is valid on more than one 
mode  of  transportation  which  entitles  the  passenger  to  diverging  rights  on  each  mode, 
although  such  a  situation  arises  relatively  rarely,  mainly  in  case  of  PSO  services  in 
remote  areas.  Inconsistencies  may,  therefore,  be  considered  to  be  minor  and  related 
mainly  to  delay  on  departure  or  on  arrival.  Passenger  needs  may  also  differ  for 
passengers in the EU outermost regions limited transport connections in these regions.119 

Table  A6.6  in  Annex  6  presents  a  comparison  of  the  Regulation  with  other  passenger 
rights regulations. 

Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (the 
European  Accessibility  Act)  and  Directive  (EU)  2016/2102  (the  Web  Accessibility 
Directive) 

Article 9 of the Regulation stipulates that carriers, travel agents and tour operators shall 
ensure  that  all  relevant  information,  including  online  reservation  and  information, 
concerning  the  conditions  of  carriage,  journey  information  and  access  conditions  is 
available in appropriate and accessible formats. 

The  European  Accessibility  Act  and  the  Web  Accessibility  Directive  complement  this 
requirement on the accessibility of information. 

When it will  become applicable in  2025, the European Accessibility Act (EAA)120  will 
oblige  carriers  and  port  terminal  managers  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. 
Therefore there are no issues of consistency between the two legislative instruments. 

As  far  as  ports,  vessels  and  services  are  managed  by  public  sector  bodies,  the  Web 
Accessibility Directive (2016)121 already stipulates that their homepages have to comply 
with certain harmonised accessibility requirements. 

Therefore there are no coherence issues between the Regulation and these two directives. 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)122 was adopted in 
2006  and  entered  into  force  in  May  2008.  It  creates  a  legal  obligation  on  the  Member 

119The EU Outermost Regions are located in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean basin, South America and 
the  Indian  Ocean  and  home  to  almost  5  million  EU  citizens.  Article  349  TFEU  provides  for  positive 
discrimination towards these regions including specific measures e.g. of access to EU programmes to help 
these regions address the major challenges they face. 
120Directive  (EU)  2019/882  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). 
121Directive  (EU)  2016/2102  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  October  2016  on  the 
accessibility  of 
the  websites  and  mobile  applications  of  public  sector  bodies:  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016L2102. 

54 

 
                                                           
States that have ratified it to incorporate accessibility requirements in national legislation. 
The EU, its Member States and the other four countries examined in the evaluation are 
all parties to the UNCRPD. 

There  is  no  coherence  issue  between  the  UNCRPD  and  the  Regulation,  but  it  must  be 
noted  that  the  Regulation  alone  cannot  be  sufficient  to  ensure  the  accessibility  of 
waterborne transport. The Regulation imposes on carriers and port managing bodies the 
obligation  to  assist  PRM,  but  it  does  not  require  ports  and  vessels  to  be  accessible  or 
Member  States  to  make  port  infrastructure  and  vessels  accessible  for  PRM.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  in  the  future,  alignment  with  the  Strategy  for  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities (2021-2030)123 to support the UNCRPD policies to gain full accessibility of 
ports, vessels, information and other services will gain importance. 

Directive  2009/45/EC  on  safety  rules  and  standards  for  passenger  ships  establishes 
accessibility  requirements  for  certain  categories  of  ships  which  were  built  later  than 
2004. However, this directive does not cover all the ferry and cruise ships operated in the 
EU. In addition, EU law does not regulate the accessibility of port infrastructure. 

Relevant rules adopted under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 

to 

take 

into  account 

terminal  operators 

The IMO adopted Recommendations on the design and operation of passenger ships to 
respond to elderly and disabled persons’ needs. Article 13(2) of the Regulation explicitly 
IMO’s 
requires  carriers  and 
Recommendations when setting quality standards. These Recommendations focus mostly 
on  ship  and  terminal  accessibility  for  PRMs  from  a  physical  barrier  perspective  (and 
particularly on wheelchair access and, to a lesser extent, access for passengers with visual 
impairment).  There  is  only  limited  mention  of  barriers  created  by  policies,  procedures 
and systems, barriers in accessing information, barriers caused by management, staff or 
customer  attitudes,  or  other  accessibility  issues  (for  example,  arising  from  hidden 
disabilities).  Therefore  there  are  no  coherence  issues  between  the  Regulation  and  these 
guidelines. 

these 

As  the  IMO’s  Recommendations  were  adopted  in  2006,  several  years  before  the 
Regulation became applicable, where Member States decided to follow them, they may 
have  already  enhanced  PRM  accessibility  quality  standards  and  consequently  have 
helped to ensure that carriers and terminals are compliant with the Regulation. However, 
as these are guidelines and require ship and terminal infrastructure changes, it is not clear 
how many Member States have adopted them. 

5.5.  EU added value 

Evaluation questions 

122United  Nations  Convention  on 
the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-
disabilities.html. 
123https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3e1e2228-7c97-11eb-9ac9-01aa75ed71a1 

(UNCRPD) 

55 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
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? 

Before the entry into force of the Regulation, no international legislation was in place on 
the rights of waterborne passengers in the event of major disruptions or on the rights of 
PRM passengers specifically. Also, no relevant party such as the International Maritime 
Organisation was taking forward an intervention on these matters. No non-EU legislation 
was  identified  in  this  area  that  might  have  generated  impetus  for  international 
intervention.  

At European and international level, as described in depth above, waterborne passenger 
rights  were  only  addressed  by  general  legislation  on  consumer  protection,  including 
Council Directive 90/314/ECC on package travel, package holidays and package tours, as 
well  as  by  the  Athens  International  Convention  of  1974  relating  to  the  carriage  of 
passengers and their luggage by sea and the Protocol of 2002 to the Convention. 

Before the Regulation became applicable only a few States had legislation that provided 
a  protection  to  passengers  comparable  to  the  Regulation.  Other  States  did  not  have 
legislation  on  waterborne  passenger  rights  at  all,  or  the  protection  was  more  limited 
compared  to  the  Regulation.  The  pre-existing  rights  generally  focused  on  either  rights 
during  disruptions  or  rights  for  passengers  with  disabilities  or  with  reduced  mobility. 
Hence the Regulation provided a more broad framework to the passenger rights.  

Several carriers developed policies on these issues to offer their passengers some rights 
in  case  of  major  disruption  of  travel.  One  of  these  industry  level  interventions  is  the 
CLIA  Passenger  Bill  of  Rights.124  However,  there  was  considerable  variation  in  these 
policies adopted by the companies, not leading to European common practices on either 
information, assistance, re-routing, or compensation in the event of major disruptions. 

The intervention at European Union level thus brought clear added value in establishing a 
consistent framework of rights across all Member States. 

In  the  case  of  rights  for  PRM  passengers,  there  had  been  some  national  intervention, 
including in some of the largest markets for waterborne transport. However, the practical 
implications of these rights remained unclear and varied between Member States, leaving 
passengers  undertaking  international  journeys  exposed  to  differences  in  the  level  of 
accessibility  and  assistance  provided.  These  differences  may  have  also  complicated  the 
efforts of operators to comply with national legislation. This leads to the conclusion that 
in the area of PRM rights, the added value of the intervention has also been substantial. 

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? 

124CLIA is a cruise industry trade association, representing the global cruise community. Its Passenger Bill 
of Rights is not accessible at the moment from its homepage, but only from the homepage of several of its 
members: https://www.crystalcruises.com/legal/clia-passenger-bill-of-rights 

56 

 
                                                           
Participants  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  indicated  that  the  main  achievement  of  the 
Regulation  is  the  establishment  of  a  clear  framework  of  passenger  rights  leading  to 
passenger confidence with respect to protection in terms of major disruption or, in case 
for PRM, with respect to assistance required. 

Passenger rights in the event of transport disruptions 

As  noted  above,  before  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation,  the  level  of  rights  for 
passengers, including PRM, varied between Member States. If the Regulation was to be 
withdrawn,  one  possibility  is  that  waterborne  passenger  rights  in  each  Member  State 
would  revert  to  the  level  they  were  prior  to  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation, 
although  this  seems  unlikely.  It  would,  however,  lead  to  a  complication  for  operators 
providing international services due to obligations varying between Member States. 

It can rather reasonably be assumed that the provision of services for passengers might be 
maintained  to  an  extent.  This  would  most  probably  be  dependent  on  Member  State 
involvement  in  the  provision  of  waterborne  services,  in  terms  of  geography  and 
connectivity,  economic  and tourist provisions, ownership of the  ferry operators  and the 
state of the market in the Member State. 

It  is  particularly  likely  that  some  Member  States  would  continue  to  monitor  the 
compliance  of  ports  and  carriers  and,  in  some  cases,  impose  sanctions  for  non-
compliance.  However,  the  role  of  NEBs,  particularly  their  role  in  handling  complaints, 
might be relinquished. In the absence of an effective NEB empowered by the Regulation, 
passengers  could  be  expected  to  make  greater  use  of  ADRs  or  courts  to  enforce  their 
rights, or also be deterred by the associated costs. 

Rights of passengers with disabilities and passengers with reduced mobility 

With respect to the rights of PRM, it is not to be expected that the provision of services 
to  PRM  would  be  withdrawn  entirely,  since  some  of  these  services  existed  pre-
Regulation,  albeit  in  a  different  form  and  with  less  consistency.  The  provisions  of  the 
Regulation  have  in  comparison  ensured  that  operators  have  embedded  the  provision  of 
assistance in their operating practices. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether Member States 
would  maintain  the  same  level  of  PRM  rights  in  national  legislation  if  the  Regulation 
would be withdrawn. 

In any case, it is deemed unlikely that all Member States would adopt the same approach, 
specifically  because  of  differences  in  the  waterborne  transport  industry,  as  size, 
importance  and  characteristics  vary  considerably  throughout  the  European  Union. 
Member  States  might  also  adopt  different  strategies  to  enable  travel  for  PRM,  some 
focusing on assistance and others focusing on accessibility of ports and vessels through 
investments.  It  could  also  lead  to  a  change  in  terms  of  the  question  whether  assistance 
would remain free for the individual passenger, with costs defrayed by the fares paid by 
all passengers. This might again depend on the respective waterborne transport industry 
as well as the Member State’s stance on a range of social issues. It is thus possible that 
PRM-specific charges could be established. 

57 

 
In summary, it can be noted that several issues for all passengers, including PRM, would 
remain  with  solely  a  national  framework  in  place,  with  respect  to  different  passenger 
needs. 

levels 

in  different  quality 

Particularly,  with  respect  to  PRM  non-discriminatory  access,  choices  would  be  left  to 
in  waterborne  facilities, 
Member  States,  resulting 
infrastructures and services. Also, with respect to the rights of passengers in the event of 
major  disruption,  disparities  of  rules  and  procedures  and  a  resulting  reduced  clarity  for 
carriers might  emerge. With respect  to  complaint-handling and enforcement, it must  be 
considered  that  the  institution  of  NEBs  might  be  given  up  in  some  Member  States, 
leaving passengers with the choice of ADRs and courts. It can hence be concluded that 
withdrawing the Regulation would most likely result in a return to a patchwork of PRM 
rights,  albeit  with  some  of  the  benefits  of  the  Regulation  preserved.  Improvements  in 
accessibility for and assistance to PRM might be slower. 

