Activites

• 2005/09/30 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 2005/35
  • OJ L 255 30.09.2005, p. 0011-0021
  • Corrigendum to final act 32005L0035R(01)
  • OJ L 033 04.02.2006, p. 0087
  • Corrigendum to final act 32005L0035R(02)
  • OJ L 105 13.04.2006, p. 0065
• 2005/09/07 Final act signed
• 2005/09/07 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2672
• 2005/07/12 Council Meeting
• 2005/02/23 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0040/2005 summary

    The European Parliament adopted the report by Corien WORTMANN-KOOL (EPP-ED, NL) amending the Council's common position. (Please refer to the summary dated 19/01/2005).In the near future, ship-source discharges of polluting substances committed with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence will be regarded as criminal offences. Parliament voted strongly in favour of an agreement, reached last week at an informal trilogue between Parliament and Council delegations on the common position regarding pollution from ships. Until now, Council had been reluctant to accept such Parliament's proposals, arguing that criminal sanctions were a competence of the Member States.All the 13 compromise amendments were adopted following the agreement with Council. Criminal sanctions could, in the most serious cases, even include imprisonment or heavy fines. The new directive will be supplemented by detailed rules on criminal offences and sanctions in order to strengthen the legal framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. Under the new law, all those responsible in the pollution chain could be prosecuted, not only captain and crew. Another success for the EP Delegation was the agreement on the setting up of a European coastguard, opposed by some Member States. The Commission will now undertake a feasibility study on the coastguard dedicated to pollution prevention and response, making clear the costs and benefits. This study should be followed by a proposal on a coastguard by 2006. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) will assist.Another compromise amendment was adopted setting out a number of tasks for the EMSA regarding this directive. It is intended that the EMSA would work with the Member States in developing technical solutions and providing technical assistance in relation to this directive, such as tracing discharges by satellite monitoring and surveillance. The agency should assist the Commission in implementation, including visits to Member States if appropriate.Lastly, every three years, Member States shall transmit a report to the Commission on the application of this Directive by the competent authorities. In this report, the Commission shall assess, inter alia, the desirability of revising or extending the scope of this Directive. It shall also describe the evolution of relevant case-law in the Member States and shall consider the possibility of creating a public database containing such relevant case-law.

• 2005/02/22 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2005/02/01 Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • A6-0015/2005
• 2005/01/19 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
• #2626
• 2004/12/02 Council Meeting
  • 2626
• 2004/10/28 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2607
• 2004/10/07 Council Meeting
  • 11964/3/2004 summary

    The Council adopted its common position with the Greek and Maltese delegations voting against the draft Directive. The Council considers that the transposition of the MARPOL regime regarding ship-source pollution into Community law will ensure a stricter and more harmonised application and enforcement in the Member States. It shares the view that it is necessary to establish that all discharges of polluting substances are considered infringements if they are committed with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence.Following the principle of respecting the MARPOL provisions, exceptions are provided in the case when a discharge is made in order to save lives or the ship itself. The exception under the MARPOL Convention concerning the owner and the master in cases of discharges resulting from accidents applies in international sea areas and the exclusive economic or equivalent zone of Member States. In these cases, as a logical consequence of the MARPOL provisions, the crew is protected when acting under the master's responsibility. In Member States' internal waters and territorial sea, on the other hand, the Council deems it appropriate to exercise the Community's rights under Article 211(4) of UNCLOS, in order to enhance the protection of the coastline, and to lift the exception provided for discharges resulting from accidents.The Council considers that sanctions against infringements of ship-source pollution have to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and may include criminal or administrative sanctions. It also agrees that these sanctions have to apply to any person found responsible for marine pollution, i.e. shall cover the whole chain of responsibility. Whilst the infringements are defined in the Directive, the Council is of the view that the minimum binding rules for criminal penalties, liability and jurisdiction should be established in the parallel Framework Decision proposed by the Commission and examined by the Council in its "Justice and Home Affairs" formation.The Council welcomes the streamlining of strict enforcement measures against ships calling at any port of a Member State in line with the relevant international guidelines. It endorses the enhanced information sharing on suspected discharges between Member States and third countries, either as port or as flag States, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the appropriate measures.Finally, the Council is of the view that all possibilities under the UNCLOS Convention to protect the coastline and the resources of this area shall be used, including enforcement measures by coastal States with respect to ships in transit navigating in the territorial sea or exclusive economic or equivalent zone in accordance with Article 220(6) of UNCLOS, when there is clear objective evidence of a discharge causing major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline or any resources of the territorial sea or the exclusive economic or equivalent zone. In this case, the Member State concerned shall submit the matter to its competent authorities with a view to instituting proceedings, including detention of the ship, in accordance with its national law.More specifically, concerning the amendments made by the Council, the common position states that considering the fact that the Council follows a considerably different approach to this draft Directive compared to the originally proposed text, it was not possible to reflect the major part of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in first reading in the common position.- The concept of setting up a European coastguard was not part of the original Commission proposal. Whilst the Council considers it important to address means enhancing the protection of the European coastline, it does not want to prejudge any Commission initiative to that effect, possibly leading to a separate legislative act, which the Council will consider with interest.- Although the Council shares the EP's concerns with regard to the implementation of Community legislation on maritime safety, it feels that the enforcement of existing legislative acts, like Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities, falls into the competence of the Member States and its monitoring is one of the tasks of the Commission under the Treaty.- As the objective of this Directive is to clearly define discharges of polluting substances from ships as infringements under Community law, the Council is of the opinion that other technical provisions like onboard monitoring equipment or oil registers go beyond the scope of this proposal.- According to the basic principle of the Council's approach laid out above, the MARPOL provisions for discharges, including the exception concerning the owner and the master in cases of discharges resulting from accidents, apply in international sea areas and the exclusive economic or equivalent zone of Member States. In these cases, the crew is also explicitly excluded when acting under the master's responsibility. In the internal waters and territorial sea of the Member States, on the contrary, this exception is not granted in accordance with the possibilities under Article 211(4) of UNCLOS.- Concerning the scope of the Directive, the Council considers it appropriate to treat all ships, regardless of their flag, in a certain sea area on an equal footing with a view to avoiding a disadvantageous position for ships sailing under the flag of a Member State.- While the common position does not include any detailed provision on the nature of penalties given that the minimum rules towards a harmonisation of criminal penalties are subject of the parallel Framework Decision, Article 7 paragraph 2 refers to enforcement measures by coastal States in accordance with UNCLOS 220(6), including the detention of the ship, in the specific cases referred to in this Article.Furthermore, the common position includes some other smaller modifications and clarifications to theCommission proposal. On a few points, amendments proposed by the European Parliament were partially or totally integrated with a view to ensuring a consistent legislative text.

