Activites

• 2004/08/06 Additional information
• 2003/11/20 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T5-0510/2003 summary

    The European Parliament rejected, at third reading, the joint text that had been approved by the Conciliation Committee. This was only the third time in ten years that Parliament had overturned an agreement reached in conciliation.  229 MEPs (chiefly members of the PSE, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups) voted against the joint text, with 209 MEPs in favour and 16 abstaining. Most Members of the EPP-ED and ELDR groups were in favour of the agreement. The most contested element of the agreement was the definition of "self-handling". A majority of MEPs argued that the directive would allow workers from boats in harbour to carry out unrestricted loading in European ports and that this would significantly degrade safety conditions in EU docks. Under current regulations only professional dockers employed by port authorities were allowed to do this type of work. The opponents of the agreement said that professional dockers were more qualified and could ensure higher safety levels. They felt that, under the proposed directive, competent workers risked losing their jobs to cheaper and less qualified people and that the conciliation result had not brought about a satisfactory solution to this problem. Under the rules governing codecision, Parliament's failure to approve the joint text meant that the legislative procedure would automatically come to an end.

• 2003/11/18 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2003/10/22 Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • 3670/2003
• 2003/09/29 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A5-0364/2003
• 2003/09/29 Final decision by Conciliation Committee
• 2003/09/09 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #2524
• 2003/07/22 Council Meeting
• 2003/03/11 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T5-0078/2003 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the report by Georg JARZEMBOWSKI (EPP-ED, Germany) making several amendments to the Council's common position. (Please refer to the document dated 18/02/03.) On the question of transparency of financial relations, Parliament inserted a clause stating that every port and port system must submit details required by Directive 80/723/EEC within the time limits laid down. The same applies to financial relations between Member States and providers of port services, regardless of whether the other provisions of that Directive apply to them. The Commission and Member States will then use the data submitted to take the measures required under Community law to establish fair conditions of competition in and between Community ports. Within three years of entry into force of the directive, the Commission must submit a report on the transparency of financial relations in port and port systems and measures taken in relation to them by Member States and the Commission. On the question of transparency of State aids, the Commission must submit proposals necessary to bring about transparency in state funding of Community ports. The Commission must draw up common guidelines for aid given to ports by Member States or out of public funds for investment in port infrastructure, and will indicate which aids to ports are compatible with the common market. Parliament also required a study by an independent research consortium into direct and indirect public financing, State aids and cost accounting in Community ports and port systems. The study will focus on the costs of port infrastructure and superstructure, port services, port undertakings and port-related business. With regard to self-handlers, Parliament felt that they should be treated in the same way as other port services providers, meeting the same social standards and holding the same professional qualifications as other providers of the same or comparable port service.�

• 2003/03/10 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2003/02/18 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A5-0050/2003
• 2002/11/20 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2460
• 2002/11/05 Council Meeting
  • 11146/1/2002 summary