The  Regulation  has  established  a  consistent  framework  of  passenger  rights  and 
mechanisms  for  their  enforcement.  This  brings  added  value  for  both  passengers  and 
carriers  and  ensures  coherence  and  consistency  of  passenger  rights  across  Member 
States.  Whilst  in  theory  it  would  be  possible  to  leave  the  further  development  of  the 
legislative  framework  to  Member  States,  in  practice  this  would  likely  expose  both 
passengers  and  carriers  to  regulatory  inconsistencies.  In  the  current  context,  the 
passenger needs identified thus continue to require EU intervention. 

58 

 
 
 
6. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The  Commission’s  impact  assessment  (IA)125  accompanying  the  2008  legislative 
proposal126  identified  areas  in  which  passenger  rights  and  protections  in  waterborne 
transport  needed  to  be  strengthened,  specifically  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities, 
quality of service, assistance to passengers in the event of major disruptions, the right to 
information, and non-discrimination issues. 

Accordingly,  the  adoption  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  (the  Regulation)  was 
intended to meet the objectives of: providing non-discriminatory transport conditions for 
citizens,  including  PRM;  assisting  PRM  so  that  they  can  use  waterborne  transport; 
reducing the negative impact  of travel  disruption on users of waterborne  transport; and 
improving  service  quality  for  passengers.  The  Regulation  also  aimed  to  help  create  a 
level  playing  field  for  waterborne  operators  in  the  EU  and  a  European  standard  of 
passenger  protection.  It  introduced  a  specific,  enforceable  framework  of  rights  for 
passengers  travelling  by  waterborne  transportation  in  the  European  Union,  Iceland, 
Norway and the United Kingdom. 

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  high,  the  lack  of  detailed  data  on  the  waterborne 
passenger transport market complicated the analysis. 

The overall conclusion of this evaluation, based on the five key evaluation criteria, is that 
notable  improvements  were  brought  to  passenger  rights,  including  PRM’s  rights, 
especially in Member States, that did not have pre-existing legislation in this area. While 
the  objectives  of  the  Regulation  have  been  and  still  are,  to  some  extent,  appropriate 
nowadays, some gaps in the Regulation have hampered full achievement of them. 

The  complex  enforcement  set-up  has  also  created  additional  barriers  to  achievement  of 
the  objectives.  Other  issues  undermining  the  delivery  of  the  Regulation’s  expected 
benefits  include  provisions  that  need  further  guidance  or  clarification,  e.g.  provisions 
related to ports and terminals, especially but not only in relation to PRM passengers, and 
the  monitoring  and  enforcement  measures  to  be  taken.  Furthermore,  there  are  gaps  as 
regards  provisions  on  e.g.  exchanging  passenger  information  and  providing  real-time 
information. 

6.1.  Effectiveness 

The Regulation resulted in some levelling up of passengers’ rights across the European 
Union. However, there remain gaps in the Regulation that undermine its effectiveness.  

NEBs receive only a low number of complaints. Possible explanations for this could be a 
lack  of  passenger  awareness  of  their  rights,  and/or  e.g.  the  delivery  of  a  high  level  of 
service by carriers. The evaluation noted that the number of complaints to NEBs has been 
increasing. The Regulation requires NEBs to take the necessary measures to ensure that 

125 SEC(2008) 2950. 
126 COM(2008) 816 final. 

59 

 
                                                           
carriers and ports comply with the Regulation, but it does not specify how they should do 
so. As a result, Member States have taken different approaches to the establishment and 
operational methods of NEBs. Several NEBs do not proactively monitor compliance with 
the Regulation, which might further impair its effectiveness. Only a small proportion of 
NEBs have issued sanctions, which are infrequent and often low. 

The  use  of  waterborne  transport  by  PRM  passengers  might  be  constrained  by  the 
inaccessibility  of  port  terminals  and  vessels.  The  Regulations  effectiveness  is  further 
impacted  by  the  extent  to  which  information  can  be  communicated  to  passengers  in 
accessible languages or media. 

Other key issues are the inaccessibility of information on carrier and port websites, and 
the  use  of  digital  technologies  to  book  tickets  and  communicate  with  passengers:  this 
may  lead  to  a  worse  service  for  passengers  who  are  less  familiar  with  these  new 
technologies.  Another issue impairing the effectiveness  of the Regulation is  the lack of 
definition of certain provisions of the Regulation, although some have been clarified by 
the recent CJEU case.  

6.2.  Efficiency 

At present,  the costs  and workloads  of NEBs  are deemed relatively low,  mainly due to 
the  relatively  low  number  of  staff  working  with  waterborne  passenger  rights.  Several 
NEBs are deemed understaffed (1 FTE or less deals with monitoring and enforcement of 
the Regulation) why costs of the NEBs concerned remain relatively low. The low number 
of  staff  may  be  why  some  NEBs  have  not  reported  any  proactive  monitoring  or 
enforcement activities. 

Passenger  representatives  mostly  confirm  that  the  passenger  benefits  attributable  to  the 
Regulation  exceeded  any  costs  incurred  by  them,  whereas  a  large  proportion  of  other 
stakeholders such as  ports  and carriers  has  no firm  view  or a slightly negative view on 
whether the costs of the Regulation are proportionate to the benefits. Most stakeholders 
referred to several benefits for passengers and considered the proportionality of costs as 
‘positive’  or  ‘somewhat  positive’.  The  only  costs  to  passengers  identified  by  these 
stakeholders  are  the  time  commitment  and  inconvenience  involved  in  pursuing 
complaints. 

For  passengers,  the  cost  of  the  Regulation  can  be  approximated  as  an  additional  EUR 
0.05 on top of each passenger’s fare, which equates to the cost estimated for Regulation 
(EU) No 181/2011 on bus and coach passenger rights (compared to roughly EUR 5 in air 
transport127); the costs are  therefore subsidiary when compared  with  the benefits  gained 
from the implementation of the Regulation. 

127  EUR  4.4  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, 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/news/2020-01-13-air-passenger-rights-study_en, 
Steer, 
2020)  +  EUR  0.55  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; https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/d8b8bd04-1b4d-11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-231259999 

60 

 
                                                           
6.3.  Relevance 

The fundamental needs  of passengers identified by the original  impact assessment have 
not  significantly  changed  since  the  Regulation  was  implemented.  As  no  substantial 
changes to the EU waterborne market have been noted since the Regulation’s entry into 
force, the passenger needs identified still remain relevant. 

The  Regulation  has  generally  improved  the  quality  of  service  provided  to  passengers, 
although  some  passenger  groups  tend  to  emphasise  the  need  for  significant  further 
improvements.  Increasing  digitalisation  has  generally  improved  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives,  although  it  may  have  led  to  a  deterioration  in  the  quality  of  service  for 
passengers who cannot use digital technology. Consequently, the issues which led to the 
introduction of the Regulation would remain if the Regulation were not in place, and they 
still remain highly relevant for passengers. 

6.4.  Coherence 

As  regards  the  internal  coherence  of  the  Regulation,  no  major  issues  were  identified. 
Rather, clarifications would serve the overarching objective of the Regulation. As regards 
external  coherence,  there  are  no  major  inconsistencies  with  other  EU  acts,  specifically 
safety  and  security  requirements,  liability  of  carriers  in  the  event  of  accidents, 
competition  policy,  and  the  Package  Travel  Directive.  There  are  minor  inconsistencies 
with EU consumer policy. Further small inconsistencies exist between passenger rights in 
different transport modes, particularly as regards rights in the case of delayed arrival. As 
regards international agreements, the Regulation is coherent with the UN Convention on 
the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities, the  relevant  rules  of  the  International  Maritime 
Organisation and the EU’s external transport policy.  

6.5.  EU added value 

Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation,  only  a  few  Member  States  had  implemented 
national  legislation  to  protect  passenger  rights.  There  was  no  preceding  initiative  at 
international  level  designed  to  have  a  similar  effect.  This  suggests  that  EU-wide 
legislation  has  added  value,  as  it  introduced  a  common  framework  of  core  rights 
throughout  the  European  Union,  where  in  many  cases,  few  or  none  existed  previously. 
As  a  result,  it  has  enabled  passengers  to  travel  by  waterborne  transport  with  greater 
protection and hence more confidence. The Regulation further increased awareness of the 
needs of PRM passengers and supported the development of a Europe-wide market over 
the medium to long term. Removal of the Regulation would probably result, at least over 
time,  in  the  reduction  of  the  level  of  rights  offered  and  in  even  more  difficulties  in 
enforcing the remaining rights. 

61 

 
 
 
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 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by 
sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004. 

The evaluation was registered in the Decide Planning under reference PLAN/2019/5712. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The ex-post evaluation of the Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when 
travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 was 
launched in Q3 2019 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 waterborne 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  Mobility  and  Transport  (MOVE),  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 

13 September 2019 

23 October 2019 

18 February 2020 
20 February 2020 
23 April 2020 

3 July 2020 
16 October 2020  
23 October 2020 
16 December 2020 
24 February 2021 

Activity 
Launch of the evaluation in the Commission’s Decide Planning and publication 
of the Evaluation Roadmap on the Better Regulation portal 
1st meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group - outcome of the Roadmap, draft 
Terms of Reference for the support study, consultation strategy 
Launch of the call for tenders for the support study, under Framework Contract 
MOVE/A3/2017-257  
Signature of the contract by independent contractor  
Kick-off meeting with contractor – start of the support study 
2nd meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group - Inception report 

Start of the Public Consultation 
3rd meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group- First interim report  
End of the Public Consultation 
Stakeholder workshop  
4th meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group – Draft final report  

62 

 
13 April 2021 
27 July 2021 
27 July – 31 August 
2021 

5th meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group – Final report 
Submission of the final report of the support study 
Inter-service consultation on the Staff Working Document 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  on  passenger  rights  in  waterborne  transport 
does not provide for exceptions to the Commission’s Better regulation Guidelines. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  1177/2010  on  waterborne  passenger  rights 
occurs  more  than  ten  years  after  its  adoption  in  light  of  the  Commission’s  Sustainable 
and Smart Mobility strategy goals. 

The  assessment  assesses  the  Regulation  impact  from  the  date  when  it  started  to  apply 
more than eight  years ago, until  the  beginning of the evaluation  in  February 2020.  The 
analysis  does  not  specifically  cover  the  impact  of  COVID-19  pandemic  in  2020  and 
2021,  as  it  is  still  premature  to  assess  all  the  effects  of  the  pandemic.  However,  when 
stakeholders  have  made  specific  comments  or  where  effects  are  already  clear  and 
unambiguous these points are presented in the evaluation. 

The  evaluation  findings  mainly  rely  on  the  support  study  carried  out  by  the  external 
contractor,  which  develops  through  the  analysis  of  the  following  evaluation  criteria: 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Regulation. 
The  external  consultant  gathered  data,  made  desktop  research,  performed  stakeholder 
consultation and further gathered evidence for the study. 

The  evaluation  was  completed  by  additional  information  gathered  by  the  European 
Commission  such  as  knowledge  from  participation  at  workshops  and  conferences, 
missions and bilateral meetings with stakeholders and NEBs. The methodology used to 
address the objectives of the evaluation consists of a variety of tools, including inter alia 
a stakeholder consultation, desktop research, case studies, a workshop and a cost-benefit 
analysis. 

63 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

This annex presents the results of the stakeholder consultation activities undertaken in the 
context of the ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2010 aimed at identifying 
the issues arisen since the implementation of the Regulation. 

