Activites

• 2009/05/28 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 2009/16
  • OJ L 131 28.05.2009, p. 0057
  • Corrigendum to final act 32009L0016R(01)
  • OJ L 032 01.02.2013, p. 0023
• 2009/04/23 Final act signed
• 2009/04/22 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2927
• 2009/03/11 Council Meeting
• 2009/03/11 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T6-0107/2009 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 641 votes to 15, with 15 abstentions, under the third reading of the codecision procedure, a legislative resolution approving the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (recast).For details of the agreement, see the summary dated 08/12/2008.

• 2009/03/10 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2009/02/25 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A6-0099/2009
• 2009/02/03 Final decision by Conciliation Committee
  • 03721/2008
• 2008/12/08 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #2908
• 2008/11/27 Council Meeting
• 2008/09/24 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T6-0446/2008 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 603 votes to 51, with 12 abstentions, a legislative resolution amending the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (Recast).The recommendation for second reading (co-decision procedure) had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Dominique VLASTO (EPP-ED, FR) on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism.The main purpose of the amendments is to reinstate Parliament’s position adopted at first reading.Anchorages: MEPs consider that the provisions of the directive should apply to ships calling at anchorages as well as at ports. This was the position of the Commission in its proposal. The proposed amendments therefore aim to restore anchorages to the Directive where Council has removed them. Member States without sea ports may derogate from the application of this Directive, under certain conditions. The Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, the measures for the implementation of this derogation mechanism.Limitation of liability: Member States shall take the necessary measures to adapt their national law to the provisions on limitation of liability under the 1996 Convention. The principle of compensation to third parties in respect of damage caused by waste falling under the 'polluter pays' principle, opens up the right to be compensated for the totality of the damage caused, including where there is not complete coverage and beyond the national provisions on incorporation of conventions. Member States may maintain or introduce provisions that are stricter than those of the directive.Missed inspections: the Council amended the proposal to include a provision which allows Member States a margin of ‘missed inspections’. It proposes that a Member State is in compliance with the Directive if 5% of priority 1 vessels with a high risk profile calling at its ports are not inspected. MEPs believe that this margin is too generous and therefore introduced an amendment that ensures a sufficient number of inspections are carried out. Furthermore, MEPs deleted a provision of the common position allowing sub standard vessels to call at night.Frequency of inspections: ships shall be subject to periodic inspections at predetermined intervals depending on their risk profile. According to MEPs, the interval between periodic inspections of high risk ships shall not exceed six months.Notification of the arrival of a ship: the operator of a ship which is eligible for an expanded inspection and bound for a port of call or anchorage of a Member State shall notify its arrival at the first port of call or anchorage. On receipt of the notification, the port authority concerned shall transmit such information to the competent authority and to those of the ports of call or anchorages successively reached in the Community. Electronic means shall be used for the purposes of any communication, except if electronic means are not available.Permanent ban: the Council common position would prevent any ship from being definitively banned. MEPs propose that any ship which appears on the black or grey list, as defined by the Paris MOU, and has been detained or issued with a prevention of operation order at least three times in the preceding 36 months, should be refused access to the ports and anchorages of a Member State. The refusal of access order shall be lifted only after a period of three months has passed from the date of issue of the order and when certain conditions are met. If the ship is subject to a second refusal of access, the period shall be increased to 12 months. Any subsequent detention in a Community port shall result in the ship being permanently refused access to any port or anchorage within the Community.Ship detention order: the competent authority shall inform the port authorities or bodies at its earliest convenience when a detention order is issued.Complaints: all complaints shall be subject to a rapid initial assessment by the competent authority. This assessment shall make it possible to determine whether a complaint is justified, concrete and properly grounded. Should the above be the case, the competent authority shall take the necessary action on the complaint. It shall, in particular, ensure that the ship's master and owner, as well as anyone else directly concerned by the complaint, including the complainant, can make their views known. The competent authority shall inform the port authorities or bodies at its earliest convenience when a detention order is issued. Member States shall cooperate in particular in order to ensure that appeals are dealt with in a reasonable time.

