REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2022-01-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, EU Member State, European standard, harmonisation of standards, marketing standard, national implementing measure, pleasure craft, safety standard, technical standard

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.1.2022  COM(2022) 21 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council  
 
 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
application of Directive  2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and  of the Council of 
20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 
94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

1. Introduction 

On  20 November 2013,  Directive  2013/53/EU  on  recreational  craft  and  personal  watercraft1 
(‘the Directive’ or ‘the  RCD’) was adopted.  It  aims to  ensure a high level  of protection  for 
human health and safety, and the environment while guaranteeing the operation of the single 
market  by  setting  harmonised  requirements  for  recreational  craft  and  personal  watercraft 
(‘watercraft’) and minimum requirements for the market surveillance. 

EU and EEA Member States (‘Member States’) had to transpose the Directive into national 
law by 18 January 2016, with it becoming applicable in all of these countries from that day. 

Article 51 second paragraph of the RCD requires the Commission to submit to the European 
Parliament and the Council, by 18 January 2022 and every 5 years thereafter, a report on how 
the Directive has been applied. That report must refer to the responses from Member States to 
the questionnaire sent by the Commission. They submitted their responses and will be asked 
to respond to such a survey every 5 years thereafter.   

The Commission has been assessing the Directive since it came into operation. 

To  support  this  report,  the  Commission  assessed  the  responses  of  the  Member  States  to  the 
questionnaire  issued  on  22 March 2020  where  the  Commission  asked  the  respondents  about 
various aspects of applying and enforcing the RCD. 

2. The Directive’s aim and main provisions  

The RCD repealed Directive 94/25/EC2 as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC3 to take account 
of technological developments and environmental requirements in the market, and to provide 
clarification  on  the  framework  within  which  products  covered  by  that  Directive  may  be 
marketed.  

1  Directive  2013/53/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  November  2013 on  recreational 
craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 90–131, Corrigendum 
to Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on recreational 
craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013). 
2 Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the 
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft, 
OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15–38. 
3  Directive  2003/44/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  June  2003  amending  Directive 
94/25/EC  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  of  the  Member  States 
relating to recreational craft, OJ L 214, 26.8.2003, p. 18. 

1 

 
 
 
  
                                                           
The  RCD  established  the  legal  framework  to  harmonise  rules  and  procedures  related  to  the 
design and manufacture of watercraft placed on the EU market. It reflects the changes brought 
by the new legislative framework4 including horizontal provisions on: 

  accrediting conformity assessment bodies; 
 
 
 
 

the CE marking; 
the EU market surveillance framework; 
the general obligations of economic operators; 
the presumption of conformity. 

It  also  reflects  the  provisions  on  procedures  dealing  with  products  that  pose  a  risk,  which 
apply to products covered by the Directive. 

The  RCD  contains  requirements  on  both  administration  and  protection  for  watercraft.  The 
administrative  requirements  include  affixing  a  CE  marking  and  a  builder’s  plate,  and 
enclosing  technical  documentation,  the  owner’s  manual  and  the  EU  Declaration  of 
Conformity.  The  Directive  also  lays  out  requirements  for  type  testing  and  quality  control 
procedures.  

The Directive regulates the safety and environmental characteristics of boats with hull lengths 
of between 2.5 m and 24 m and intended to be used for sport or leisure by setting the design, 
construction  and  emission  requirements.  Certain  particular  pieces  of  equipment  are  also 
covered, e.g. the ignition-protected equipment for inboard and stern drive engines. 

The Directive includes substantial safety requirements for the watercraft’s structure, stability, 
buoyancy  and  flotation.  It  also  regulates  flooding  and  discharge  prevention,  steering, 
visibility,  handling  and  anchoring,  as  well  as  the  installation  requirements  on  engine,  gas, 
electrical and fuel systems. 

Article 5 of the RCD allows Member States to lay down such requirements as they may deem 
necessary concerning: 

  navigation on certain waters to protect the environment from e.g. noise pollution; 
 
 

the fabric of waterways 
the safety of waterways. 

This  is  allowed  as  long  as  these  provisions  do  not  require  change  to  the  watercraft  which 
would  already  be  in  conformity  with  this  Directive,  and  that  they  are  justified  and 
proportionate to the objectives to be achieved.  

