Activites

• 2009/05/28 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 2009/18
  • OJ L 131 28.05.2009, p. 0114
• 2009/04/23 Final act signed
• 2009/04/22 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2009/03/11 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T6-0109/2009 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 669 votes to 15, with 2 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 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC.For details of the agreement, see the summary dated 08/12/2008.

• 2009/03/10 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• #2927
• 2009/02/26 Council Meeting
• 2009/02/25 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A6-0101/2009
• 2009/02/03 Final decision by Conciliation Committee
  • 03723/2008
• 2008/12/08 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #2908
• 2008/11/27 Council Meeting
• 2008/09/24 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T6-0444/2008 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution amending the Council's common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC. The recommendation for second reading (under the codecision procedure) was tabled for consideration in plenary by Jaromír KOHLICEK (GUE/NGL, CZ) on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism.  Several of these amendments are re-introduced from 1st reading and the main ones are as follows :Distress alerts: these should remain within the scope of the Directive as originally proposed by the Commission.Definitions: the terms "serious casualty" and "less serious casualty" shall be understood in accordance with the updated definitions contained in Circular 953 of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee. Members inserted a definition for 'distress alert'. "Distress alert" means a signal given from a ship, or information from any source, indicating that a ship is, or that persons on or from a ship are, in distress at sea. The definition of 'safety recommendation was amended.' The Commission must take into account the results of investigations carried out. Common methodology: the Commission must take into account the conclusions of the accident reports and the safety recommendations contained therein when modifying the common methodology.Serious accidents: safety investigations should be mandatory in the event of serious accidents (as well as very serious accidents) as proposed by the Commission. In addition to investigating serious and very serious casualties, the investigative body shall, having established the initial facts of the case, decide whether or not a safety investigation of a less serious casualty, marine incident or a distress alert shall be undertaken. In its decision, the investigative body shall take into account the seriousness of the casualty or incident, the type of vessel and/or cargo involved in the distress alert, and any request from the search and rescue authorities.Safety investigation: a safety investigation shall be started as promptly as is practicable after the marine casualty or incident occurs and, in any event, no later than two months after its occurrence. Members States must ensure that safety investigations are independent of criminal or other parallel investigations held to determine liability or apportion blame and allow only the conclusions or recommendations resulting from investigations initiated under this Directive to be used in judicial investigations;Lead investigating Member State: in cases of serious and very serious casualties involving a substantial interest for two or more Member States, the Member States concerned shall rapidly agree which of them is to be the lead investigating Member State. Should the Member States concerned not be able to determine which Member State is to lead the investigation, the Commission shall take a decision on the matter based on an opinion of the Agency, which shall be immediately implemented. The Council's text had not given the Commission the deciding voice.Functional independence of investigative body: Parliament placed more emphasis on this and tightened up the wording in the Council's text. The investigative body shall be functionally independent of, in particular, the national authorities responsible for seaworthiness, certification, inspection, manning, safe navigation, maintenance, sea traffic control, port state control and operation of seaports, of bodies carrying out investigations for the purposes of establishing liability or law enforcement and, in general, of any other party whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to it.Parliament deleted Member States' obligation to provide pertinent information to the investigative body, which was contained in the Commission proposal. It inserted instead a clause stating that any Member State, the facilities or services of which have been, or would normally have been, used by a ship prior to a casualty or an incident, and which has information pertinent to the investigation, shall provide that information to the investigative body conducting the investigation.Non-disclosure of records: certain records must not be made available for purposes other than the safety investigation. Members deleted the Council's exceptions. Furthermore, Member States shall ensure that, witness statements and other information provided by witnesses in the course of safety investigations are not obtained by third country authorities, thus preventing such statements and information from being used in criminal investigations in such countries.Fair treatment of seafarers: a new article states that in accordance with their national law, Member States shall apply the relevant provisions of the IMO guidelines on the fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident.Report: every three years, the Commission shall send a report providing information to the European Parliament setting out the degree of implementation of, and compliance with, the provisions of this Directive, as well as any further steps considered necessary in the light of the recommendations set out in the report.Transposition: Member States must communicate to the Commission the text of legislation transposing the Directive and a correlation table between those provisions and the Directive.