As  set  out  in  the  consultation  strategy,  the  objective  was  to  gather  the  views  of 
stakeholders  and  collect  evidence  on  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation.  For  this 
purpose, the consultation process was based on a programme of field research designed 
to achieve the following objectives: 

  Ensuring  a  process  which  offers  stakeholders  the  opportunity  to  provide 
information and data that contributed to the findings of the support study;   
  Collecting  stakeholder  views  on  the  outcomes,  results  and  impact  of  the 

Regulation; 

  Collecting data from stakeholders to ensure cross-referencing of information 

and address any information gaps identified;  

  Discussing  issues  arising  with  the  application  of  the  Regulation  and  any 
or 
redundancies, 

shortcomings, 

inefficiencies 

overlaps, 

possible 
inconsistencies; 

  Obtaining information in order to answer the evaluation questions from the 

Terms of Reference; and 

  Collecting  stakeholder  views  on  whether  the  Regulation  is  still  fit  for 

purpose and any suggested good practices or amendments.  

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  three  non-EU  countries 
(United Kingdom, Iceland and Norway). 

Before  the  evaluation,  the  Commission  published  a  roadmap  to  inform  citizens  and 
stakeholders  about  the  upcoming  evaluation  to  allow  them  to  provide  feedback  and  to 
participate  in  the  consultation.  Throughout  the  third  quarter  of  2019  the  Commission 
received  responses  from  seven  organisations  in  total,  including  a  body  representing 
PRMs,  a  transport  ministry,  two  shipping  associations,  two  ferry  companies,  and  a 
provider of mobility as a service (MaaS).  

During  the  support  study  an  in-depth  stakeholder  consultation  was  conducted  by  the 
contractor.  A  comprehensive  stakeholder  consultation  report  can  be  found  as  a 
supplement  to  the  support  study.128  Stakeholders  were  identified  by  the  Commission 
together with the external contractor and the Commission participated in workshops and 
guided the external contractor through the entire consultation. 

For  the  evaluation,  several  methods  were  used  such  as  pilot  interviews,  targeted 
interviews, targeted questionnaires, public consultation and a workshop.  

128 Support study and support study stakeholder consultation report 

64 

 
                                                           
1.  ENGAGEMENT METHODS AND TOOLS 

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

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. Specifically, six sets of 
questionnaires were developed to address the following evaluation topics: effectiveness, 
cost efficiency, relevance, coherence and, EU added value. 

Identified limitations 

It  was  recognised  that  the  questionnaires  were  lengthy  and  time  consuming  for 
stakeholders to complete comprehensively. Therefore, the level and quality of responses 
often  reflected  the  stakeholders’  interest  in  the  Regulation.  Some  participating 
stakeholders (particularly  passenger associations not specifically representing PRM), do 
not focus on air transport and thus their experience with and knowledge of the Regulation 
was very limited.  

Targeted stakeholder consultation 

In  total,  94  responses  were  received  through  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation. 
Responses can be indexed by the following stakeholder groups: NEBs, ferry, cruise and 
inland  waterway  operators,  waterborne  terminals  operators,  passenger  and  PRM 
representatives,  European  Consumers  Centres  (ECCs),  ADR  organisations  and  a  small 
number of other stakeholders, as shown in this graph: 

65 

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

Source: Support study, Paragraph 2.6 

1.2. Interviews  

A  total  of  26  interviews  were  conducted  with  selected  stakeholders  to  ensure 
representativeness and diversity of the sample. 

Five  pilot  interviews  were  completed  during  the  project  inception  with  the  following 
stakeholders:  the  Transport  Regulation  Authority  (ART  (IT)),  the  Finnish  Competition 
and  Consumer  Authority  (FI),  the  Danish  Maritime  Authority  (DK),  the  operator 
Transmediterranea (ES) and the European Passenger Forum (EPF). 

In  addition,  a  total  of  21  interviews  were  conducted  as  part  of  the  evaluation  process, 
including four which were used to simultaneously discuss Regulation (EC) 181/2011 as 
well  as  other  passenger  rights  Regulations  (1107/2006  and/or  1177/2010).  Five 
stakeholders declined, whilst three did not engage.  

The following stakeholders, including NEBs, waterborne carriers, terminal operators, and 
passenger  and  PRM  representatives  participated  in  the  interviews:  Assarmatori  (IT), 
Caronte  &  Tourist  (IT),  Confitarma  (IT),  Costa  Cruises  (IT),  Danish  Shipping 
Association,  European  Community  Shipowner’s  Associations 
(ECSA),  Finnish 
Competition and Consumer Authority (FU), GNV (IT), Grimaldi Ferries (IT), Interferry, 
Irish Ferries (IE), Liberty Lines (IT), Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Insular Policy (EL), 
Passenger  Representative  European  Passenger  Forum  (EPF),  PO  Ferries  (UK),  Port  of 
Rotterdam (NL), Port of Szczecin (PL), PRM Representative European Disability Forum 
(EDF), PRM Representative KEPKA (EL), PRM Representative Spanish  Committee of 
Representatives  of  People  with  Disabilities  (CERMI),  Scandlines  (DK),  Swedish 
Consumer Agency (SE) and Transport Regulation Authority (IT). 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
1.3. Workshop 

A full-day participatory workshop with selected stakeholders took place on 16 December 
2020.  The  workshop  was  led  and  organised  by  the  contractor,  with  the  European 
Commission  also  in  attendance. The workshop  was 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 theme of the 
industry  and  the  Regulation,  a  few  points  related  to  the  definition  of  re-routing 
(specifically  comparable  conditions),  non-discriminatory  access  and  the  difficulty  of 
operators to fulfil their obligation to inform the passengers when contact details are not 
shared were raised by participants. As regard the theme on ensuring that the Regulation 
remains  fit  for  purpose,  some  articles  were  identified  for  further  clarification,  gaps  in 
legislation outlined and opinions on the role of NEBs shared.   

The  workshop  was  attended  by  25  organisations  in  total,  including  ADRs,  NEBs, 
waterborne  operators,  ports,  and  PRM  representatives.  In  particular,  the  following 
attendees took  part to  the workshop: ART  (IT),  Coastal  Liner Services  Agency  (CLSA 
(HR)), Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MT), Consumer Rights Protection 
Centre  (LV),  Cruise  Port  Rotterdam  (NL),  Danish  Maritime  Authority  (DK),  EBU, 
ECSA,  EDF,  Eisenbahn-Bundesamt  (EBA  (DE)),  European  Union  of  the  Deaf,  GNV 
(IT),  Interferry,  Irish  Ferries  (IE),  MTV  (FR),  National  Transport  Authority  (IE),  P&O 
Ferries (UK), Port of Tallinn (EE), Royal Carribean, Scandlines (DK), Stena Line (SE), 
Tallink/Silja Line Estonia (EE), Venice Port Authority (IT), Viking  Line (FI),  and SöP 
(DE). 

1.4. Public Consultation 

The  Commission  launched  a  public  consultation  on  3  July  2020  and  closed  it  on  23 
October 2020. 

A  total  of  19  responses  were  received  to  the  survey,  mostly  from  carriers  and  carrier 
associations,  NEBs  and  Member  States  and  citizens.  Most  responses  were  from 
contributors  from  the  EU,  whilst  one  was  from  the  United  States.  The  Member  States 
with the most responses were Belgium (2), France (5), Italy (3), Portugal (2) and Sweden 
(2).  

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, the targeted 
questionnaires, interviews and workshop – and the public consultation.  

2.1. Results of the targeted consultation  

67 

 
 
 
The  targeted  questionnaires  were  designed  to  obtain  stakeholder  views,  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  statistical  approaches  due  to  the 
highly  qualitative  nature  of  the  responses  received.  Therefore,  although  response  rates 
were  closely  monitored,  the  focus  was  more  on  the  quality  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, 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 
unanswered  by  some  respondents.  Overall,  the  vast  majority  of  NEBs  answered 
questions in detail.  

With respect to the effectiveness of the Regulation, most NEBs were uncertain whether 
the Regulation had changed the level of protection provided to passengers and PRMs or 
not. Among the hindrances to effectiveness mentioned by NEBs were a lack of sanctions 
when carriers are in breach of Article 19 of the Regulation and a lack of clarity regarding 
several terms in the Regulation such as extraordinary circumstances and re-routing. 

Of  the  18  NEBs  to  provide  a  view,  only  half  (9)  suggested  that  the  Regulation’s 
efficiency costs are proportionate to its benefits.  

With  respect  to  relevance,  the  NEBs  assessed  that  the  original  objectives  of  the 
Regulation  remain  relevant  to  the  current  needs  of  PRMs  when  travelling  by  sea  and 
inland waterways.  

With  respect  to  coherence,  most  NEBs  deemed  that  the  Regulation’s  provisions  were 
coherent and consistent with one another. With respect to the UNCRPD, most NEBs did 
not  state  any  inconsistencies,  however  one  NEB  disagreed,  assessing  that  for  PRMs  to 
exercise  their  rights  under  the  UNCRPD,  it  is  necessary  to  provide  sufficient  and 
accurate information, which is not unconditionally guaranteed by the Regulation due to 
exceptions  relating  to  making  information  available  in  accessible  formats  (e.g.  “where 
feasible”). 

68 

 
With respect to EU added value, it was highlighted that passengers have benefitted from 
the  reassurance  provided  by  the  single  European  framework  for  waterborne  passenger 
rights.  However,  one  NEB  highlighted  that  there  are  interpretative  differences  across 
Member States. 

Waterborne carriers and associations 

All  responses  received  from  carriers  were  relatively  detailed  with  each  answering  the 
majority of questions. All of the responses appear to be unique with no clear similarities 
with other responses. 

Few  carriers  had  specific  views  on  effectiveness  –  with  only  four  carriers  explicitly 
providing  a  view  on  to  what  extent  the  Regulation  has  improved  protections  for 
passengers (all four stated that the Regulation had improved protections, which had been 
aided  by  effective  penalties,  improved  staff  awareness  and  training,  greater  certainty 
regarding  compensation  levels,  and  a  strong  EU  wide  legislative  framework).  For  the 
rights of PRMs in particular, almost all carriers (15 of 16) assessed that PRMs can now 
travel on equal term with other passengers via sea or inland waterway. However, some 
(4)  stressed  that  this  was  already  possible  prior  to  the  Regulation.  The  same  is  also 
expressed  in  regard  to  the  non-discriminatory  ticket  fares  and  contract  conditions  with 
most carriers (12) stating that all passenger receive the same prices within each category 
to  avoid  discrimination.  Most  carriers  (13)  are  satisfied  with  the  effectiveness  of  their 
national NEB in enforcing the Regulation. 

On  efficiency,  the  majority  (8)  of  the  carriers  which  provided  an  opinion  on  the  costs 
attributed  to  the  Regulation  stated  that  they  had  not  incurred  any  additional  financial 
costs. This view correlated with the view that service quality had not changed as a result 
of  the  Regulation.  In  contrast,  other  carriers  (2)  stated  that  costs  had  increased,  one  of 
which correlated this with an increase in service quality. 

On relevance, carriers agreed that the priority needs of passengers are similar to those at 
the time of implementation. However, carriers could not agree on whether the extent of 
technological development and digitalisation is much more prominent than at the time of 
implementation.  One  carrier  highlighted  that  smartphones  and  social  networks  may 
enable better communication with passengers. 

On  coherence,  the  majority  (9)  of  carriers  to  respond  stated  that  the  Regulation  and  its 
provisions are coherent with one another. The majority (10) to provide a view also agreed 
that the Regulation is consistent with the UNCRPD. 