Compared  with  the  previous  legal  framework  under  Directive 94/25/EC  as  amended  by 
Directive  by  2003/44/EC,  the  new  provisions  of  the  RCD  brought  in,  specifically,  the 
following changes:  

4 Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out  the 
requirements  for  accreditation  and  market  surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of  products,  OJ  L  218, 
13.8.2008, p. 30 and Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on 
a common framework for the marketing of products, OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 82. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
  clarification  of  the  Directive’s  scope  (by  excluding  amphibious  vehicles,  specifying 
what  types  of  canoes  and  kayaks  are  excluded  and  including  the  motorised 
surfboards); 
introduction  of  sector-specific  definitions  of  ‘watercraft  built  for  own  use’,  and 
‘private importer’, and extension of the previous definition of ‘propulsion engine’ to 
also cover innovative propulsion solutions; 

 

  stricter exhaust emissions limits; 
  strengthened safety requirements, such as protection from falling overboard, improved 
visibility from  main steering position,  discharge  prevention,  improved  buoyancy and 
means of escape for multi-hull boats; 

  additional  provisions  on  installing  and  protecting  electrical  systems  (to  reflect  the 

increasing use of hybrid systems); and 

  basing the titles of the watercraft design categories only on the essential environmental 
conditions for navigation, namely specific ranges of wind force and significant wave 
height. 

3. Transposition and implementation 

To  enable  the  Directive  to  achieve  its  objectives,  certain  aspects  of  Member  States’  laws, 
regulations  and  administrative  provisions  related  to  products  covered  by  its  scope  were 
harmonised. 

Article  54.1  required  Member  States  to  adopt  and  publish  national  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative  provisions  needed  to  comply  with  the  Directive  by  18 January 2016,  so 
measures could be applied from that day. 

The  Commission  carried  out  extensive  checks  on  how  Member  States  transposed  the 
Directive.  Member  States  chose  different  transposition  techniques:  some  transposed  the 
Directive by  incorporating it into  existing laws (e.g.  their  civil  codes),  some adopted  a new 
piece  of  legislation  transposing  the  Directive  almost  verbatim,  while  some  chose  a 
combination of the two. 

These  checks  have  revealed  that  Member  States  fully  and  consistently  transposed  and 
implemented the Directive. No significant problems have been detected in the transposition of 
the  Directive’s  legal  provisions  into  national  legislation.  In  particular,  this  is  the  case  with 
respect  to  the  provisions  on  placing  products  on  the  market  and  the  related  obligations  for 
i) manufacturers and authorised representatives;  ii) Member States’  as  regards their role and 
responsibilities; iii) conformity assessment procedures; and iv) notified bodies. 

On  the  contrary,  some  differences  have  been  found  with  respect  to  market  surveillance, 
particularly  the  extent  to  which  Member  States  monitor  activities.  This  situation  mostly 
depends  on  sufficient  resources  being  allocated  to  this  specific  area  compared  to  others 
regulated by EU harmonisation legislation in the single market. 

As  yet,  no  infringement  cases  against  Member  States  have  been  opened  for  breaching  or 
incorrectly transposing or applying the RCD on basis of an ex officio check of transpositions 
or complaints received by the Commission regarding the RCD’s application. 

3 

 
 
 
Article 49.1 of the Directive provided for the Commission to adopt specific implementing acts 
in order to take into account progress made in increasing technical knowledge and to ensure 
that the Directive is applied in a uniform manner. 

In January 2017, the Commission,  on the basis of Article 49.1 (c)  of the Directive, adopted 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/15.  This  laid  down  the  detailed  procedures  for 
identifying  watercraft  set  out  in  point  2.1  of  Part  A  of  Annex  I  to  the  RCD,  including 
clarification  of  terminology  (namely  the  country  code  and  the  unique  code  of  the 
manufacturer),  and  set  up  the  procedures  for  assigning  and  administrating  manufacturer’s 
codes granted to manufacturers established outside the EU. It also specified that other features 
of the watercraft identification number (such as its composition and placement ) are regulated 
by relevant harmonised standards. 