    The Council, with a qualified majority, has introduced a number of amendments to the Commission's amended proposal without, however, changing its main objective of establishing clear rules and setting up an open and transparent procedure for access to port services. The common position also takes largely into account the views of the European Parliament in its first reading. The main elements of the common position are the following: - the freedom to provide port services : as a rule, the freedom to provide port services should prevail and restrictions that hamper access to this market should be removed. In the view of the Council, no specific service should be excluded from the scope of the directive. However, a common legislative framework should also be compatible with the differing situations of ports in the Community, with respect to, inter alia, their location, size and public service obligations. Equally, it is important, in the opinion of the Council, that the freedom to provide services does not jeopardise maritime safety and the protection of the environment, nor reduce social standards and conditions of employment; - the access to provide port services may therefore be subject to constraints related to the capacity of a port or its available space, the safety of maritime traffic and requirements relating to safety, environmental protection and/or public service obligations. Where such constraints exist, providers of port services should be selected through a transparent and non-discriminatory procedure; - the application of common rules : the Council believes that the application of common rules regulating the freedom to provide port services should be proportionate and not impose undue administrative burdens on the sector. It therefore agrees that the obligatory application of the directive should be limited to ports of a certain size, whilst allowing Member States to apply the directive to other ports as well; - in order to clarify the scope of the Directive and with a view to the coherence of Community legislation in the field of transport, the scope has been defined with reference to the ports categorised as "international seaports (category A)" in the Community guidelines for the trans-European networks. It is also made clear that the traffic taking place in parts of a port which are not open to general commercial traffic should not have to be taken into consideration. However, Member States are free to apply the directive to ports below this category. Finally, in order not to put disproportionate burdens on some ports, Member States are given the possibility to exclude ports with significant seasonal traffic from the scope of the directive; - pursuant to the general objective of the directive, the Council shares the view that self-handling should be allowed, whenever possible, on the same conditions as port services in general and should not be subject to other limitations than those prevailing for the same or comparable port services. However, as stressed in the common position, self-handling should not hamper the overall efficiency of the port or lead to lower occupational, social and health standards; - the Council finds it important that Member States are allowed to submit the granting of an authorisation to provide port services, including self-handling, to a number of criteria concerning the service provider's professional qualifications and economic situation, safety, environmental and social and employment considerations and public service requirements. Equally, Member States should be able to regulate access to the occupation, for instance by means of certificates to be acquired by examination. In this respect, it should be noted that the common position enables Member States to establish particularly strict criteria as regards the granting of an authorisation to provide pilotage services; - with respect to employment, working conditions and social protection, the Council's common position stresses that the freedom to provide port services must in no way affect the application of national legislation or lead to lower social standards; - the Council shares Parliament's view that the duration of an authorisation granted to a service provider in accordance with the selection procedure should allow for a commercially viable period of operation. Therefore, it wishes to prolong the duration of the authorisation period to 10 years in cases where no significant investments are involved. Similarly, in cases where significant investments in moveable assets are involved, the authorisations can run up to 15 years, and for the significant investments in immovable assets (and expensive investments in movable assets) the maximum duration of the authorisation has been set at 36 years. In a similar way, the Council wishes to establish transitional measures for existing authorisations which ensure maximum legal certainty and do not disturb investment policies in the sector.�

• #2438
• 2002/06/17 Council Meeting
• #2420
• 2002/03/25 Council Meeting
  • 2420
• 2002/02/19 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(2002)0101 summary

    The European Parliament has formulated a number of amendments on the basis of which the Commission is modifying its original proposal. The Commission is including a considerable number of amendments aimed at improving and clarifying the original text. The modifications concern the following elements of the proposal: - The scope of the Directive should be extended so as to include waterway access to the port which extension will ensure full benefit of the proposed measures. - The definition of "port system" which is modified so as to cover two or more ports which are in the same vicinity and managed by a single entity or port authority and which, therefore, for all practical purposes may be considered as one port. - The listing of criteria for the granting of authorisations should be more precise. These criteria, although still limited so as to avoid abuse, may cover references, where applicable, to employment and social matters as well as environmental requirements. This modification gives the competent authority the opportunity to ensure that future controversy on these matters can be avoided; - The right of a service provider to employ personnel of his own choice may be made subject to the same criteria as those generally fixed by the competent authority for service providers so as to ensure that such criteria are applied without exception. Such clarification will help to avoid misunderstandings. - The number of service providers may be limited not only for reasons of constraints relating to available space or capacity but also in accordance with environmental regulations or maritime traffic-related safety. In the latter case the amendment does not restrict the exception to technical-nautical services any more. This amendment reflects general policies on safety and environmental matters. - A selected service provider may have to pay compensation for immovable assets it takes over from the outgoing service provider. Although such obligation is already the result of existing general legal principles, an explicit mention is considered appropriate. - Unequivocal rules on self-handling ensure that a self-handler may use its own personnel and equipment, but the same criteria apply as to other service providers under the condition, of course, that such criteria are relevant. However, the Commission cannot accept a number of proposed changes to the Directive. More specifically: - The amendments concerning transparency of financial relations between Member States and ports and on the interpretation of the Treaty's state aid rules deal essentially with the aspect of competition between ports whereas the proposed Directive focuses on ensuring freedom to provide port services and the right of establishment for providers of port services within ports. However, the Commission accepts the need for further work on the issue of competition between ports but points out that such work will have to be carried out within the institutional framework and according to the rules of the Treaty. With regard to transparency, the Commission will prepare an amendment to the Transparency Directive so as to cover a considerably higher number of ports than are currently covered. As regards the issue of state aids the Commission is studying the possibility offurther clarifying the application of the Treaty rules in a more refined way than the chapter on state aid to ports. - The amendment deleting the requirement of at least two service providers (unless specific circumstances prevail) and to allow "the highest number of service providers possible under the circumstances" is unsatisfactory. - The amendments excluding pilotage from the scope of the Directive are not acceptable. - The Commission does not believe that extending the scope of the Directive to services other than those of a commercial value is warranted. - A limitation of the right to self-handle to vessels flying the flag of a Member State cannot be accepted because it would not be in line with international rules and obligations. - An extension from 5 to 8 years of the period of authorisation for service providers which have not made any significant investments seems inappropriate, in particular where the same period for those service providers which have made significant investments in movable assets remains 10 years.�

  • DG ['Energy and Transport'],
• 2001/11/14 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T5-0598/2001 summary

    The European Parliament adopted the report by Mr Georg JARZEMBOWSKI (EPP-ED, D) subject to substantial amendments. This proposal is designed to open up access to port services, in two key areas: the transparency of public funding in European seaports and the range of port services to be covered by the directive. (Please refer to the previous text). In addition to the recommendations by the committee responsible, the Parliament has introduced an amendment which states that in cases where the service provider will make no or insignificant investments in order to carry out the provisions of services, the maximum duration of its authorisation shall be 8 years as opposed the Commission's 5 years. Parliament also emphasised the point that care must be taken not to discriminate against publicly-owned seaports or seaport systems and port undertakings, therefore Parliament introduces a new article formulating the principles for state aid applying specifically to seaports.�

• 2001/11/13 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2001/10/10 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A5-0354/2001
• 2001/02/28 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2001/02/13 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2001)0035 summary

    PURPOSE : to establish a Community legal framework ensuring, on the one hand, access to the port services market in application of the Treaty rules, whilst, on the other hand, allowing Member States and their competent authorities to fill in this framework with specific rules which take due account of the ports' geographic and other characteristics as well as of local, regional or national specificities. CONTENT : the port service market covers services of a commerical value which are provided against payment to port users in a seaport and whose payment is not normally included in the charges collected for being allowed to call at or operate in a port. Although this service sector is essential for the functioning of the Community regulatory framework for port services. However, national port services regimes have to be in conformity with the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (freedom of establishment, free movement of workers, goods and services) as well as the Treaty's competition rules. Problems with the application of these rules, where they arose, have been dealt with by the Commission on a case by case basis. The liberalisation of the Community's internal maritime transport market took place over the last decade. In fact, transitional rules continue to allow restrictions in the Greek islands cabotage market. The situation in port services varies considerably. Therefore, it is necessary, in the interests of operators, authorities and consumers, to introduce specific and clear rules on access to the port services market which will take account of its unique features. Therefore, the overall aim of this proposal is to ensure a more systematic application of Treaty rules in the port sector. It introduces procedural rules guaranteeing that all service providers, actual and potential, have a fair chance of entering the port service market. This will in turn lead to improved port services and encourage better use of shipping as an alternative transport mode and of combined transport, both reducing the strain on Community's transport network. The Directive shall concern all coastal Member States. Although in recent years Member States have generally made considerable progress in ensuring free access to port services, there is presently a wide divergence of practice with regard to both the coverage of port services and the procedures followed to implement the Treaty rights. In order to ensure access to port services market and, in doing so, avoid distortion of competition, it is necessary to improve and harmonise, to the extent necessary, national rules, regulations and practices. �

  • DG ['Energy and Transport'],

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2001)0035
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A5-0354/2001
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0598/2001
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(2002)0101
• Debate in Council: 2420
• Council position published: 11146/1/2002
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A5-0050/2003
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T5-0078/2003
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A5-0364/2003
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 3670/2003
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T5-0510/2003

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)