With respect to EU added value, only one carrier responded – stating that the Regulation 
encourages  pan-European  cooperation  among  carriers  and  NEBs  regarding  how  best  to 
ensure compliance. 

Ports and terminals 

69 

 
A  total  of  seven  responses  were  received  from  waterborne  terminal  operators  and 
associations. 

On effectiveness, terminals generally agreed (3) that service quality and the availability 
of  travel  information  had  improved  since  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation.  With 
respect to the effectiveness of enforcement, only few terminal operators (2) had been in 
contact with NEBs as a result of the Regulation and both were satisfied with their NEB. 
However,  the  picture  is  less  clear  for  the  protection  afforded  to  PRMs,  with  one 
stakeholder assessing that the Regulation had not led to a significant change in protection 
for PRMs. 

With  respect  to  cost  efficiency,  two  terminal  operators  highlighted  an  increase  in 
operating costs as a result of the implementation of the Regulation. One terminal operator 
highlighted that they had seen a decrease in the unit cost of PRM assistance, however. 

On  relevance,  port  and  terminal  stakeholders  held  similar  views  to  those  of  carriers, 
adding  that  reliability  and  safety  were  of  utmost  importance  for  all.  The  importance  of 
accessible facilities was also highlighted as of importance to PRMs specifically. 

On coherence, no detailed comments were given except for two terminals agreeing that 
the provisions within the Regulation are coherent and consistent with one another. 

Regarding EU added value, no views were expressed by the Stakeholders. 

Passenger and PRM representatives 

Responses to the targeted consultation were received from a total of eight passenger and 
PRM representatives from four Member States. The European Union of the Deaf (EUD) 
likely  collaborated  with  the  European  Disability  Forum  (EDF)  as  similarly  worded 
responses were given to the consultation. 

On effectiveness, the PRM representatives agreed that the Regulation has had a positive 
impact on the protections provided to PRM passengers since its implementation. This is 
attributed to an increased level of awareness concerning the needs and rights of PRMs. 

On efficiency, no detailed responses were given on the costs attributed to passengers as a 
result of the Regulation due to a low amount of data. 

In terms of relevance, PRM representatives criticised the Regulation’s relative silence on 
the  topic  of  accessibility,  three  of  them  criticising  specifically  that  minimum 
requirements  should  be  introduced  for  the  accessibility  of  terminals  and  vessels. 
Nevertheless,  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation  remain  relevant  to  some  of  passengers’ 
and  PRMs’  diverse  needs.    Nevertheless,  it  was  claimed  that  the  Regulation  does  not 
adequately reflect the capabilities offered by digitization and automation. For example, it 
is  reasonable  for  passengers  to  expect  personalised  and  timely  disruption  and 
compensation. 

70 

 
On  coherence,  two  PRM  representatives  highlighted  that  the  Regulation  is  not  in  line 
with  the  UNCRPD  which  requires  transport  to  be  accessible  on  an  equal  basis.  For 
example,  the  overall  low  accessibility  of  fleet  vehicles  results  in  non-trivial  de  facto 
limitations  on  the  types  of  routes  PRMs  have  access  to.  The  same  stakeholders  argued 
that the Regulation should align more closely with the UNCRPD. 

No responses were given regarding EU added value. 

European Consumers Centres 

Nearly all ECCs which responded 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.  

ECCs gave no responses relevant to coherence or EU added value. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution organisations  

As is the case with  ECCs, almost all ADRs which responded (excluding DR, NO, AT) 
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.  Although 
DR,  NO  and  AT  all  received  slightly  more  complaints,  up  to  a  maximum  of  36 
complaints,  none  provided  a  detailed  response  on  effectiveness.  One  ADR  highlighted 
that  11  out  of  the  22  cases  since  2014  resulted  in  favour  of  the  passenger  and,  in  one 
instance, an out of court settlement was agreed. The remaining 10 of 22 cases resulted in 
passenger claims being rejected. Most of the ADRs to provide a response (7 of 8) stated 
that  their  decisions  are  non-binding,  although  none  commented  on  the  extent  to  which 
this affects the effectiveness of the complaint handling process. Instead, ADRs noted that 
their  tools  for  resolving  complaints  include  making  a  recommendation  for  a  carrier  to 
granting  payment  or  issuing  a  voucher  (DE,  EE),  encouraging  out  of  court  settlements 
(AT) and publishing statements encouraging changes to carriers or terminals procedures 
(PT). 

ADRs’ had no significant comments relating to relevance, efficiency, coherence and EU 
added value.  

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 

71 

 
data  (both  quantitative  and  qualitative)  or  analysis  of  such.  Nevertheless,  of  the  small 
number of stakeholders to provide a response, most stated that the Regulation has had a 
positive impact on the achievement of at least some of its objectives. 

In terms of added value, although this question was answered correctly by the majority of 
stakeholders, a small minority misinterpreted the question as an assessment of how much 
value  the  Regulation  contributed  to  their  Member  States  and  their  individual 
organisation.  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 with regard to the 
evaluation question of relevance and to technological advancements.  

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  sea  and  inland  waterway  similar  to  when  the 
Regulation was implemented. 

On technological advancements, these stakeholder groups agreed that as the digitization 
of  the  journey  has  become  more  prevalent  across  all  modes  of  transport,  further 
advancement  and  utilisation  within  this  area  will  result  in  a  better  overall  passenger 
experience, particularly with respect to travel information and complaint handling. 

2.1.3. Areas of disagreement 

There  were  a  two  main  areas  of  disagreement  across  stakeholder  groups  but  no 
significant differences of views within stakeholder groups on key issues. 

With respect to the coherence of the Regulation with the UNCRPD, PRM representatives 
stated  that  the  overall  low  accessibility  of  fleet  vehicles  results  in  restrictions  to PRMs 
when travelling via sea or inland waterways and highlighted that the Regulation should 
stipulate minimum quotas for accessible vehicles within fleets in order to be in line with 
the rights stipulated in the UNCRPD. 

With respect to equal access for PRMs as a result of the Regulation, carriers, ports and 
terminals  mainly  stressed  that  equal  access  for  passengers  was  available  prior  to  the 
implementation of the Regulation, whilst passenger and PRM representatives highlighted 
that  the  Regulation  has  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  protections  provided  to  PRM 
passengers  since  its  implementation,  attributing  it  to  an  increased  level  of  awareness 
concerning the needs and rights of PRMs. 

2.2. Results of the Public Consultation 

The public consultation primarily focussed on the effectiveness of the Regulation. A total 
of  19  responses  were  received.  The  largest  respondent  group  were  carriers  (5)  and  EU 
and non-EU citizens (5), making up just over one-half of the sample.  

72 

 
2.2.1 Evaluation topics  

Effectiveness 

Overall, a significant majority (12 of 19) of stakeholders assessed that the Regulation had 
improved  the  protection  of  passengers  travelling  by  sea  or  inland  waterway  at  least 
slightly since the introduction of the EU passenger rights in 2012. 

Stakeholders identified several positive and negative impacts of the Regulation, some of 
which can be directly accredited to the Regulation. In terms of benefits stemming from 
the Regulation, the comments received from respondents include:  

  A guaranteed right to assistance as a PRM; 
  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; 
Increased clarity on responsibilities of carriers. 

 

With  respect  to  the  Regulation’s  negative  impacts,  one  carrier  stressed  that  the 
requirement  to  provide  rerouting  in  the  event  of  travel  disruption  increases  the  risks 
associated to providing longer sea routes where alternatives are not commercially viable. 
Carriers  asked  for  further  clarity  regarding  how  such  alternative  should  be  provided  in 
practice. 

Although  citizens,  passenger  and  PRM  representatives  stressed  there  have  been 
improvements to the Regulation, they called for better enforcement of the Regulation and 
for attention to also focus on fleet and terminal accessibility.  

Efficiency 

According to the view expressed by PRM representatives, the benefits included that the 
Regulation has raised awareness of PRMs 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.  One  NEB  assessed  that  administrative  and 
financial costs are increasing. 

EU Relevance 

Stakeholders had particularly differing views on EU relevance. Whilst the majority (9 of 
19)  stated  that  there  were  no  aspects  of  the  Regulation  that  were  obsolete,  5  more 
stakeholders  stated  the  opposite.  One  NEB  suggested  particularly  that  the  30-minute 
notification  period  for  carriers  in  the  event  of  a  delay  is  too  generous  because  most 
passengers  tend  to  arrive  well  in  advance  of  their  scheduled  departure  time,  and  one 
passenger representative stated that compensation for passengers who hold a travel-ass or 
season ticket has not been adequately considered. 

73 

 
There  was  little  agreement  on  the  Regulation’s  provisions  being  obsolete.  A  few 
responses  given  to  the  OPC  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 inconsistencies across the different passenger rights 
regulations  in  terms  of  delay-time  thresholds  for  the  triggering  of  re-routing, 
reimbursement,  assistance  and/or  compensation.  One  PRM  representative  stressed  that 
the  exemptions  under  Article  2  of  the  Regulation  should  be  removed  as  this  violates 
passengers’  rights  to  equal  access  to  waterborne  transport  provided  for  through  the 
UNCRPD.  

EU added value 

The OPC did not feature any response that addresses the question of EU added value.  

74 

 
 
 
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 
1177/2010 concerning the rights of passengers in waterborne transport. 

3.1. 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.  

Stakeholder consultation 

The  stakeholder  consultation  consisted  of  pilot  interviews,  targeted  face  to  face  and 
telephone interviews with at least 60 participants, targeted questionnaires to the industry, 
a public consultation and a participatory workshop.  

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

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

Case studies  

The evaluation has been supported by three case studies which addressed the following 
topics:  passenger  rights  for  cruise  ships;  re-routing  of  waterborne  passengers  facing 
disruption and waterborne passenger rights for passenger travelling with a car.  

Country-fiches 

Country-specific  information  were  presented  for  each  of  the  EU27  Member  States  as 
well as Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom included under the geographic scope of 
the  evaluation.  The  information  provided  by  the  country-fiches  focused  on  the 
description of the national enforcement system and their SWOT analysis. 

Carrier review 

A review of selected waterborne carriers’ websites was performed in December 2020 and 
January  2021  with  the  objective  of  understanding  the  carriers’  approach  to  passenger 
rights  and  how  they  present  their  safety  rules  relevant  to  passengers.  The  selected 
waterborne operators included a range of different-sized organisations, located/registered 
in different Member States.  

75 

 
Workshop 

A  participatory  full-day  workshop  was  attended  by  a  total  of  29  stakeholders  from  all 
over the EU27 including 7 NEBs, 5 PRM and passenger representatives, 4 ports and 10 
carriers. 

The discussion was centred on three themes: the waterborne industry and the Regulation, 
passengers with vehicles and foot passengers, and ensuring the Regulation remains fit for 
purpose.  

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 options were considered:  

 

 

 

the situation regarding passenger rights in 2013 in the 27 Member States, as well as 
Norway,  Iceland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  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  
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  1177/2010  was  based  on  data 
collected for the period 2010-2018. 

It  was  assumed  that  the  resulting  level  of  passenger  rights  in  each  Member  State 
remained constant in the no policy intervention scenario, whereas other variables (such as 
total  passengers  travelling  from  and  within  each  Member  State)  remained  the  same 
across both scenarios.  

Cost-benefit analysis 

Cost - benefit analysis of the Regulation has been conducted over the period 2013-2018. 
The assessment of the costs and benefits resulted by the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 
1177/2010  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. 