Article  47  of  the  Directive  conferred  upon  the  Commission  an  empowerment  to  adopt  the 
delegated acts to amend specific provisions of the Directive. To date, the Commission has not 
adopted  any  delegated  acts.  In  April  2018,  the  Commission  submitted  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council a report on the exercise of the power to adopt delegated acts6, as 
required by Article 48.2 of the Directive. In accordance with the third sentence of Article 48.2 
of the Directive, the delegation of power was tacitly extended until 17 January 2024. 

In  June  2018,  the  Commission  issued  a  guidance  document  on  the  RCD7  (hereinafter  the 
‘RCD  Guidance’)  following  consultations  with  Member  States’  authorities  in  charge  of 
transposing  and  enforcing  the  Directive,  as  well  as  with  the  industry  and  consumer 
stakeholders.  The  RCD  Guidance  aims  to  help  national  authorities  and  courts  apply  the 
Directive  in  a  uniform  and  consistent  way,  providing  practical  guidance  on  the  Directive’s 
key concepts and provisions. The RCD Guidance is the tool that Member States find the most 
useful in promoting compliance with the Directive. 

The  implementation  and  management  of  the  Directive  is  supported  by  well-established 
sectoral  working  parties,  involving  representatives  of  all  the  relevant  actors  at  EU  level: 
Member  States,  notified  bodies,  standardisers  and  stakeholders  from  industry,  consumer 
organisations and environmental associations. These are: 

the Committee for the harmonisation of national legislation related to recreational craft 

• 
established on basis of Article 50 (1) of the Directive (the ‘RCD Committee’); 

the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  Recreational  Craft  and  Personal  Watercraft  (the 

• 
‘RCD Expert Group’), previously operating as a working group on the RCD; 

the Administrative Cooperation Group of market surveillance authorities in the RCD 

• 
field (the ‘RCD AdCo’); 

5  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1  of  3  January  2017  on  procedures  for  watercraft 
identification under Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on recreational craft 
and personal watercraft, C/2016/8611, OJ L 1, 4.1.2017, p. 1–5. 
6 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the exercise of the power to adopt 
delegated acts conferred on the Commission pursuant to Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  of  20  November  2013  on  recreational  craft  and  personal  watercraft  and  repealing  Directive 
94/25/EC, COM/2018/0182 final,  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0182 
7 DocsRoom - European Commission (europa.eu) 

4 

 
 
                                                           
the Recreational  Craft Sectoral  Group  –  coordination  group of notified  bodies in  the 

• 
RCD field (the ‘RSG’).   

Information communicated by Member States to the Commission’s questionnaire 

4. 
of 22 March 2020 issued on basis of Article 51 first paragraph of the RCD 

As required by the RCD, under Article 51 first paragraph, the Commission on 22 March 2020 
sent  out  a questionnaire  about  the  application of  the Directive  to  the EU  and EEA Member 
States. The deadline for submitting the responses was 18 January 2021. A reminder was then 
issued on 2 January 2021, extending the deadline until 1 March 2021. During the meeting of 
the  RCD  Expert  Group  held  on  1 March 2021,  the  remaining  Member  States  were  urged  to 
submit the responses to the questionnaire without further delay.  

To  date,  six  Member  States  (namely  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Czechia,  Greece  and 
Croatia) have not yet submitted their replies to the questionnaire.  

The  questionnaire  consisted  of  35  questions  related  to  different  aspects  of  applying  and 
enforcing the RCD, grouped into three parts. The first part concentrated on general issues on 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  RCD  in  national  legal  systems.  The  second  part 
concerned certain specific provisions of the Directive, which the Commission considered as 
particularly  complex  and  for  which  it  frequently  received  questions  about  interpretation.  In 
the  third  part,  the  Commission  invited  Member  States  to  raise  any  other  relevant  issue  as 
regards  applying  the  RCD  and  enquired  about  the  possible  harmonisation  of  watercraft 
registration across the EU/EEA. 

Regarding the transposition and implementation of the Directive in the national legal systems, 
none  of  the  respondents  identified  any  major  loopholes  or  inadequacies  in  the  Directive’s 
contents which would prevent it being enforced effectively.  

