Activites

• 2009/05/28 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 2009/20
  • OJ L 131 28.05.2009, p. 0128
• 2009/04/23 Final act signed
• 2009/04/22 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2009/03/11 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T6-0111/2009 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution approving unamended, under the second reading of the codecision procedure, the Council’s common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims.

• 2009/03/10 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2009/02/18 Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • A6-0072/2009
• 2009/02/17 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
• 2008/12/18 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2913
• 2008/12/09 Council Meeting
  • 14287/2/2008 summary

    Although the Council agrees with the objective of the Commission proposal striving for more effective coverage of the interest of victims of damages resulting from the operation of ships, it considers that several provisions of the proposal (creating specific Community rules in parallel to international obligations regarding the same matter) would result in a contradictory situation and be counterproductive in relation to the above mentioned objective. This applies in particular to the provisions relating to the liability regime and the measures concerning seafarers. The proposed provisions rendering the ratification of an IMO Convention mandatory are not acceptable for Member States, particularly for constitutional reasons. Furthermore, the Council deems some provisions, in particular those related to issuing and verifying of certificates, inappropriate as they would create unnecessary administrative burdens.Thus, the Council's common position – adopted by unanimity - modifies, to a large extent, the original Commission proposal by redrafting it and deleting several parts of the text. This implies that all amendments introduced in the European Parliament's first-reading opinion related to these deleted parts were not accepted by the Council. The main issues are as follows:Mandatory insurance for maritime claims: the Council follows the proposal by the Commission to introduce an insurance obligation for shipowners of ships flying the flag of a Member State and those of ships flying the flag of another State. Relating to the latter, the Council’s common position specifies that this applies as soon as the ship enters a port under a Member State’s jurisdiction, or, if so decided by a Member State, when the ship is operating in its territorial waters.With a view to a harmonised global level of insurance cover, the Council, in its common position, refers to the ceilings laid down in the LLMC 1996 as amount of the insurance for each ship per incident. The term “insurance”, used in the common position, is largely based on the definition set out in IMO Resolution A.898(21) ("Guidelines on shipowner's responsibilities in respect of maritime claims").Control and compliance: in order to control the compliance of shipowners with their insurance obligation, the common position provides for a verification by the port State, in accordance with the Directive on Port State Control. To this effect, one or more certificates issued by the insurance provider have to be carried on board of the ship. The specificities of the certificate set out in the common position are based to a large extent on the original Commission proposal.Penalties: the common position foresees the possibility for specific sanctions in case the insurance certificate is not carried on board. Without prejudice to the detention of the ship concerned according to the rules on port State control, the ship can be expelled from a port and will be denied entry into any of Member States’ ports as long as the situation is not rectified. The common position also includes a general provision of penalties to be established for non compliance with the Directive, relating to the Member States’ obligation as flag States.Relation to regimes established in accordance with other liability and compensation instruments: following the Commission proposal, the Council provides in its common position that the Directive does not affect the regimes established according to other international Conventions, namely the CLC Convention, the HNS Convention, the Bunker Oil Convention and the Wrecks Removal Convention, as well as the Regulation transposing the Athens Convention into Community law.In parallel to the common position, a declaration of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union confirms their commitment to do the utmost with a view to ensuring a rapid and effective application of the international conventions on maritime safety, the IMO rules related to flag State obligations and the IMO audit.

• #2895
• 2008/10/09 Council Meeting
• #2861
• 2008/04/07 Council Meeting
  • 2861 summary

    The Council held a public policy debate on a proposal for a Directive on the civil liability and financial guarantees of ship-owners.During the debate, the Council reaffirmed its strong commitment to take the necessary measures in order to strengthen maritime safety. The Council also recalled that it already adopted six political agreements on the basis of five Commission proposals of the third maritime safety package and that the related common positions will be shortly transmitted to the European Parliament in order to reach a quick agreement and start their implementation as soon as possible.The debate showed that the legislative proposal is not supported by a large majority of Member States. Ministers, although agreeing with the above aim as proposed by the Commission, considered that the proposed Directive would not be the most appropriate means to achieve this objective. Member States stated that a solution should be found at international (IMO) level and not through the proposed Commission Directive on civil liability.In view of the above, a majority of Member States committed themselves to take the necessary steps to ratify and fully implement the LLMC 1996 and other related international conventions, in order to help to prevent damage caused by ships to third parties and to effectively respond to the interests of accident victims.The presidency concluded that this proposal does not receive qualified majority support and that Member States instead reaffirmed their commitment to examine all possible solutions to achieve the outlined above objectives.