• 2008/09/23 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2008/09/08 Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • A6-0332/2008
• 2008/09/04 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
• 2008/06/19 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2875
• 2008/06/06 Council Meeting
  • 05721/5/2008 summary

    The Council common position adopted unanimously, accepts in total, in part or in principle, 6 amendments adopted by the European Parliament at 1st reading. 17 amendments were not incorporated in the common position.The Council agrees with the objective and most of the main elements of the Commission proposal that provide an adequate mechanism for ensuring appropriate return of experience from accidents and incidents in order to prevent other casualties. The approach adopted by the Council required, however, some modifications of the text, in particular with a view to ensuring the independence and discretion powers of the investigative body. Flexibility: the Council is of the view that, in coherence with the nature of the legal act, Member States, and in particular their respective investigative bodies, should retain certain flexibility and discretion related to carrying out safety investigations. Contrary to the original proposal that provided for mandatory safety investigations for very serious and serious marine casualties and incidents, the text agreed by the Council limits the obligation for safety investigations to very serious marine casualties or incidents and requires the investigative body in all other cases of marine casualties or incidents to decide whether or not to undertake a safety investigation, taking account in particular of the seriousness of the casualty or incident and the possible lessons to be learned. In addition, in the Council's view, there is no need to refer explicitly to distress alerts as a specific category of incidents that require safety investigations.Independence: following the example of the railways sector, the Council deems it appropriate to emphasize that the investigative body shall be independent in its organisation, legal structure and decision-making of any party whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to it in order to carry out safety investigations in an unbiased manner. It is to be understood that each Member State, in accordance with its own administrative organisation, sets up the investigative body as a public structure with the greatest possible autonomy in terms of internal functioning. This structure can be linked to a bigger entity like a ministry or administration, but will have to be regulated by provisions guaranteeing its independence, particularly from other administrative authorities likely to be interested in any maritime accident. For reasons of proportionality, Member States, which have neither ships nor vessels flying their flag, will identify an independent focal point to cooperate in safety investigations involving a substantial interest of that Member State .Differentiate investigations: the Council agrees with the European Parliament that safety investigations have to be differentiated from criminal investigations or other proceedings aimed at determining liability and apportioning blame. The common position establishes that investigations under this Directive have no other aim than to determine the causes of casualties. At the same time, and in accordance with the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents, it stipulates that the investigative body should not refrain from full reporting to this effect because fault or liability may be inferred from the findings. Scope: the Council includes in its common position small fishing vessels with a length of more than 15m, and not only vessels above 24m length as in the original proposal. This is done for reasons of consistency with the Council's common position on the draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system. According to this draft Directive, these vessels are obliged to be equipped with AIS (Automatic Identification System) to improve the possibilities of monitoring these ships and to make them safer in close navigation situations. They should, therefore, also be covered by the Directive concerning the investigation of accidents.Methodology: the Council deems it appropriate to provide for more flexibility, while establishing the bases for a continuous exchange of experience. Compared to the original proposal, Member States have more leeway in implementing the principles of the common methodology that is developed with the assistance of the European Maritime Safety Agency and adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. At the same time, based on the experience gained in the conduct of safety investigations, the Commission and the Member States will develop guidelines on processes and best practices to be used in implementing the common methodology.