All Member States, having made use of the possibility set out in Article 5 of the RCD to lay 
down national rules on i) navigation on certain waters in order to protect the environment, ii) 
the fabric of waterways, and  iii) ensuring safety  of waterways, confirmed that  such national 
provisions  did  not  require  watercraft  which  already  conformed  to  the  Directive  to  be 
modified. In that context, Member States confirmed that the national rules on navigation are 
generally understood and effectively enforced. 

All Member States responding to the questionnaire consider the enforcement action in  their 
countries is generally effective. They believe their authorities possess adequate sanctions and 
remedies,  and  that  the  compliance  is  high.  However,  five  Member  States8  underlined  the 
scarcity of resources for market surveillance in this sector, preventing the full enforcement of 
the  Directive.  Furthermore,  two  Member  States  (Italy  and  Ireland)  pointed  out  that  the 
specific  characteristics  of  the  sector  (e.g.  small  family  businesses,  watercrafts  produced  as 
single products) are an obstacle to the unified approach to enforcement and pose a challenge 
to  ensuring  that  the  Directive  is  fully  understood  and  implemented.  Three  other  Member 

8 Sweden, Bulgaria, Finland, the Netherlands and Italy. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
States  (Italy,  Spain  and  Belgium)  indicated  that  the  most  efficient  enforcement  tool  is  the 
strict approach to registering watercrafts.  

Member  States  were  also  asked  if  the  potential  harmonisation  of  rules  for  registering 
watercrafts across the EU/EEA would help achieve the Directive’s goals. There were different  
opinions  on  this  issue.  In  general,  most  Member  States  (also  Iceland  and  Norway)  did  not 
oppose this idea. Nevertheless, they indicated that a final position would have to be taken on 
the basis of a concrete Commission proposal after a thorough debate with the other Member 
States. Five Member States  (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany and Malta)  concluded that 
the harmonisation is not needed and would not help achieve the Directive’s objectives. These 
respondents  pointed  out  that  harmonising  the  rules  on  watercraft  registration  would  affect 
some aspects of tax and property law which are not covered by the Directive because they are 
not related to product safety. 

Most countries did not report any difficulties with the clarity and application of Articles 2.1 
and  2.2  defining  the  scope  and  exclusions.  Several  respondents9  admitted  that  most  of  the 
questions  on  interpretation  of  the  Directive  are  adressed  in  the  RCD  Guidance  or  were 
answered during the RCD AdCo and RSG meetings.  

However,  seven  Member  States10  indicated  some  difficulties  with  determining  whether  the 
novel  watercraft  appearing  on  the  market  are  within  the  RCD’s  scope.  Consequently,  there 
seems to be a suggestion that the scope should better reflect the emergence of new technology 
products11.  Five  Member  States12  reported  uncertainty  over  the  practical  application  of  two 
definitions:  ‘major  engine  modification’  and  ‘major  craft  conversion’.  Four  other  Member 
States  reported  uncertainties over the practical  application  of the  exclusion  from Article 2.2 
for  hydrofoils,  which  would  require  further  guidance  or  including  hydrofoils  within  the 
RCD’s scope13.   

Regarding the definition of partly completed watercraft referred to in Articles 6.2 and 15.5 of 
the  Directive  in  connection  with  Annex  III  (as  regards  content  of  a  Declaration  of  partly 
completed watercraft), most Member States reported no major difficulties. The feedback from 
the  respondents  indicates  that  this  subject  has  been  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  RCD 
Guidance.  

However,  three  Member  States  (France,  Latvia  and  Italy)  stated  that  in  practice,  the 
Declaration  of  Annex  III  rarely  accompanies  the  partly  completed  watercraft  because  their 
builders  have  insufficient  knowledge  of  this  requirement.  These  builders  usually  carry  out 
particular  work  on  behalf  of  the  final  manufacturer  and  rely  on  the  EU  Declaration  of 
Conformity  issued  by  the  manufacturer  for  the  final  product  placed  on  the  market.  One 