• 2008/09/23 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2008/09/09 Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • A6-0335/2008
• 2008/09/04 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
• 2008/06/19 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2875
• 2008/06/06 Council Meeting
  • 05722/3/2008 summary

    The Council’s common position accepts 68 amendments, in total or in part, proposed by the European Parliament at 1st reading. A certain number of other amendments proposed by the European Parliament (33 in total) were not accepted by the Council.The common position was adopted unanimously with the Maltese delegation abstaining. It modifies, in a number of cases, the original Commission proposal by redrafting it entirely, inserting completely new provisions or supplementing the text with new elements.Scope of the Directive: the Council shares the view of the Commission and the European Parliament that the current port State control regime, imposing a purely quantitative threshold of 25% of ships to be inspected by Member States, results in an insufficient control and leads sometimes to unjustified inspections carried out solely to reach this arbitrary threshold. Therefore, the common position establishes a new system with a collective inspection objective for the whole Community based on a fair share of the number of inspections among Member States and States within the Paris memorandum of understanding region. The inspections are focused on substandard vessels, which shall be checked more often, while the burden of inspections is alleviated with regard to quality vessels.Contrary to the Commission and the European Parliament, the Council, however, deems it appropriate to take into account practical difficulties of some Member States in terms of financial and personal resources. The common position, therefore, modifies the scope of inspections under this Directive, applying them to ships calling at a port of a Member State to engage in a ship/port interface, including ships at anchor in a port or another area within the jurisdiction of a port.Furthermore, the Council, as the European Parliament, includes in its common position the possibility for landlocked Member States to derogate from the Directive under specific conditions. For reasons of legal certainty, these conditions are spelt out in the related provision. They constitute essential elements of the Directive and, therefore, cannot be modified through comitology, in contrast to what is provided for in the European Parliament's amendments.Flexibility mechanism for inspections: the common position takes into consideration the specific situation of each Member State resulting in an unequal number of ships calling at their respective ports. To this effect, Member States are allowed, according to the Council's position and contrary to the European Parliament's view, to miss a small percentage of inspections, namely inspections on 5% of the total number of Priority I ships (ships due for a mandatory inspection) with a high risk profile and on 10% of the total number of Priority I ships other than those with a high risk profile. Member States shall, however, give particular attention to ships that do not call often at ports within the Community.In addition, the Council, as the European Parliament, is of the opinion that, for practical reasons, flexibility mechanisms are necessary in specific circumstances, i.e. to provide the possibility to postpone an inspection for 15 days, not to carry out an inspection for safety reasons or to miss an inspection if the ship calls at night time. The last flexibility provision is not provided for by the European Parliament.Access refusal: the Council, as the European Parliament, supports the Commission's proposal to tighten the access refusal measures against substandard ships. As criteria for such a measure, the performance of the ship is evaluated in relation to the performance of its operator, indicated by repeated detentions during a certain timeframe, and of its flag State, determined on the basis of the "black", "grey" and "white" lists of flag States established by the Paris Memorandum ofUnderstanding on Port State Control (MOU). The duration of the access refusal to Member States' ports increases with each time such a measure is taken. While the Commission, supported by the European Parliament, proposed to provide for an ultimate possibility of permanently banning ships that are caught for the third time in such a situation, the Council considers that, for legal reasons, it is necessary to foresee the possibility to lift the ban after a certain period, namely 36 months, but only if the ship concerned complies with a series of conditions.Reports from pilots: the Council fully supports the Commission's proposal to reinforce the obligation for all pilots, including deep sea pilots on ships bound for a port or in transit, to report apparent anomalies they encounter on board of ships to the competent authority of the port or coastal State. Unlike the European Parliament, the Council considers that this can only be done through a mandatory provision.List of companies with a low and very low performance: similar to the Commission and the European Parliament, the Council intends to strengthen the dissuasive effect of the Directive and requests the Commission to establish and publish regularly information on badly performing ship operators, however without specifying the publication modalities, which will be established through the comitology procedure.Transposition date: the new inspection system should apply at Community level with the entry into force of the recast Directive. Nonetheless, Member States are allowed to use a transposition period of 36 months, unlike the provisions set out by the European Parliament.