• #2589
• 2004/06/10 Council Meeting
• 2004/01/13 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T5-0009/2004 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Peter PEX (EPP-ED, NL) and made certain amendments to the proposal: - a new recital states that, in order to ensure that criminal sanctions against intentional pollution are effective, the port state control authorities should maintain registers of oil; each Member State must therefore introduce stringent legislation against any failure to maintain those registers and any entry of which the authenticity cannot be established, in order to prevent uncontrolled degassing which is the source of most marine pollution; - another new recital states that in order to ensure that all Community ports have adequate facilities to receive ship-generated waste and cargo residues, Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities should be fully enforced without further delay; - Parliament pointed out that many Member States have not fully satisfied the European Community's expectations with regard to maritime safety, in particular by delaying the application of existing directives and regulations; - the Directive will apply to ships sailing under the flag of a Member State irrespective of the location in which the discharge occurred; - sanctions should be applicable, inter alia, to the competent port authority if it is found to be responsible for illegal discharges; - sanctions should include confiscation of the ship; - given the patchy compliance of many Member States with existing legislation on maritime safety, the Commission must ensure that these directives and regulations are rigorously enforced in the Member States; - the European Maritime Safety Agency will play a coordination role with regard to the enforcement of the Directive. It will create an EU public online database on illegal discharges and ships which do not comply with the Directive; - the Commission should fix a timetable, details of which are suggested, for the installation of onboard monitoring equipment; - Member States must transmit a report to the Commission every two years, rather than every three years. The Commission's own report should assess, inter alia, the desirability of revising or extending the scope of the Directive; - those accused of pollution offences are entitled to a fair and independent hearing and any penalties imposed should be proportionate to the criminal offence; Amendments were also adopted on the definition of illegal discharges and on the development of the necessary information and warning systems.�

• 2004/01/12 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2003/11/04 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A5-0388/2003
• #X019
• 2003/10/09 Council Meeting
• #2499
• 2003/03/27 Council Meeting
  • 2499
• 2003/03/27 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2003/03/05 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2003)0092 summary

    PURPOSE : to present a proposal which will lead to the imposition of criminal sanctions on those responsible for pollution by ship. CONTENT : the proposed Directive establishes that marine pollution by ships is a criminal offence. Sanctions will be applicable to any person - including the master, the owner, the operator and the charterer of a ship and to the classification society - who has been found to have caused or contributed to illegal pollution intentionally or by means of gross negligence. The penalties may, in the most serious cases, include jail sentences. The proposal responds to calls by the European Council in Copenhagen on 13 December 2002 for further specific measures relating to liability and corresponding sanctions and by the Transport Council of Ministers on 6 December 2002 and the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 19 December for strengthened protection of the environment and criminal sanctions for grossly negligent behaviour leading to marine pollution by ships. The proposal is a further effort by the Commission to try to stop the thousands of deliberate discharges of waste and cargo residues from ships at sea around Europe. The Directive proposed provides detailed rules for the discharge of polluting substances, including oil and chemicals, and makes any violation of those rules illegal in EU waters. In addition, it prohibits pollution on the high seas, irrespective of the flag of the ship. The proposal consists of two distinct, but equally important measures: 1) it incorporates the applicable international discharge rules for ship-source pollution into Community law and regulates the enforcement of these rules in detail. This part of the proposal includes certain important new features, notably the inclusion of violations that have taken place in the high seas (sea areas beyond the jurisdiction of any State); 2) establishes that violations of the discharge rules shall be criminal offences and provides guidance on the nature of the penalties to be awarded. Both these measures fill important legal voids, as ship-source discharges are not currently sufficiently regulated by Community law, and as existing maritime law does not provide sufficient dissuation from engaging in dangerous practices by those involved in the carriage of polluting substances by sea. Both measures go beyond the problem of oil pollution, as they address pollution offences more generally, including pollution by chemical substances.�

  • DG ['Energy and Transport'],

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2003)0092
• Debate in Council: 2499
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A5-0388/2003
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0009/2004
• Council position published: 11964/3/2004
• Debate in Council: 2626
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A6-0015/2005
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T6-0040/2005
• : Directive 2005/35
• : OJ L 255 30.09.2005, p. 0011-0021
• : Corrigendum to final act 32005L0035R(01)
• : OJ L 033 04.02.2006, p. 0087
• : Corrigendum to final act 32005L0035R(02)
• : OJ L 105 13.04.2006, p. 0065

History

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