9 Bulgaria, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. 
10 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. 
11 More specifically, the following novel crafts were reported: electrically propelled surfboards (Belgium), boats 
pushed  by  jet  skis  (Ireland),  floating  units  used  as  houseboats  (Italy  and  France),  units  of  different  types 
equipped  with  foils,  semi-submersible  units,  motorised  surfboards  and jet  skis  equipped  with  outboard  motors 
less  than  2.5  m  in  length,  and  inclusion  of  solely  electrical  or  hybrid  propulsion  (Sweden,  France).  Austria 
proposed that the exclusions under Article 2.2 of the RCD should not take the form of an exhaustive list but a set 
of common traits of excluded products such as flotation and stability. 
12 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Spain and Norway. 
13 France, Italy, Norway and Sweden. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
Member  State  (Sweden)  as  well  as  Norway  proposed  stricter  rules  for  builders  of  partly 
completed watercraft, where the RCD should clearly define partly completed watercraft, and 
the  complete  technical  documentation  at  the  construction  stage  should  accompany  the 
Declaration of Annex III.   

Regarding  the  provisions  on  engines  adapted  for  installation  in  a  watercraft  (Article  6.4 
second  subparagraph,  of  the  Directive),  most  Member  States  with  experience  in  that  area 
signal  no  problems  with  interpreting  and  enforcing  the  legal  provisions.  Several  Member 
States14  explained  that  their  market  surveillance  authorities  cannot  verify  if  the  installed  or 
adapted  engines  comply  with  the  limits  for  exhaust  emissions.  They  lack  ressources  and 
suitable  portable  instruments  to  complete  such  checks.  Instead,  they  rely  on  documentary 
checks  and  assessments  carried  out  by  notified  bodies.  Sweden  suggested  that  only  engine 
manufacturers should be allowed to adapt engines. Two other Member States15 reported some 
interpretation  issues  with  the  relations  between  the  original  manufacturer  and  the  person 
adapting engines. 

A majority of the Member States16 consider the obligations of private importers referred to in 
Article 12 of the Directive as clear and appropriate. Three Member States17 would welcome a 
definition of the term ‘non-commercial activity’ in relation to private importers.  

Eleven  Member  States18  declared  that  privately  imported  watercraft  rarely  comes  with 
technical  documentation.  It  appears  to  be  burdensome  and  costly  for  a  private  importer  to 
draw up the technical documentation as required by Annex IX of the Directive. They suggest 
that a more realistic requirement would be the presentation of available technical files rather 
than  full  documentation.  There  are  also  divergent  interpretations  over  what  comprises 
‘appropriate expertise’ under Article 12.2 of the RCD. This provision sets out that a private 
importer  shall  have  the  technical  documentation  drawn  up  using  ‘appropriate  expertise’ 
should  the  technical  documentation  not  be  available  from  the  manuacturer.  Although  the 
Member States generally acknowledge that the notified bodies have the necessary expertise to 
prepare  the  relevant  technical  documentation,  five  Member  States19  only  accept  naval 
architects  and  qualified  marine  surveyors  for  this  work.  This  is  because  there  may  be  a 
conflict  of interest  when  notified bodies  prepare  relevant technical  documentation  and carry 
out conformity assessments at the same time.  

The choice and descriptions of the conformity assessment modules are clear for most Member 
States20. More specifically, Italy reported that modules A and A1 are the most used, while the 
modules  D,  E,  H  are  rarely  applied  for  watercraft.  Norway  added  that  some  small 
manufacturers  misinterpret  the  A1  module,  as  they  believe  it  assesses  all  essential 
requirements instead of the essential requirements specifically related to watercraft’s stability, 

14 Cyprus, Italy and Sweden. 
15 Bulgaria and France. 
16 Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta,  the  Netherlands, 
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 
17 Bulgaria, Sweden and Norway 
18 Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. 
19 Finland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain 
20 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
buoyancy  and  noise.  However,  three  respondents21  noted  that  small  businesses  have 
insufficient knowledge and understanding of differences between the modules.  