Total costs associated with the Regulation over the period 2008-2018 were estimated to 
be EUR95.7 million (2018 prices), whilst total benefits were estimated to be +EUR39.2 
million (2018 prices). 

Whilst citizens and consumers benefitted from  the Regulation  by access  to  refunds and 
assistance  in  the  case  of  disruptions  (overall  benefit  amounting  to  +EUR19.8  million 
(2018 prices), ports (-EUR11.5 million (2018 prices)), carriers (-EUR44.6 million (2018 

76 

 
prices))  and  NEBs  (-EUR20.3  million  (2018  prices))  mainly  incurred  costs  from  the 
Regulation.  Another  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. 

The  overall  cost  of  the  Regulation,  resulting  from  the  difference  between  costs  and 
benefits, can be estimated as being -EUR56.5 million (2018 prices). 

3.2. Evaluation matrix 

For this evaluation, a number of operational questions and sub-questions were identified 
to support the development of response to the 5 evaluation criteria. The evaluation matrix 
has been further fine-tuned and updated through the whole evaluation process. 

77 

 
 
 
Table A3.1 – Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 

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 waterborne transport services and, as appropriate, their agents 

and corporate customers (ticket retailers, travel agents and tour operators) were requested: 
  Approach to setting tariffs 

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

  Arrangements for assisting PRMs 
  Arrangements for supporting passengers during long delays 
  Complaints procedures, including communication to passengers on how to make a complaint 

Policy and procedures on compensation and re-routing, including any differences of approach applying to 
passengers travelling with a vehicle 

  Wider service quality standards 
  Differences in the level of protection provided to passengers using services operated under a public 

service obligations (PSO) as compared with that provided on other services 

•  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 2012 when the Regulation 
started to apply. 
In parallel, information was requested from 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. 

•  The 2006 report supporting the impact assessment undertaken prior to implementation was reviewed to 

identify relevant baseline values. 

•  This information was used to document changes since the implementation of the Regulation and any 

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

A1.2 

To what extent do passengers complain of 

• 

Information on the volume and breakdown of complaints from operators, their agents and corporate 

78 

 
 
 
 
discriminatory treatment? 

A1.3 

How many PRMs travel by waterborne transport are 
there and how does this number compare with the 
extent of PRM travel before the Regulation (taking 
account of any general growth in traffic)?  

customers, ports/terminals and NEBs and passenger and PRM representative organisations were requested in 
order to identify evidence of discriminatory treatment of passengers. 

• 

• 

Information was requested from operators and ports/terminals on the volume of PRM travel and the share of 
PRMs in total passengers for 2019 and previous years. This data was compared with equivalent data included 
in the 2006 report. This was intended to provide evidence of any overall effect on the propensity for PRMs to 
travel by waterborne transport 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 ports/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 

To what extent do PRMs complain of discriminatory 
treatment? 

• 

Information was requested on the breakdown of complaints from operators, ports/terminals, their agents and 
corporate customers, NEBs and PRM representative organisations in order to identify evidence of 
discriminatory treatment and/or ongoing barriers to PRM travel. 

A1.5  What has been the trend in delays and cancellations 
since the Regulation was implemented? 

A1.6 

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

•  Operator conditions of carriage for PRMs were reviewed and any differences identified. Data was requested 

on denied boarding in order to determine any trends in incidents as a share of requests. 

•  Operators were asked to explain how they define delays and cancellations and how these definitions link to the 

• 

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

•  By combining this data with information on the number of sailings by operator and/or route, it was planned to 
produce normalised measures (delays and cancellations per scheduled departure) for comparison over time and 
between operators. 

•  Data was requested from operators on levels of compensation and costs of assistance provided for the delays 

and cancellations identified under W1.5.  

•  Compensation/cost of assistance and incident data was combined to identify trends in the level of 

compensation and cost of assistance per incident. 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. 

79 

 
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 carriers, ports and routes? 

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), 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, were assessed. 

A1.8 

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

•  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 used to cross-check the 
conclusions of our own review. 

•  Data were requested on the number of complaints received by operators, ports/terminals and NEBs since the 
Regulation started to apply in 2012. Complaints volumes were 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 and time taken to 
resolve them, although we are not confident of obtaining sufficient baseline data for comparison. 

• 

A1.9  What is the experience of passengers who have sought 

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

to exercise their rights/make complaints? 

• 

measures of passenger satisfaction on different transport modes. 
Information was requested on the actions taken by operators, ports/terminals and NEBs to monitor quality 
standards and on any key changes following implementation of the Regulation. 

•  Views were gathered from consumer and passenger representative organisations on the experience of 

passengers using waterborne transport and how far this has changed since the Regulation was implemented. 
•  Examples of where the treatment of passengers has been subject to political comment/investigation or adverse 
press comment were identified and operators and ports/terminals were asked about the extent to which the 
potential for adverse publicity influences their approach. 

•  Where available, revision was undertaken of any surveys undertaken by consumer and passenger 

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

•  Additional evidence from operators, ports/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. 

A1.10  What mechanisms do NEBs employ to enforce 

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

compliance with the Regulation? 

enforcement applied in specific cases. 

•  The monitoring by NEB of cross-border services and of services provided by European-wide carriers was 

considered. 

A1.11  How does the experience of waterborne travel in 

•  The protection provided through any relevant legislation or voluntary codes of practice in ten countries was 

Europe compare with the experience of travelling in 

reviewed. 

80 

 
third countries or other regions? 

A1.12  To what extent does the Regulation provide clarity on 

obligations towards passengers in extraordinary 
circumstances such as the outbreak of COVID-19 and 
subsequent government action to contain it? 

•  The transport ministries located in these countries were contacted and asked for information on their 
respective frameworks for protecting passengers (including PRMs) using waterborne 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 enabled a systematic comparison of levels of protection. 
•  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 drew 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 study, we did 

not expect to make firm recommendations in respect of policy changes. 

A1.13  Have there been any unexpected impacts following 

•  All stakeholders were asked for their views on whether the Regulation has had any unexpected consequences, 

implementation of the Regulation?  

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

whether good or bad. They were asked to provide evidence of the link between specific aspects of the 
legislation and the impacts identified. 

• 

• 

Passenger and consumer representative organisations and NEBs were asked for their views on the extent of 
discriminatory behaviour. These organisations were also asked for a view on how application of the non-
discrimination principle varies between sectors. PRM representative organisations were asked about the extent 
to which PRMs are subject to particular discrimination. 
Information was requested on the extent to which operators and ports/terminals invoke other legislation (for 
example, safety legislation) in order to deny boarding. Where available, operators were asked to provide 
information on denied 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 PRMs) differently. 

A1.15  How important is passenger protection to carriers in 

•  Operators, ports/terminals and their agents and corporate customers were asked about the importance of 

terms of revenue and reputation? 

Efficiency 

• 

demonstrating protection of passengers’ interests in establishing their reputation. 
Information obtained under A1.8.  on adverse press comment was drawn on to gauge the impact of such 
comment on reputation. 

A2.1  What are the reported costs of compliance and how do 

•  Data were requested on the costs of compliance with the Regulation from operators, their agents and corporate 

81 

 
 
 
 
these compare with the overall cost base of operators 
and ports/terminals? 

A2.2 

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

A2.3 

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

Relevance 

A3.1  What level of protection do passengers (including 

PRMs) seek and how does this compare those identified 
before the Regulation? 

customers and ports/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 compared 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 A1.1 and A1.9) 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, it has allowed an 
estimate of the efficient costs of compliance to be made. 
Information was requested from transport ministries and NEBs on administrative costs incurred by them in 
implementing and enforcing the legislation. 

• 

•  All stakeholders were asked for their views on the most significant compliance costs and on whether these are 

proportionate to the associated benefits. 

•  Where possible, the estimates of compliance costs were compared with those estimated at the time of the 

impact assessment and of the 2006 report. 

•  Based on this analysis, conclusions were drawn on whether compliance costs appear proportionate. 
•  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. 
Proposals were critically assessed, for example by testing them with different stakeholders during follow-up 
discussions to gauge reactions from a passenger and supplier perspective. 

•  Operators and ports/terminals were asked whether they have undertaken any analysis of potential cost savings 

and to share the results. 

•  All stakeholders were asked for their views on passengers’ priorities when traveling by waterborne and on 
how these have changed since implementation of the Regulation. They were also asked 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, ports/terminals and their agents and corporate customers were sought on how the level of 

protection for passengers (including PRMs) currently offered compares with that provided before 
implementation of the Regulation and/or how it has changed over time.  

•  This information was 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 

2010 that change the travel experience for passengers 

•  All stakeholders were asked for views on (1) how technology has changed the way in which passengers plan 
and make journeys by waterborne transport and (2) how it has enabled the industry to better respond to 

82 

 
(including PRMs)? Have operators and terminals made 
use of these? 

passenger needs. We asked stakeholders to consider the effects of: 

General technological improvements affecting all passengers using waterborne transport (for example, 
changes in communication technology); 
Specific technological developments in the sector (for example, affecting ferry specification or terminal 
design); and 
Technological developments directly affecting PRMs (for example, 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 used 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?  

•  All stakeholders were asked to indicate any difficulties in interpreting the Regulation. 
•  Desk research was undertaken to identify any infringement issues that might indicate loopholes or lack of 

A4.2 

Are there any aspects of passenger waterborne travel 
that are not addressed by the Regulation? 

clarity. 

•  The findings were used to prepare a systematic analysis of gaps and inconsistencies in the legislation. 
•  All stakeholders were asked to respond to this question, but findings under A1.9 and A3.1 were also drawn on 

to undertake the analysis. 

A4.3  What are the specific requirements of the international 

•  The following legislation was reviewed: 

regulatory framework applying to waterborne travel? 
How do these compare with the requirements of the 
Regulation? 

Other EU legislation, including Directive (EC) 2015/2302 (the Package Travel Directive), Directive 
(EC) 2006/2004 on enforcement of consumer protection laws, and Directive (EC) 2009/45 on safety 
rules and standards for passenger ships  
Relevant international regulatory frameworks, including the Convention on Facilitation of International 
Maritime Traffic, the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by 
Sea, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
Desk research into legal commentary was also undertaken on the legislation and its relationship with 
other regulatory frameworks. 
Based on the review, different requirements were compared and contrasted and any apparent 
inconsistencies between the Regulation and other frameworks were identified. 

A4.4 

Have stakeholders identified any inconsistencies 
between international rules and the Regulation? 

•  All stakeholders were asked for their views on inconsistencies between the Regulation and the wider 

international 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 Regulation. 

EU added value  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A5.1 

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

A5.2  Was there any national legislation in place before the 

Regulation? 

• 

Information on relevant operating procedures and training material was requested from operators and 
ports/terminals. 

•  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, the extent to which national regulatory frameworks in different Member States 

might substitute for the provisions of the Regulation was assessed. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3. 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  little  accurate  and  up-to-date  information  on  the 
particularities of the market affected by the Regulation as well as on the number and profile of 
passengers benefitting from it.  

Member State reporting 

The findings on the number of complaints made and any sanctions issued due to non-compliance 
with  the Regulation  built  on the biennial  NEB reports, from  which information  concerning the 
impact  of  the  Regulation  was  also  extracted.  However,  it  must  be  noted  that  not  all  NEBs 
provided information through this channel.   

Furthermore, in practice, some of the reports did not contain the relevant information and instead 
it was necessary to estimate NEBs’ and other costs for some Member States based on actual cost 
data provided by others. 