• 2007/10/24 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(2007)0674 summary

    Of the 25 amendments adopted by Parliament the Commission has decided to accept eighteen in their entirety. Two have been rejected. The remaining have been accepted in part or in principle. In summary they are as follows:Amendment 5: The last part of the amendment describes conduct barring limitation (circumstances under which a ship-owner loses the right to limit his liability.) This description is considered incomplete and therefore in need of revision in order to reflect all the enacting terms of the Directive. For example, reckless personal act or omission as well as gross negligence etc.Amendment 21: This amendment refers to the contents of the IMO Resolution. The description is not, however, deemed to be complete and should also mention payment of the outstanding remuneration.Amendment 23, 26 and 27: These three amendments cover the creation of a Community Office responsible for managing financial guarantee certificates. The Commission accepts that, in principle, there may be reason to centralise the management of financial guarantee certificates at a European Level. However, the creation of such an office would have administrative and financial consequences that need to be taken into account. As a result the Commission will examine this initiative in greater detail. One option proposed would be to entrust the tasks to the European Maritime Safety Agency. Based on the above the Commission has modified the new proposal in order to state that it may be appropriate, in the future, to centralise the management of financial security certificates at a European level. The European Maritime Safety Agency could be called upon to perform this role.

  • DG Energy and Transport, TAJANI Antonio
• 2007/03/29 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0094/2007 summary

    The European Parliament adopted the resolution drafted by Gilles SAVARY (PES, FR) making some amendments to the proposed directive on the civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners. The main amendments were as follows:- new recitals state that protection of European coasts and European citizens in the face of ecological damage of any kind resulting from maritime accidents is an absolute priority for the EU. Protecting European coasts involves the dual aspects of preventing accidents by ensuring that only safe ships sail and of providing for the arrangements required to ensure that victims can, in as short a time as possible, receive compensation fully commensurate with the damage caused by an accident;- MEPs stressed that oil was not the main concern of the proposal and amended the third recital in order to place emphasis on the role of international conventions on compensation of third party victims for damage related to maritime transport of goods in general (and not just oil pollution), to ensure fair compensation and encourage operators and their representatives to exercise greater vigilance and professionalism;- a new recital stated that it should be possible to apply limitation of liability under the 1996 Convention to victims not party to the maritime transport operation, if the owner of the ship responsible for the damage has failed to act in a professional manner and should have been aware of the harmful effects of his act or omission;- it should not be possible to apply limitation of liability under the 1996 Convention to victims not party to the maritime transport operation, if the owner of the ship responsible for the damage has failed to act in a professional manner and should have been aware of the harmful effects of his act or omission;- Parliament amended the definition of “civil liability” and introduced a definition of  'gross negligence', meaning  "conduct showing an unusual lack of due diligence and care, and a consequent disregard of what should in principle have been clear to everyone in a given situation";- two new articles (3a and 3b) stipulated that the Member States should become contracting parties to the 2001 Bunker Oil Convention and the 1996 HNS Convention;  Member States which are still parties to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims must denounce it;- for the purposes of applying Article 4 of the 1996 HNS Convention, knowledge of probable damage by the person responsible may in all cases be deduced from the nature and circumstances of the personal act or omission of that person committed recklessly;- when issuing certificates to shipowners, competent authorities shall also consider whether a guarantor has a business establishment in the EU;- the authority which issued or certified a certificate shall forward a copy of the certification file to the Community Office (see below) so that the latter may include it in the register;- Member States shall monitor compliance with the rules laid down in the Directive and shall establish penalties for the infringement of these rules. These penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive;- Parliament introduced a new Article on a Solidarity fund to cover damage caused by ships without a financial guarantee. It states that a solidarity fund will be set up to compensate third parties, whether natural or legal persons, that have suffered damage caused by ships which, notwithstanding the obligations laid down in the Directive, have sailed in EU territorial waters without being covered by a financial guarantee certificate;- the amount to be allotted to this fund, and the fund's operating rules, will be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in the Directive;- a Community Office shall be established which is responsible for keeping a full register of certificates issued, monitoring and updating their validity, and checking the existence of financial guarantees registered by third countries.Lastly, Member States reports to the Commission shall assess in particular the procedures for certification and issuing of certificates by Member States and the need to consider whether this task should be delegated wholly or partly to the Community Office.