• #2805
• 2007/06/06 Council Meeting
• 2007/04/25 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0149/2007 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Dominique VLASTO (EPP-ED, FR) amending the proposed directive on Port State Control (PSC). The main amendments were as follows:- under the inspection regime set up by the Directive, the intervals between periodic inspections on ships depend on their risk profile that is determined by certain generic and historical parameters. For high risk ships this interval should not exceed 6 months;- complaints from persons with a confirmed legitimate interest regarding living and working conditions on board should be investigated. Priority should be given to dealing with complaints on board. The initial investigation must make it possible to establish swiftly whether the complaint is admissible or whether it is manifestly unfounded or clearly abusive;- the objectives of the directive should include more thorough and frequent inspections for high-risk vessels and the introduction of "elements related to a Community port State control regime", aimed at establishing common criteria for control of ships by the port State and harmonising procedures on inspection and detention;- in order not to impose a disproportionate administrative burden on Member States without seaports, a de minimis rule will permit them to derogate from the provisions of the Directive under certain conditions. The Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the comitology procedures set out; the measures for the implementation of this derogation mechanism;- Parliament introduced a new definition for “port” and amended some existing definitions;- France may decide the legislation does not include ports situated in the overseas departments. Where a Member State carries out an inspection on a ship in its territorial waters but outside a port, such procedure shall be deemed to be an inspection for the purposes of the Directive. - each Member State shall carry out annually a total number of inspections of individual ships corresponding to its share of the total number of inspections to be carried out annually in the Community and in the Paris MOU area. This share shall be based on the number of ships calling at the ports or anchorages of the Member State in question in relation to the sum of the number of ships calling at the ports and anchorages of each Member State of the Community and of the states party to the Paris MOU. Parliament deleted the clause stating that the total number of inspections to be carried out annually by the competent authority of each Member State must correspond to at least 25% of the annual number of individual ships which entered its ports;- Parliament made a number of amendments aimed at tightening up and clarifying some of the provisions relating to the inspection regime, the criteria for selecting ships for inspection and the parameters for calculating a ship's risk profile. It specified inter alia in a new Article 7a dealing with the 'expanded inspection' regime that expanded inspections should apply to ships with a high risk profile and to passenger ships and oil and chemical tankers more than 12 years old; - the competent authority shall inform the port authority at its earliest convenience when a detention order is issued;- new article 18a stipulated that the Commission should develop and maintain an inspection database, which shall be a common database for both the European Union and the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, showing the risk profiles of ships, indicating all ships due for inspection, calculating the inspection commitment and capable of receiving ship movement data. The core of the system will be the joint EU/Paris MOU requirements. However, in the case of specific EU requirements, the Community will have full discretion to take decisions on the development and possible adaptation of the system to meet such requirements;- Parliament deleted references to berthing areas;- the Commission must ensure that penalties allow for uniform application of the inspection regime throughout the Community and do not create distortions between Member States.

• 2007/04/24 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2007/03/27 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0081/2007
• 2007/02/26 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• #2772
• 2006/12/11 Council Meeting
  • 2772 summary

    Taking into account progress made within the framework of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding and pending the European Parliament's first-reading opinion, the Council reached agreement on a general approach on a proposal for a directive on port State control (recast). The Maltese delegation indicated that it would vote against.The Ministerial discussion was based on a Presidency compromise proposal concerning in particular the following issues:– scope of the directive: Member States shall perform inspections on any ship and its crew calling at one of their ports or anchoring in areas under the jurisdiction of one of their ports in order to carry out a ship/port interface;– flexibility mechanism for inspections: Member States are allowed to miss a small percentage of inspections, namely inspections on 5% of ships with a high risk profile and on 10% of other ships. They shall, however, give particular attention to ships that do not call often at ports within the Community. Furthermore, Member States may, in specific circumstances, postpone an inspection for 15 days;– access refusal: ships that at various occasions have proven not to comply with international standards on safety, health and environment, will be refused access to Member States' ports. As criteria for such a measure, the performance of the ship is evaluated in relation to the performance of its flag State, determined on the basis of the "black" and "grey" and "white" lists of flag States established by the Paris MoU. As ultimate measure against substandard ships it can be decided to refuse the access to ports within the Community indefinitely. If the ship concerned however complies with a series of conditions, this measure can be lifted after 36 months. Among the conditions to be fulfilled, the ship is not allowed to fly a flag of a State on the "black" and "grey" Paris MoU list, it has to be classified by an EU recognised organisation and to be managed by a company with a high performance;– transposition date: the complexity of the new inspection system requires an intensive preparation by Member States. The directive will therefore apply in all Member States on the same day after a transposition period of 36 months.