Stakeholder consultation 

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

Overall, stakeholder engagement task involved all identified and interested stakeholders via the 
most  appropriate  channels  and  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 on stakeholder consultation: 

-  not all stakeholders were able to send responses in time although additional time was offered 

for those who highlighted it as an issue; 

-  not  all stakeholders  were able to  send responses as detailed as they would  have wished for 

due to a lack of resources during and after the first peak of the health crisis; 

-  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.  At  a  total 
level, the total number of passengers travelling from European ports was available from Eurostat, 
which  allowed  the  total  number  of  passengers  departing  from  each  Member  State  to  be 

85 

 
 
established. This data disaggregated between cruise and non-cruise passengers, however did not 
contain information on passenger travelling on inland waterways. More detailed data, presenting 
passenger  journey  flows,  journey  lengths  and  fares  etc.  was  not  available  at  a  total  level  and 
instead it was  required to derive  assumptions from  publicly available material  to  apportion the 
total passenger number collated.  

The  number  of  passengers  requiring  assistance  was  not  recorded  in  Eurostat  and  it  was  not 
possible to receive sufficient data from carriers to enable direct assumptions to be derived.  

Sufficient data from carriers regarding the proportion of passengers experiencing disruption was 
also not available and instead assumptions were derived from the Eurobarometer survey. 

Data on the existence of legislation prior to the introduction of Regulation (EU)  No 1177/2010 
was available in the 2006 Analysis and assessment of the level of protection of passenger rights 
in  the  EU  maritime  transport  sector  report  and  updated  to  take  account  of  other  legislation 
introduced between 2006 and 2018. 

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. 

86 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: REVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOGIC  

This  Annex  is  intended  to  describe  the  rationale  of  the  intervention  logic  which  takes  into 
account  the  situation  in  place  in  terms  of  passenger  rights  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Regulation. It provides analysis of the ex-ante situation and an overview of the issues identified 
which led to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010. 

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 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key policy elements identified by the 2008 Impact Assessment  

The key policy elements identified by the Impact Assessment performed in 2008, are presented 
in Table A4.1.  

Table A4.1: Key elements of the proposed policies 

Key elements 

Content 

Full accessibility in ports 
and ship 

Seamless assistance in 
ports 

Seamless assistance in 
ships 

1  To allow full access to existing ports. 

1  To put in place arrangements at ports to enable PRMs to perform all necessary 

actions at each step of the journey, namely: 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

f 

g 

h 

i 

j 

k 

l 

communicate their arrival at a port and their request for assistance; 

move from an entry point to the check-in counter, if any; 

check in and register baggage, if needed; 

proceed from the check-in counter (if any) to the ship, with completion of 
emigration, customs and security procedures; 

board the ship, with the provision of lifts, wheelchairs or other assistance, 
as appropriate; 

proceed from the ship door to their seats/area; 

store and retrieve baggage on the ship; 

proceed from their seats to the ship door; 

disembark from the ship, with the provision of lifts, wheelchairs or other 
assistance, as appropriate; 

retrieve baggage (if needed), with completion of immigration and customs 
procedures; 

proceed from the baggage hall to a designated point of exit; and 

go to the toilet facilities if necessary. 

2  To ensure that, where a person with disabilities or person with reduced mobility 
is assisted by an accompanying person, this person is, on request, allowed to 
provide the necessary assistance at the port and with embarking and 
disembarking. 

3  To ensure handling of all necessary mobility equipment, including equipment 

such as electric wheelchairs. 

4  To ensure temporary replacement of damaged or lost mobility equipment, albeit 

not necessarily on a like-for-like basis. 

5  To ensure handling of recognised assistance dogs, where relevant.  

1  To ensure carriage of recognised assistance dogs in the ship, subject to national 

regulations. 

2 

In addition to medical equipment, to ensure transport of up to two pieces of 
mobility equipment per person with disabilities or person with reduced mobility, 
including electric wheelchairs. 

3  To ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to arrange seating to meet the 

needs of individuals with disability or reduced mobility on request and subject to 
safety requirements and availability. 

4  To ensure assistance in getting to toilet facilities, if relevant. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
Key elements 

Content 

Non-discriminatory 
treatment 

5  To ensure that, where a person with disabilities or person with reduced mobility 

is assisted by an accompanying person, the shipping company makes all 
reasonable efforts to give this person a seat next to the person with disabilities or 
person with reduced mobility. 

1  Person with disabilities and PRMs should be accepted for carriage and not 

refused transport on the grounds of their disability or lack of mobility, except for 
reasons that are justified on the grounds of safety and are prescribed by law. 

2 

In the interests of social inclusion, person with disabilities and PRMs should 
receive the assistance mentioned above without additional charge. 

3  Assistance should be financed in such a way as to spread the burden equitably 
among all passengers using a port and to avoid disincentives to the carriage of 
person with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility. 

Source: Support study, Appendix B 

89 

 
 
 
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 are presented in 2018 prices. 

The total costs associated with the Regulation over the period 2008-2018 were estimated to be 
EUR95.7  million  (2018  prices),  whilst  total  benefits  were  estimated  to  be  +EUR39.2  million 
(2018  prices),  not  including  the  unquantifiable  benefit  of  improved  rights  for  passengers  who 
request PRM assistance, although it is considered a primary benefit of the Regulation, for PRMs 
to  now  be  able  to  benefit  from  their  rights  to  free  movement,  freedom  of  choice  and  non-
discrimination, contrary to the previous situation.  

The  overall  cost  of  the  Regulation  was  estimated  to  be  -EUR56.5  million  (2018  prices). 
Table A5.1 shows an overview of the costs and benefits resulted by the adoption of Regulation 
(EU) No 1177/2010. 

Table A5. 1 – Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation of Regulation (EC) 
1177/2010 

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

Citizens/ 
Consumers  
Quantitative 
/ monetary 

Ports 

Carriers 

NEBs 

PRM Pax 

Quantitative / 
monetary  
-EUR 0.3 

Quantitative / 
monetary  
-EUR 30.6 

Quantitative 
/ monetary 
-EUR 20.3 

EUR 0.0 

-EUR 11.3 

Administrative  EUR 0.0 
Service 
provision 
Claims 
Sanctions 
Benefits 
Total 
Source: Support study Stakeholder Consultation Report, Appendix G 

EUR 0.0 
EUR 0.0 
EUR 0.0 
-EUR 11.5 

-EUR 26.3 
-EUR 0.5 
EUR 12.8 
-EUR 44.6 

-EUR 6.5 
EUR 0.0 
EUR 26.3 
EUR 19.8 

EUR 0.0 

EUR 0.0 

EUR 0.0 
EUR 0.0 
EUR 0.0 
-EUR 20.3 

Qualitative 

-  

-  

-  
-  
High 
High 

Quantitative 
/ monetary 
EUR 0.0 

EUR 0.0 

EUR 0.0 
EUR 0.0 
EUR 0.0 
EUR 0.0 

90 

 
 
  
  
 
 
Table A6.1: National enforcement bodies (NEBs) 

ANNEX 6: TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table A6.1. presents the number of NEBs in each Member State as notified by the Member State 
to the Commission as well as represented in the Annex D of the support study.  

MS 

Number of NEBs 
notified to EC 

Single 
waterborne 
NEB in the 
MS 

Single multimodal 
NEB in the MS 

Subdivision of NEB roles, 
where this is relevant 

AT  Austria 

BE  Belgium 

BG  Bulgaria 

CY  Cyprus 

CZ  Czechia 

DK  Denmark 

DE  Germany 

EE  Estonia 

EL  Greece 

FI 

Finland 

FR  France 

HR  Croatia 

HU  Hungary 

IE 

IS 

IT 

Ireland 

Iceland 

Italy 

LV  Latvia 

LT  Lithuania 

LU  Luxembourg 

MT  Malta 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91 

Complaints against carriers 
and port operators and 
complaints against tour 
operators and travel agents 

Complaints against 
carriers, complaints against 
terminal operators and 
complaints of an economic 
nature regarding tickets of 
EUR 1000 or more 

Consumers, collective 
cases, business 

Complaints against 
carriers, complaints against 
ports and terminals 

Complaints from 
passengers and cruise 
participants, complaints on 
a collective level 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NL  Netherlands 

NO  Norway 

PL  Poland 

PT  Portugal 

RO  Romania 

SK  Slovakia 

SI 

Slovenia 

ES  Spain 

SE  Sweden 

UK  UK 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional for ports, inland 
navigation 

Trade, central 

Complaints related to 
contractual relationships 
between carriers and 
passenger, PRM rights 

Consumer protection, PRM 
rights, ports 

Supervision, complaints, 
PRM training 

National, regional, and 
where devolved 

Source: European Commission list of NEBs, Contractor contacts, Support study Annex D. 
Note: the European Commission may not have been informed of all bodies with duties of NEBs. 

Table A6.2: Enforcement approach of NEBs 

Table A6.2 presents the enforcement and monitoring approaches selected by the Member States, 
other  activities  performed  by  the  NEBs  as  well  as  the  individual  sanction  regimes.  The 
information was gathered from the NEBs as a part of the support study for the period of 2016 to 
2019. Not all Member States replied to all questions during the consultation period. 

Monitoring activities  Other activities 

Max 
sanction 

Sanctions 
issued 

MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

BE 

Yes 

Enforcement 
activities 

Investigates 
infringements 
Issues official 
warnings 
Issues financial 
sanctions 

No information 
provided by NEB 

BG  Yes 

Issues sanctions 

Carry out inspections 

Provides 
information 
campaigns on PRM 
rights; 
Licenses and 
oversees public 
transport 

Provide information 
and advice to the 
consumer in respect 
of their complaint 

No 
information 

No sanctions 
imposed  

No 
information 

No sanctions 
imposed  

CZ 

Yes 

Handles complaints  

No information 
provided by NEB 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No sanctions 
imposed 

DK  Yes 

Reports sanctions 
infringements 

Conduct oversight 
and 
monitoring/inspecting 
the compliance with 
the Regulation 

Conducts 
inspections and 
oversees the safety 
and accessibility of 
passenger ships 

DE 

No 
(customer 

Commence 

Oversight and 

Delivers 

No 
information 

No sanctions 
imposed  

EUR30,000  

No sanctions 
imposed 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring activities  Other activities 

Max 
sanction 

Sanctions 
issued 

monitoring of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

Oversights and 
monitors compliance 
with the Regulation, 
does anonymous 
purchase tests 

Oversees and 
monitors compliance 
with the Regulation 

Performs annual 
surveys and 
supervisory activities 
to monitor 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

information 
campaigns on PRM 
rights. 
Performs on-site 
inspections and 
audits of terminal 
operators, carriers 
and ticket vendors 

Provides market 
surveillance 

EUR3,200  

No sanctions 
imposed  

Licenses public 
transport, and 
conducts 
information 
campaigns 

EUR250,000 
(but 
EUR5,000 
in all but the 
most serious 
cases) 

No sanctions 
imposed. 
Awaiting 
CJEU ruling 
(C-570/19) 

No information 
provided by NEB 

EUR50,000 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

26 sanctions 
have been 
imposed 
between 2013 
and 2018 

At least 60 
sanctions have 
been imposed 
in 2013 and 
2014 

MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

complaints 
are only 
used to 
collect 
evidence of 
infringement 

Enforcement 
activities 

administrative 
proceedings against 
non-complaint 
operators 

Issue of precept 
(order) requiring an 
operator to comply 
with the regulation 
Issues sanctions if an 
operator does not 
comply with a precept 