• 2007/03/28 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2007/03/06 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0055/2007
• 2007/02/27 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2006/02/14 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2005/11/23 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2005)0593 summary

    PURPOSE: to set up a civil liability scheme for ship-owners in the event of damage to a third party and to set up a system of financial guarantees for ship-owners.PROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council.CONTENT: the purpose of this proposal is to establish, at a European level, a civil liability scheme for ship-owners in the event of damage to a third party. To achieve this goal the Commission is proposing the establishment of non-discriminatory rules, applicable to all ships irrespective their flag, which will make a real contribution towards preventing damage caused by ships and to guarantee that damage is made good. In presenting this proposal the Commission is responding to a call from the European Parliament to establish a European maritime policy in which safety is of paramount concern. An effective liability system would contribute to the safety aspect of a European maritime policy. The European Council has also called for increased maritime liability as part of the on-going work on the possible revision of the international compensation system for oil damage.The Commission notes that, in the case of civil liability, ship-owners are currently subject to a number of international Conventions. The impact of these Conventions is limited, mostly because they are yet to enter into force in many countries. Those that have entered into force have done so in a few countries only. There is no systematic monitoring of the Convention’s application nor is there a mechanism to ensure that provisions are uniformly interpreted. In addition, the Convention’s substance is often such that it makes no real contribution to either preventing damage or ensuring that any such damage is repaired.  For example, the international Conventions apply a traditional principle of maritime law namely, the almost complete limitation of operator liability. The legitimacy of this principle, i.e. limited liability, is being increasingly contested. The Commission points out that a 2004 Directive on environmental liability deals with the principle of operators’ unlimited liability. Given that many of the international Conventions are not due for revision within the foreseeable future the Commission is proposing a two-stage, pragmatic approach, to filling the regulatory gaps on civil liability and financial guarantees of ship-owners. The first step would involve all of the EU Member States becoming contracting parties to the umbrella international Convention on liability for maritime transport, the 1996 “Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims”. In this way, the Convention would be incorporated into Community law, thus guaranteeing its uniform and full application across the EU. Such a move would also act as an incentive for third countries to come on board the 1996 Convention. As a second step, the Commission proposes seeking a mandate for negotiating, within the IMO, a revision of the 1996 Convention in order to review the level at which ship-owners lose their right to limit their liability. More specifically, the proposed Directive includes provisions whereby:-          ships flying the flag of a state that is not party to this Convention will be subject to a more severe liability regime with gross negligence as conduct barring limitation.-          the financial guarantee must be a sum equivalent to double the ceilings laid down in the aforementioned 1996 Convention.-          a system of notification is set-up that guarantees “financial certificates” are on board all those ships entering waters under the jurisdiction of the EU Member States. -          a specific obligation is introduced whereby ship-owners must have a financial guarantee to cover the costs of repatriating abandoned seafarers.Such an approach, argues the Commission has a number of advantages. In terms of removing ceilings, only ship-owners guilty of gross negligence will be affected. Establishing an obligatory insurance system will help tackle the problem of substandard ships. As regards obligatory insurance, the vast majority of owners who already have a civil liability insurance policy for damage to third parties caused by their ships will benefit from the new regime in that the market will not be distorted by the actions of a few unscrupulous operators who have no insurance. The crew would also benefit from the proposed financial guarantee for the repatriation of seafarers. Lastly, third parties affected by damage caused by a ship will, undoubtedly, benefit from the removal of ceilings and from obligatory insurance policies.

  • DG Energy and Transport, TAJANI Antonio

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2005)0593
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0055/2007
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0094/2007
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(2007)0674
• Debate in Council: 2861
• Council position published: 14287/2/2008
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A6-0072/2009
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T6-0111/2009
• : Directive 2009/20
• : OJ L 131 28.05.2009, p. 0128

History

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