• #2735
• 2006/06/08 Council Meeting
  • 2735 summary

    Pending the European Parliament first reading opinion, the Council took note of a progress report on a proposal for a directive on Port State control. The progress report takes into account progress made within the instances of the Council and the framework of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding.

• 2006/02/01 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2005/11/23 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2005)0588 summary

    PURPOSE : to recast Directive 95/21/EC on port State control, and make certain amendments with a view to clarification or reinforcement of its provisions, and add provisions, notably on maritime safety. PROPOSED ACT : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council.CONTENT : This proposal aims to recast Directive 95/21/EC on port State control, which has been the subject of numerous amendments which have made it particularly complex. The recasting will clarify the provisions of the Directive to make them more understandable, in line with the "better law-making" policy promoted by the Commission.In addition, the proposal aims to:- amend certain provisions, with a view to either simplification or clarification (for example in the case of the expanded inspection programme) or reinforcement (this is the case in particular with provisions on the role of pilots in detecting faults and rules concerning the banning of substandard ships);- add a number of new provisions in areas which were not covered by port State control, such as maritime safety, in order to take account of recent developments in international and Community law.It should be noted that the proposal stems from the work of the European Parliament temporary committee on the improvement of maritime safety following the sinking of the tanker Prestige in 2002 (conclusions of the "MARE" Committee).The main points of the proposal are as follows: 1) Ensuring more effective application of the system of controls in ports and anchorages of the EU: the primary objective is to ensure that port State control is carried out in a uniform manner in ports of all Member States. Thus the arrangements for banning a vessel will be based on detentions enforced in all Member States and not only in the Paris Memorandum ports as is the case in the present Directive. The proposal also lays down the inspection procedures applicable in anchorages.2) Reinforcing the notification obligations on pilots: the Directive already contains an obligation for pilots to report defects. The PRESTIGE accident showed that information had not been transmitted by sea pilots in the Baltic approaches in the absence of a clear legal basis. The existing provisions have therefore been amended to extend this obligation to deep sea pilots, including those on ships in transit. Moreover, it is proposed to amend the provisions of the Directive to ensure that reports made by pilots and port authorities are followed up more effectively by the Member States.3) Extending and simplifying access refusal measures: refusal of access is a very effective dissuasive tool in the campaign against substandard vessels. The current rules will be :- extended to all ships: statistics show that bulk carriers and cargo ships are on average the most frequently detained in the European Union;- simplified: the present criteria are obscure and difficult to implement. A clear message will be given, since the proposal is now based on two simple criteria: firstly, poor management of the vessel by its operator, as indicated by repeated detentions without a significant improvement in the condition of the vessel and secondly, inadequate monitoring by the flag State, attested to by its inclusion on the black and grey lists of the Paris Memorandum;- tightened up: a minimum banning period is established in order to counter abuses already observed in the implementation of the Directive, in particular access refusals which are lifted too quickly, without any proper inspection of the condition of the vessel. Repeat offenders will be penalised more severely, with the ultimate possibility of permanent banning from EU ports.4) Tightening up requirements concerning administrations responsible for inspections and the competence of inspectors: in accordance with international law, port State control can be exercised by a State only if the latter is fully in compliance with the rules that it imposes on foreign vessels in its ports. The Directive will restate this minimum requirement imposed on Member States. Moreover, the competent authorities must be in a position to carry out the compulsory inspections when the ships concerned are in port, including if necessary at weekends and on public holidays, in order to ensure that the vessels concerned do not evade inspection. Finally, it is proposed to tighten up requirements concerning the professional profile of inspectors, by requiring Member States to regularly check their qualifications, particularly in the light of new rules resulting from amendments to the Directive on international conventions. The Commission will also establish, with the assistance of EMSA, harmonised rules on the qualifications and training of inspectors.  