A  majority  of  the  Member  States  did  not  report  any  problems  with  the  interpretation  and 
enforcement  of  post-construction  assessment  (PCA)  in  scenarios  described  in  Articles  19.2, 
19.3 and 19.4. Several respondents22 refer to misunderstandings in the case of PCA used by 
private importers (Article 19.2) and by people modifying or converting the watercraft (Article 
19.3).  Some  Member  States23  report  problems  in  identifying  ‘major  craft  conversion’  and 
‘major engine modification’, and have asked for a more detailed description in the Directive. 
There  are  divergent  views  on  these  subjects.  Norway  argues  that  almost  all  changes  may 
constitute major craft conversion where the essential requirements are not met. On the other 
side,  Italy  proposes  that  major  craft  conversion  involves  changes  to  the  main  technical 
characteristics  of  the  product  (dimensions,  capacity,  power,  etc.).  France  and  Spain  issued 
internal guidance on that subject.  

Two  Member  States24  claim  that  they  lack  the  procedures  as  well  as  the  expertise  to  verify 
whether the person modifying a watercraft carries out major craft conversion. Others25 report 
that some end users tend to declare that the modification of watercrafts are not major in order 
to avoid expenses from the PCA.  

Most  Member States26 do not  signal  any  problem  with  identifying  ‘watercraft built  for own 
use’. Some Member States27 argue that the mandatory registration of boats is crucial in order 
to  enforce  this  rule.  Some  other28  countries  have  prepared  the  ‘checklists’  on  ascertaining 
whether ‘building for own use’ takes place.  

Four  Member  States29  explicitly  state  that  the  PCA  would  be  an  appropriate  solution  for 
regularising  second  hand  watercrafts  from  the  EU  and  third  countries  that  lack  the  CE 
marking, the EU Declaration of Conformity or any technical file. The second hand watercrafts 
imported from the third countries are used by private individuals who often lack knowledge of 
their  statutory  obligations,  standards  and  administrative  requirements.  Member  States 
authorities rely on the notified bodies to inform these individuals about their obligations.  

Seven  Member  States30  claimed  that  the  notified  bodies  often  lack  detailed  technical 
documentation  as  well  as  historical  navigation  data  to  determine  the  design  category  of  the 
watercraft, while carrying out the PCA. Italy and Spain specified that this requires more tests 
and  calculations  to  be  conducted  by  laboratories  or  consultants.  Notified  bodies  assess 
drawings,  make  calculations  and  carry  out  non-destructive  tests  (x-ray,  ,  and  ultrasonic 
inspection) in order to demonstrate the work carried out. It is assumed that the stability test is 

21 France, Sweden and Norway. 
22 Cyprus, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden. 
23 Belgium, France, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. 
24 Belgium and Bulgaria. 
25 Italy and France. 
26 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia 
and Slovenia. 
27 Cyprus, Finland and Malta. 
28 France, Spain and Malta. 
29 Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland and Norway. 
30 Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
always necessary, and other tests (manoeuvring, sound test) are carried out depending on each 
case.  For  the  transparency  of  the  assessment  process,  Italy  requires  notified  bodies  to 
demonstrate their assessment by means of video and photographic evidence.  

With respect to the reporting obligations of the notified bodies described in Article 40.1 of the 
RCD,  nine  Member  States31,  which  had  notified  the  conformity  assessment  bodies  for  the 
RCD  to  the  Commission,  recorded  very  good  cooperation  and  communication  between  the 
notified bodies and the notifying authorities. These respondents stated that the notified bodies 
submit regular (usually yearly) assessment reports to the notifying authorities and are required 
to participate in the RSG meetings.  

On  applying  the  general  essential  requirements  set  out  in  point  2.1  of  Annex  I.A  of  the 
Directive, several Member States did not  report  any  specific problems  with interpreting and 
enforcing the relevant provisions of RCD32. However, other respondents33 experienced some 
difficulties  in  interpreting  the  term  ‘model  year’  as  a  part  of  watercraft  identification.  Two 
Member States34  reported  some  difficulties  with  the  essential requirement  from  point  2.3 of 
Annex I.A of RCD (protection from falling overboard and means of reboarding) and related 
harmonised  standards.  Several  respondents35  highlighted  the  practical  problems  with  the 
undetermined  linguistic  version  of  owner’s  manual  from  point  2.5  of  Annex  I.A  of  the 
Directive.  Two  other  Member  States36  reported  ongoing  discussions  within  the  market 
surveillance authorities  about  interpreting the essential  requirement 2.4 of Annex  I.A of  the 
RCD (visibility from the main steering position). 