Commences criminal 
proceedings against 
operators who 
infringe the 
Regulation 

Investigates 
infringements of the 
Regulation 
Imposes of sanctions 

Handles passenger 
complaints 
Investigates 
infringements of the 
Regulation. 
Issues sanctions 
through an 
administrative 
procedure 

Imposes sanctions on 
operators who do not 
comply with the 
Regulation 

EE 

Yes (but 
referred to 
the ADR 
normally) 

IE 

Yes  

EL 

Yes 

ES 

Yes 

FR 

Yes 

HR  Yes 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No information 

Initiated sanctioning 
procedures with the 
Harbourmasters office 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

No information 
provided by NEB 

EUR20,000 

Two sanctions 
have been 
imposed  since 
the 
commencement 
of the 
Regulation 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

Enforcement 
activities 

Monitoring activities  Other activities 

Max 
sanction 

Sanctions 
issued 

Assesses passengers' 
complaints in order to 
identify any breaches 
of the obligations laid 
down in the 
Regulation 
Assesses any 
infringements of the 
provisions of the 
Regulation, Initiates 
proceedings  
Imposes penalties 

Issues fines in the 
case of non-
compliance  

Investigates 
compliance with the 
Regulation 
Imposes sanctions on 
operators  

IT 

Yes 

CY  Yes 

LV 

Yes 

Carries out 
monitoring (including 
on media sources) and 
inspection 

No information 
provided by NEB 

EUR30,000 
per 
infringement 

60 sanctions 
imposed since 
2015 

Carries out 
inspections to monitor 
compliance 

No information 
provided by NEB 

EUR17,086 

Annual 
surveys/inspections 
on operators 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed  

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed 

LT 

Yes  

Imposes sanctions for 
non-compliance 

Carries out 
inspections 

Issues shipping 
licenses 

EUR450 

No information 

LU 

Yes 

HU  Yes 

MT  Yes 

NL 

Yes 

AT 

Yes 

Refers an operator to 
the tax authority for 
sanctions to be issued, 
in the case of non-
compliance 

Can commence 
administrative 
procedures against 
operators who do not 
comply 

Investigates potential 
infringements of the 
Regulation 
Can commence 
judicial proceedings 
against operators who 
do not comply 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No information 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed 

No information 
provided by NEB 

Delivers 
information 
campaigns 

EUR47,000 
with an 
additional 
per-day 
penalty in 
the case of 
continuing 
non-
compliance 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed 

Imposes sanctions for 
non-compliance 

Carries out 
inspections 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No information 

Handles individual 
complaints as an 
ADR body 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No information 
provided by NEB 

EUR3,633 
per 
infringement 

No sanctions 
have been  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

Enforcement 
activities 

Monitoring activities  Other activities 

Max 
sanction 

Sanctions 
issued 

Investigates 
complaints as 
evidence of non-
compliance with the 
Regulation 
Can commence 
administrative 
charges against 
operators who do not 
comply with the 
Regulation 

Commence 
administrative 
procedures against 
operators who do not 
comply 

Refers operators who 
do not comply with 
the Regulation to 
local transport 
authorities for 
sanctions to be issued. 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

Carries out 
inspections and audits 
of operators to ensure 
compliance 

Issues fines on 
operator who infringe 
the Regulation 

Carries out 
inspections 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No information 
provided by NEB 

EUR11,100 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed  

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed 

No financial 
sanctions have 
been imposed, 
but one 
warning has 
been issued 

Carries out 
inspections 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No information 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

No information 
provided by NEB 

EUR6,635 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed  

Handles complaints 
Issues fines on 
operator who infringe 
the Regulation 

Resolves individual 
complaints as an 
ADR body 
Issues sanctions 
against operators who 
do not comply with 
the Regulation 

One NEB can act as 
an ADR body to 
resolve individual 
complaints 

The remaining two 
NEBs can carry out 
system-level 
supervision and issue 
sanctions 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

Refers cases of non-
compliance to the 
Consumer 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

Provides 
independent 
guidance to 
passengers on 

No 
information 

95 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed  

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed, but 
there is an 

PL 

Yes 

PT 

Yes 

RO  Yes 

SI 

Yes 

SK 

Yes 

Yes (but 
there are 
three NEBs 
in Finland 
with 
different 
roles) 

No, 
individual 
complaints 
are referred 

FI 

SE 

 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Handles 
individual 
cases? 

to the 
National 
Board for 
Consumer 
Disputes 

Enforcement 
activities 

Ombudsman for 
sanctions to be 
imposed  

Monitoring activities  Other activities 

Max 
sanction 

Sanctions 
issued 

passenger rights 
through an 
information service 

UK  Yes 

IS 

Yes 

Issues sanctions 
against operators who 
do not comply with 
the Regulation 

Issues sanctions 
against operators who 
do not comply with 
the Regulation 

Annual surveys to 
passengers, including 
PRMs129 

Monitors and 
oversees of 
compliance with the 
Regulation 

Issue and monitor 
operating licenses 

No 
information 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

ongoing 
dispute 
concerning 5 
cases 

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed  

No sanctions 
have been 
imposed 

NO  No 

No information 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.16 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No information 
provided by NEB 

No 
information 

No information 

Table A6.3: Financial Sanctions issued by NEBs 

Table A6.3 presents the number of and amount of sanctions issued by individual Member States in the 
timeframe the support study investigates (until 31. December 2019), 

Member State 

EL 

ES 

HR 

IT 

Number (period) 

Amount 

11 (2012-2013) 
6 (2014) 
4 (2015) 
3 (2016) 
1 (2018)130 

25 

21 (2012-2013) 
39 (2013-2014) 

60 

2 

19 (2017) 
10 (2018) 
31 (2019) 

60 

EUR1,780 (2012-2013) 
EUR900 (2014) 
EUR2,150 (2015) 
EUR300 (2016) 
EUR1,400 (2018) 

EUR6,530 

EUR126,673 (2012-2013) 
EUR191,400 (2013-2014) 

EUR318,073131 

EUR7,572132 

EUR30,800 (2017) 
EUR94,000 (2018) 
EUR752,695 (2019) 

EUR877,495 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.19. Note that not all NEBs have responded, but no sanctions have been imposed in BE, CZ, 
DK, DE, EE, IE, LV, LT, MT, PL, PT, AT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK, IS.  

129https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/806009/MCA_

disabled_passenger_satisfaction_survey_2018_-_Final_Report.pdf 

130  

 Information provided by the NEB in the questionnaire is that the Greek NEB issues about 5 financial sanctions annually. The latest NEB 
report includes 2 sanctions in 2018 but we understand that 1 does not refer to the Regulation. 

131   The Spanish report (2015) on the application of the Regulation indicates that data on sanctions were collected from Consumer Agencies and 

that EUR263,461 refer to 41 sanctions in Ceuta in the period 2012-2014 concerning Articles 17 and 18.  

132   Converted from HRK 57,000 (European Commission exchange rate September 2020). 

96 

 
 
                                                           
Table A6.4: Reports by NEBs according to Article 26 of the Regulation 

Table A6.4 presents the reports published in accordance with Art. 26 of the Regulation. According to Art. 
26 of the Regulation every second years the NEBs shall publish a report on their activity in the previous 
two calendar years, containing in particular a description of actions taken in order to implement the 
provisions of this Regulation, details of sanctions applied and statistics on complaints and sanctions 
applied. 

State 

Published reports  

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

None available 

2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015 

2015 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2017, 2019 (also refers to part of 2019) 

2017 

2015, 2019 

2015, 2017 

None available 

2015, 2017 

2015 

2015, 2017, 2018 

2015, 2016, 2017 2018, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

2015, 2017, 2019 

97 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

 
 
 
State 

Published reports  

IS 

NO 

None available 

None available 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.66. 

Table A6.5: Ten core passenger rights 

● 

● 

Table A6.5 present the Commission ten core passenger rights that were presented by the Commission In 
2011.  With  its  communication  the  Commission  described  a  set  of  core  passenger  rights  that  cover  all 
transport modes. The principles are based on three cornerstones: non-discrimination; accurate, timely 
and accessible information; and immediate and proportionate assistance.  

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: Communication from the Commission to the European Council: A European vision for Passengers: Communication on 
passenger rights in all transport modes.133 

Table A6.6: Comparison with other passenger rights Regulations 

Table  A6.6  presents  a  high-level  comparison  of  the  Regulation  with  the  three  other  passenger  rights 
modes in the Union. It shows that there are some discrepancies between the rights in different modes. 

Issue 

Assessment of possible differences between Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 and other passenger 
rights legislation 

Non-discrimination 

No difference based on residence, or on disability and/or reduced mobility 

Pre-notification requirement of 48h versus 24h for rail, 36h for bus and coach, but 48h for air and rail 

Right to mobility 

soon as possible in rail and bus/coach 

No requirement for the transmission of information to third-parties, whereas under 36h in air and as 

Right to information 

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 

133 COM(2011) 898 final. 

98 

 
 
 
                                                           
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 bus/coach, 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 bus/coach and rail). No limits in air 
On the rights under the Regulation, they 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 in 
paper or electronic format or by any other means, including in accessible formats. 

Right to renounce 
travelling 

Possible if cancellation or delay at departure of more than 90 minutes (5h delay at arrival in air, 1h 
delay at arrival in rail and 2h delay at departure in bus/coach) 

Right to rerouting and 
rebooking 

As in bus and coach: 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 

For cancellation or delay in departure of over 90 minutes regardless of planned journey duration 
(same as bus/coach but for this mode journeys must be over 3h). 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) 

Right to accommodation limited to 3 nights with a maximum of EUR80/night with no right where 
cancellation or delay due to severe weather conditions. Bus and coach limited to 2 nights at the same 
rate but only for journeys over 3h. Does not apply to cancellation or delay due to severe weather 
conditions or natural disasters. For rail, can be restricted to three days. In air, no limitations apply 

Linked to the ticket price, but does not apply in exceptional circumstances. In bus and coach also 
linked to ticket price, but only possible if re-routing and reimbursement was not offered. 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 1 month of request (3 months for bus and coach, no time threshold in air or rail)  

For passengers, up to 250,000 SDRs134, vs. up to 128,821 SDRs in air, at least EUR220,000 in 
bus/coach and unlimited in rail 
For luggage, 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, at least EUR1,200 per 
piece in bus/coach 
Mobility equipment: Replacement or repair value (for waterborne, bus and rail). Capped in air at up 
to 1,288 SDRs 

To be submitted within 2 months (3 for bus/coach and rail, unlimited for air apart for luggage (7 
days)) 
Operators to respond within 1 month with final response within 2 months (3 months for bus and 
coach and rail, not specified for air).  

Right to use NEB as an appeal body 

Right to compensation 

Right of carrier liability 

Right to complaint 
handling 

Right to law 
enforcement 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.173 

Figure A6.1: Waterborne passengers with PRM Requirements in the EU27, NO, IS and the UK  

Figure  A6.1  presents  the  estimated  number  of  passengers  in  the  EU27  and  Norway,  Iceland  and  the 
United  Kingdom  requiring  PRM  assistance.  In  2018,  1.5  million  passengers  were  estimated  to  require 
PRM related assistance, of which all were covered under the Regulation. 