• #2805
• 2007/06/06 Council Meeting
• 2007/04/25 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0147/2007 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Jaromir KOHLICEK (GUE/NGL, CZ) making several amendments to the proposal. The main ones are as follows:- Parliament emphasised the need to ensure the independence of the body or entity carrying out the investigation;- the Agency must, in the light of the results of the analyses of previous accidents, incorporate into the joint methodology any elements arising from the analyses which may be of interest for the prevention of new disasters and the improvement of maritime safety in the EU;- the IMO guidelines on the fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident counteract the risk of the criminalisation of the captain and the crew. They could give them more confidence in investigation methods, and should therefore be used by the Member States. Accordingly, Member States shall comply with the IMO guidelines on the fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident;- investigations under the Directive shall not be concerned with determining liability nor apportioning blame;- the definition of "safety recommendation” was amended;- Member States shall ensure that in the course of accident investigations, witnesses are protected from having their statements being obtained by third country authorities so as to prevent such statements or information from being used in criminal investigations in the countries in question;- a safety investigation shall be started as promptly as is practicable after the marine casualty or incident occurs and no later than two months after its occurrence;- should two or more Member States concerned not determine which Member State is to lead the investigation, they shall immediately implement a recommendation by the Commission on thematter, based on an opinion from the Agency;- Parliament deleted a clause stating that information can only made available for purposes other than the safety investigation if the appropriate judicial authority in that State determines that the advantage of disclosure outweighs the adverse impact on that investigation or on any future investigations;- every three years, the Commission shall provide information to the European Parliament in the form of a report which shall set out the degree of implementation and compliance with the provisions of the Directive, as well as the further steps considered necessary in the light of the recommendations set out in the report;- the Commission, acting with the assistance of the Agency, shall incorporate into the joint methodology the conclusions of the accident reports and the safety recommendations contained therein.

• 2007/04/24 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2007/03/27 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0079/2007
• 2007/02/27 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2006/02/16 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2005/11/23 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2005)0590 summary

    PURPOSE : to establish the basic principles which Member States should follow for technical investigations following maritime incidents and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC PROPOSED ACT : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council.CONTENT : the difficulties encountered when investigating the sinking of the Erika and the Prestige oil tankers revealed the lack of clear guidelines at European level on how to carry out technical investigations and provide feedback to prevent the risk of serious maritime accidents. This represents a major gap which has been found in the EU’s maritime safety legislation. The biggest concern in the international maritime sector is still the inability of some flag States to carry out investigations directly following maritime incidents. The States under whose flags most accidents happen seem to be those which carry out proportionally fewest investigations or at any rate which disseminate the least information about the findings of their investigations and draw fewest concrete conclusions from them, and the competent international bodies do nothing about this.The main points of the proposal are as follows:- the general objective of the proposal is to improve maritime safety and prevent future disasters. As in the aviation sector, the aim of technical investigations in the maritime area is not to determine, and far less to apportion civil or criminal liability, but to establish the circumstances and to research the causes of maritime incidents in order to draw all possible lessons from them and thereby improve maritime safety;- the proposal was drawn up in compliance with the rules of international maritime law and in accordance with the definitions and recommendations in the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Accidents. It introduces into Community law the obligation for Member States to carry out technical investigations after maritime accidents and the obligation to report. The requires that a Member State’s investigative body be notified without delay, by the responsible authorities and/or by the parties involved, of the occurrence of all casualties, incidents and distress alerts falling within the scope of the Directive;- the proposal gives a status to technical investigations in the maritime area by expanding or creating specialised bodies. Member States must ensure that marine casualty or incident safety investigations areconducted under the responsibility of an impartial permanent investigative body or entity, to be known as ‘the investigative body’;- the rules to be established by the Member States must include provisions for allowing cooperation and mutual assistance in marine casualty led by other Member States and coordination, in close cooperation with the Commission, of the activities of their respective investigative bodies.- technical investigators will have investigative powers over third parties;- there is a provision on provision on cooperation between Member States and third countries;- Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, must establish a permanent cooperation framework enabling their respective marine casualty or incident safety investigative bodies to cooperate among themselves and with the Commission to the extent necessary to attain the objectives of the Directive;- the proposal also aims to ensure that evidence is preserved and to develop procedures for protecting, safeguarding and compiling the investigation reports and providing feedback;Lastly, the proposal takes account of the role the European Maritime Safety Agency will play in this area in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 1406/2002/EC.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS : The amount of administrative expenditure not included in the reference amount and the cost of human resources amounts to EUR 324 000 over six years (EUR 54 000 per annum for an official working part time).

  • DG Energy and Transport, TAJANI Antonio

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2005)0590
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0079/2007
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0147/2007
• Council position published: 05721/5/2008
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A6-0332/2008
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T6-0444/2008
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 03723/2008
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A6-0101/2009
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T6-0109/2009
• : Directive 2009/18
• : OJ L 131 28.05.2009, p. 0114

History

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