On  questions  related  to  the  essential  requirements  for  exhaust  emissions  from  propulsion 
engines (Annex I.B of the Directive), none of the Member States reported any problems with 
clarity or enforcement of the exhaust emission limits set out in points 2.1 and 2.2 of Annex 
I.B of the Directive.  

On enforcing applicable test cycles and applicable test fuels set out in points 2.3 and 2.5 of 
Annex  I.B  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  also  did  not  report  any  particular  problems. 
However,  in  relation  to  determining  the  test  cycles  applicable  to  hybrid  engine  installations 
(combination  of  internal  combustion  engine,  electric  generator  and  electric  motor),  Sweden 
made a specific point that no test cycle as yet covers specifically hybrid applications; and, in 
general, engines used in hybrid propulsion applications are certified with existing test cycles..   

With respect to the clarity and enforcement of durability criteria set out in point 3 of Annex 
I.B  of  the  Directive,  respondents  did  not  report  any  issues.  Regarding  the  essential 
requirements for noise emissions (Annex I.C of the Directive), Member States that responded 
to  this  question  did  not  highlight  any  difficulties  with  the  clarity  or  enforcement  of  noise 
emissions limits set out in point 1.1 of Annex I.C of the Directive. They also did not report 
problems  with  the  clarity  or  enforcement  of  the  alternative  to  the  sound  measurement  test, 

31 Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. 
32 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia and 
Slovenia. 
33 Bulgaria, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Sweden. 
34 France and Italy. 
35 Cyprus, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway. 
36 Latvia and the Netherlands. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
which is set out in points 1.2 and 1.3 of Annex I.C of the Directive. Some Member States37 
claimed they did not have the direct experience, the need or the opportunity to conduct such 
measurements  or  that  they  relied  on  the  contents  of  the  Declaration  of  Conformity  and  the 
assessments carried out by the notified bodies or industry38. 

5. Conclusions and way forward 

The Commission will follow up on the assessment’s findings by: 

  cooperating  with  national  administrations  and  stakeholders’  associations  to  help 

manufacturers and end users become more aware of their rights and obligations;  

 

 

further  amending  the  RCD  Guidance  on  the  provisions  which  were  perceived  as 
lacking clarity in the assessment; 

further  examining  whether  targeted  amendments  of  the  Directive  or  delegated  or 
implementing acts are needed regarding, in particular: 

  extension  of  the  scope  to  include  hydrofoil  watercraft,  floating  houses,  or  other 

novel watercraft; 

  adaptation to technical progress in order to revise suitability of current test cycles 

and testing procedures; 

  better addressing the issue of second hand watercraft on the market;  

 

 

revising the definitions and procedures related to ‘major craft conversion’, ‘major 
engine  modification’,  ‘appropriate  expertise’,  and  ‘model  year’  as  a  part  of 
watercraft identification; 

further examining of the need to amend Annex V of the RCD regarding the PCA 
in order to take into account the progress made in increasing technical knowledge, 
the adequacy of ensuring equivalent conformity and new scientific evidence. 

  stepping  up  the  enforcement  of  the  Directive  across  all  Member  States,  including 
through  common  actions  under  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  on  market  surveillance 
and compliance of products. 

37 Cyprus, Ireland and the Netherlands. 
38 Belgium, Italy and Spain. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
In order to boost the legal and technical compliance of products placed on the EU market, and 
the competitiveness of EU economic operators, the Commission will intensify its coordination 
efforts  through  the  different  sectoral  working  parties  in  support  of  the  operation  of  the 
Directive. This is in order to ensure agreed and harmonised approaches in implementing and 
enforcing the legislation, and to provide sufficient guidance to stakeholders. In particular, the 
Commission  will  continue  to  carefully  monitor  the  enforcement  of  the  Directive  across  all 
Member States and the activities of the RCD AdCo. It will also suggest and support concerted 
actions  to  encourage  cooperation  between  responsible  market  surveillance  authorities.  The 
Commission  also  notes  that  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  aims,  among  other  things,  to 
strengthen  checks  by  national  authorities  and  customs  officers  to  prevent  unsafe  products 
from being placed on the EU market. 

11