134 Special Drawing Rights (SDR). 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Source: Support study, Appendix F 

Figure A6.2: Availability of rights in the event of disruption in the EU 27, NO, IS and the UK 

Figure A6.2 presents the number of passengers who had access to rights before and after the introduction 
of the Regulation in the event of disrupted travel. Approximately 16% of passengers had no rights prior to 
the  introduction  of  the  Regulation,  whilst  around  25%  were  covered  by  some  level  of  rights,  although 
these were less comprehensive than those available under the Regulation. 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.195 

Figure A6.3: Availability of rights to PRM passengers in the EU 27, NO, IS and the UK 

Figure A6.3 shows the number of passengers requiring PRM assistance who before the introduction of the 
Regulation  already  had  access  to  PRM  related  rights.  Approximately  9%  of  passengers  with  PRM 

100 

0.80.80.80.80.80.90.91.01.10.20.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.21.21.11.11.21.21.31.31.41.5-0.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6201020112012201320142015201620172018Passengers, millions0-4 hours4-8 hours8-24 hours24+ hoursCruiseTotalRegulation 1107/2010313231323133343537494949505252535456134129122121117116115122129203199201201211221-50100150200250201020112012201320142015201620172018Passengers, millionsNo protectionSome protectionHigh level of protectionRegulation 1107/2010 
 
 
 
 
requirements had no rights prior to the introduction of the Regulation, whilst a further 46% were covered 
by some rights. 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.199 

Figure A6.4: Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 complaints to NEBs 

Figure A6.4 presents the number of complaints received by NEBs until 2019. The figure is based on the 
NEBs  own  reporting  in  their  biannual  reports  as  well  as  their  responses  to  the  support  study.  It  is 
important to note that not all NEBs have answered nor have submitted a report and that the NEBs report 
differently  e.g.  some  report  all  complaints  received  whilst  others  only  report  complaints  under  the 
Regulation. 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.9 

101 

0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.50.50.60.60.60.60.70.70.80.80.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.61.21.21.31.31.41.51.50.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82010201120122013201420152016201720182019Passengers, millionsNo rights (prior)Some rights (prior)High level of rights (prior)Regulation 1107/2010 
 
 
 
Figure A6.5: Types of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 complaints to NEBs 

Figure A6.5 shows the most common types of complaints received by NEBs in relation to the Regulation. 
Data  is  based  on  NEBs  reply  to  stakeholder  consultation.  Note  that  NEBs  might  register  complaints 
differently and that not all NEBs replied. 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.14 

Table A6.7: Costs and benefits for passengers 

Table  A6.7  presents  the  opinions  of  stakeholders  expressed  at  the  stakeholder  consultation  towards  the 
costs and benefits attributed to the Regulation. 

Organisation 

Type 

Costs 

Benefits 

Passenger 
representative 

Complaints process: 
time commitment. 

Greater passenger 
confidence. 

European 
Passengers’ 
Federation 

European 
Disability 
Forum 

PRM 
representative 

No view 

European Union 
of the Deaf 

PRM 
representative 

No view 

Kuluttajaliitto 
(Consumers’ 
Union of 
Finland) 

Passenger 
representative 

Unspecified 
financial costs and 
the time 
commitment of the 
complaints process. 

Portuguese 
National 

PRM 
representative 

No view 

  Proportionate 

  Somewhat positive 

  Somewhat positive 

  Somewhat positive 

  Positive 

  Unclear 

Guaranteed right to travel 
and assistance for PRMs, 
and greater awareness of 
PRMs.  

Greater accessibility of 
maritime transport 

Greater clarity as to rights 
of passengers 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Organisation 

Type 

Costs 

Benefits 

  Proportionate 

Confederation 
of Disabled 
Organisations 

DECO 
(Portuguese 
consumer 
organisation) 

Resenärsforum 
(Swedish 
Passenger 
Forum) 

ANGLAT 
(Italian 
Disability 
Forum member) 

Passenger 
representative 

Complaint handling: 
ADR fees135 

Passenger 
representative 

Complaints process: 
time commitment. 

Passenger 
representative 

Complaints process: 
time commitment 
and finding 
someone to support 
your complaint. 

Greater legal certainty and 
security for passengers; 
creation of a basic set of 
rights across Europe. 

Greater passenger 
confidence; increased 
demand for travel. 

  Positive 

  Positive 

Greater attention now paid 
to passenger rights. 

  Positive 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.100 

Table A6.8: Costs and benefits for NEBs 

Table A6.8 presents the views of the NEBs on the costs and benefits as incurred by the Regulation. 

MS 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

Costs 

0.25 FTEs 

No view 

No view 

Benefits 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (better protection 
of passengers across Europe). 

Not stated 

Better public information, clear procedures and 
competencies in handling passenger 
complaints. 

No significant 
costs 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (convenience for 
passengers of one set of rights across Europe). 

DE 

4 FTEs 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (clarity as to 
passengers’ rights, improved passenger 
confidence and greater customer loyalty). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (minimum 
quality of service floor). 

2 FTEs for all 
passenger 
rights and 
PRM tasks (all 
modes) 

EE 

FR 

IE 

Proportionate 

Positive 

Unclear 

Positive 

Positive 

Positive 

Positive 

Not stated 

Not stated 

1 FTE plus 
unspecified 
legal fees 
relating to 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (greater 
transparency, certainty and availability of 
information on their rights, independent 

Not stated 

Positive 

135   Fees  levies  by  ADRs  are  not  believed  to  be  widespread  throughout  Europe  in  the  context  of  waterborne 

passenger services, however, as no specific examples were raised by stakeholders. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
MS 

Costs 

Benefits 

Proportionate 

complaints handling). 

High Court 
challenge to 
Art. 18 and 19 
notices. 
Additional 
support for 
complaints 
handling is 
occasionally 
procured. 

EL 

2 FTEs 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (minimum 
quality of service floor). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (greater 
passenger certainty regarding refunds and 
timely travel information). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (greater 
passenger confidence). 

ES 

HR 

IT 

CY 

No view 

No significant 
costs 

EUR523,000 
per annum 
including 4.3 
FTEs 

No 
questionnaire 
response 
received 

LV 

No view 

LT 

0.05 FTEs 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (greater 
passenger confidence). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers and increased 
travel availability for PRMs.  

Positive 

Unclear 

Positive* 

Positive 

Unclear 

Likely positive 

Positive 

Unclear 

No view 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (greater 
passenger confidence). 

Unclear 

Likely positive 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

No 
questionnaire 
response 
received 

No view 

No view 

No 
questionnaire 
response 
received 

AT 

No view 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (minimum set of 
rights guaranteed, greater transparency, 
certainty and availability of information on 
their rights, independent complaints handling). 

Positive 

No view  

PL 
(Maritime 
Office of 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
benefits to passengers resulting from the 
identification of enforcement bodies.    

Positive 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Costs 

Benefits 

Proportionate 

Unclear 

Positive 

1 FTE 

No view 

No view 

EUR545,000 
per annum and 
5 FTEs 

No view 

0 FTEs 

Gdynia)  

PL 
(Maritime 
Office of 
Szczecin) 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

Passenger rights have been strengthened. 

Positive 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (greater 
passenger confidence). 

Likely positive 

No view 

No view 

Unclear 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (clarity as to 
stakeholders’ rights and obligations). 

Likely neutral; stated that 
a network of NEBs is not 
proportionate. 

EUR250,000 
including 2.5 
FTEs for all 
passenger 
rights and 
PRM tasks (all 
modes) 

SE 

No view 

UK 

1 FTE 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (passengers have 
acquired additional rights). 

No specific benefits identified for the NEB, but 
wider benefits for passengers (protection of the 
rights of PRMs). 

IS 

NO 

0 FTEs 

No view 

No 
questionnaire 
response 
received 

CH 

No 
questionnaire 
response 
received 
Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.105 

Table A6.9: Costs and benefits for carriers 

Likely positive 

Positive 

Unclear 

Unclear 

Unclear 

Table  A6.9  presents  the  views  of  carriers  as  presented  during  the  stakeholder  consultation  on  the  costs 
and benefits of the Regulation. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group 

Type  Costs 

Caronte and Tourist 
(IT) 

Ferry 

Investment in a passenger 
information system and 
reimbursement platform, 
foodstuffs in the event of 
delays. 

Benefits 

None 

Proportionate 

  Negative 

Aegean Speed Lines 
(EL) 

Ferry 

The Regulation gives many benefits to the passengers 
without taking much into account the conditions under 
which the carriers have to operate 

  Unclear 

Minoan Lines (EL) 

Ferry  No view 

Positive feedback 

  Unclear 

Costa Cruises (IT) 

Cruise  No view. 

Grimaldi (IT) 

Liberty Lines (IT) 

Ferry 
and  
cruise 

Ferry 

No view 

Reimbursement: EUR100,000 
and compensation: EUR72 
(2019). 

Great passenger 
satisfaction and increased 
demand 

Scandlines (DK) 

Ferry  None 

Corsica Ferries (FR)  Ferry  Additional staff. 

Porto Santo Line 
(PT) 

Ferry  No view 

Bura Line (HR) 

Ferry 

Catamaran Line 
(HR) 

Ferry 

Reimbursement: EUR800; 
rerouting: EUR260; 
administration: EUR260 
(2019). 

Reimbursement: EUR4,300; 
rerouting: EUR180; 
compensation: EUR940 
(2019). 

Single framework for 
passenger complaints and 
compensation; sets 
passenger expectations. 

None 

None 

Greater passenger 
satisfaction 

G&V Line Iadera 
(HR) 

G&V Line 
Dubrovnik (HR)136 

Gradski Parking 
Sibenik (HR) 

Jadrolinija (HR) 

Ferry  No view 

Ferry  None 

Greater awareness of 
PRMs 

Ferry  None (excluding rerouting 
cost of EUR9,130, 2018). 

None 

Keptan Luka (HR) 

Ferry 

Less than EUR150 (excluding 
rerouting cost of EUR148,700 
in 2019). 

Greater passenger 
satisfaction 

Krilo Shipping Line 
(HR) 

Ferry  No view 

136Split from G&V Line Iadera in 2013 to become two independent operators. 

106 

  Unclear 

  Unclear 

Likely 
positive 

Positive 

  Negative 

  Negative 

Positive 

  Unclear 

Positive 

  Neutral 

Positive 

  Unclear 

Ferry 

Cost of care: EUR500 (2017) 

No view 

  Unclear 

No view 

  Unclear 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Group 

Type  Costs 

KTD Bilan (HR) 

Ferry  None 

Miatrade (HR) 

Ferry  None 

NC Komiza (HR) 

Ferry  No view 

Porat Ilovik (HR) 

Ferry  None 

Rapska Plovidba 
(HR) 

Ferry  None 

RPZ Vrgada (HR) 

Ferry  No view 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.114. 

Benefits 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Proportionate 

  Neutral 

  Neutral 

  Unclear 

  Neutral 

  Neutral 

  Unclear 

Figure A6.10: Costs and benefits for terminal operators 

Group 

Costs 

Port of Tallinn (EE) 

Port of Helsinki (FI) 

Purchase of mobility equipment, 
additional staff. 

Benefits 

None. 

Proportionate 

Negative 

Purchase of mobility equipment, 
development of an assistance 
booking system, additional staff. 

Indirect benefit 
through an improved 
passenger experience 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Swinoujscie Ferry Terminal 
(PL) 

None. 

Port of Dover (UK) 

None – accessibility 
improvements carried out 
following prior domestic 
legislation. 

Administração do Porto do 
Douro e Leixões (PT) 

No view 

Source: Support study, Paragraph 3.116. 

None. 

None. 

Increased demand due 
to increased passenger 
confidence and greater 
accessibility for 
PRMs. 

107