5) Improving the planning, preparation and carrying out of inspections: under the improved cooperation between authorities pre-notifications received by ports and other bodies will have to be transmitted immediately to the inspectors, which will enable them to better plan and prepare their inspections. Finally, it is laid down that when carrying out inspections, the inspector verifies whether defects detected but not corrected in a previous port have indeed been rectified in the meantime.6) Improving the expanded inspection regime: practical improvements have been made to the expanded inspection regime: ships eligible for an expanded inspection will be informed in advance by the inspector that they will be subjected to the expanded inspection on their arrival in port and will have to take appropriate measures to be available for such an inspection. The expanded inspection scheme will be applied to the categories of vessels concerned from a uniform minimum age (12 years).7) Tightening up provisions concerning the human element: the Paris Memorandum statistics show a high number of anomalies connected with the qualifications of seamen onboard ships and their living and working conditions. Provisions tighten up controls on these aspects, in order in particular to respond to the worrying phenomenon of the increasing number of fraudulent certificates. Moreover, complaints by crew members regarding the safety and health of crews, living conditions and more generally the safety of the ship and the prevention of pollution will be dealt with systematically and seamen informed of the outcome of their complaint.8) Controls regarding security: maritime transport is particularly vulnerable to the risk of terrorist or other criminal acts. In order to facilitate the application of Regulation 725/2004/EC on enhancing ship and port facility security, the inspection procedures established under the Paris Memorandum have been introduced in the Directive.9) Greater transparency and wider dissemination of information on ships and operators: in order to reinforce the dissuasive effect on the operators of ships penalised under the Directive, the Commission, through the European Maritime Safety Agency, is planning to publish a black list of owners of ships which have been the subject of repeated detention or access refusal measures. A black list of ships banned will also be published in accordance with the same procedures and updated constantly.10) Facilitating monitoring by the Commission of the implementation of the Directive by the Member States: the existing provisions, which do not allow satisfactory control by the Commission of implementation of the Directive by the Member States, will be amended to enable EMSA, acting on behalf of the Commission, to obtain precise electronic data on ships' movements. On this basis, detailed analyses of the operation of the regime in the ports of the Member States can be carried out, which will make it possible for example to optimise inspection resources on the basis of traffic or avoid the risk of seeing "ports of convenience" appear.11) Establishment of a new inspection regime: the current port State control regime is based on compliance with the purely quantitative threshold of 25% of ships inspected by Member State, which not only allows many ships to pass through the net but also sometimes causes the authorities to carry out unjustified inspections solely to reach this figure. The approach proposed establishes a collective objective which is to inspect all ships calling at ports in the Union, with high risk ships being inspected more frequently and quality ships less so. The new inspection regime will help to ease the burden of inspections on quality ships on the basis of criteria relating to the ship itself and its flag (in particular the fact that the flag State applies the IMO voluntary audit system). However, it should be stressed that this new regime must not lead to a weakening of the present system which would result in greater insecurity. In particular, the aim of the new regime should not be a reduction of the resources allocated by the Member States to port State control but their more effective use. A precondition of such a regime, if the development of ports of convenience is to be avoided, is that an objective mechanism is found which guarantees a fair – and verifiable – distribution of the number of inspections between the Member States. The details of such a mechanism are currently being studied under the Paris Memorandum and in EMSA. It is therefore proposed at this stage to incorporate the principles of this new inspection regime in the Directive, along with its essential elements: establishment of a risk profile applicable to ships, incentives for ships with a low risk profile and the adaptation of existing procedures relating to inspections and follow-up.Subsequent amendments to the Directive which become necessary will be introduced through the "comitology" procedure, once all the elements and practical details of the new inspection regime have been established. However, until these technical details have been adopted and have entered into force at Community level, the existing regime continues to apply and in particular the threshold of 25% of individual ships inspected by Member State.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS :The proposal has no budgetary implications for the Community. The cost of human resources and associated costs not included in the reference amount is set at EUR 324 000 over 6 years, that is EUR 54 000 per year (1 official working part time).

  • DG Energy and Transport, TAJANI Antonio

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2005)0588
• Debate in Council: 2735
• Debate in Council: 2772
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0081/2007
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0149/2007
• Council position published: 05722/3/2008
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A6-0335/2008
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T6-0446/2008
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 03721/2008
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A6-0099/2009
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T6-0107/2009
• : Directive 2009/16
• : OJ L 131 28.05.2009, p. 0057
• : Corrigendum to final act 32009L0016R(01)
• : OJ L 032 01.02.2013, p. 0023

History

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