Procedure : 2016/0172(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A8-0165/2017

Texts tabled :

A8-0165/2017

Debates :

PV 03/10/2017 - 17

Votes :

PV 04/10/2017 - 9.8

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2017)0375

REPORT     ***I
PDF 591kWORD 92k
19 April 2017
PE 589.485v03-00 A8-0165/2017

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a system of inspections for the safe operation of ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC

(COM(2016)0371 – C8-0210/2016 – 2016/0172(COD))

Committee on Transport and Tourism

Rapporteur: Dominique Riquet

AMENDMENTS
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
 FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a system of inspections for the safe operation of ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC

(COM(2016)0371 – C8-0210/2016 – 2016/0172(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0371),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0210/2016),

–  having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 October 2016(1),

–  having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0165/2017),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment    1

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3)  Most Member States already combine mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferries with other types of surveys and inspections where possible, namely flag State surveys and port State control inspections. To further reduce the inspection effort and to maximise the time in which the ship can be commercially exploited, vessels subject to port State control inspections should be therefore transferred to Directive 2009/16/EC and the scope of this Directive should be confined to ships providing regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services between ports within a Member State or between a port in a Member State and a port in a third State where the flag of the vessel is the same as the Member State in question.

(3)  Most Member States already combine mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferries with other types of surveys and inspections where possible, namely flag State surveys and port State control inspections. To further reduce the inspection effort and to maximise the time in which the ship can be commercially exploited, whilst continuing to ensure high safety standards, which should not be watered down, vessels subject to port State control inspections should be therefore transferred to Directive 2009/16/EC and the scope of this Directive should be confined to ships providing regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services between ports within a Member State or between a port in a Member State and a port in a third State where the flag of the vessel is the same as the Member State in question. For ships flying the flag of a Member State providing regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services between a Member State and a non-Member State, Directive 2009/16/EC (port State control) is to apply if the flag being flown is not the same as the flag of the Member State in question.

Amendment     2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5)  Directive 1999/35/EC provided that every 12-month period a specific survey and a survey during regular service must be carried out by host States. Although the objective of this requirement was to ensure that these two inspections are carried out with a certain interval between them, the REFIT fitness check demonstrated that this is not always the case. To remove the ambiguity of that requirement and to ensure a common safety level, it should be clarified that the two annual inspections should take place at regular, approximately six monthly intervals.

(5)  Directive 1999/35/EC provided that every 12-month period a specific survey and a survey during regular service must be carried out by host States. Although the objective of this requirement was to ensure that these two inspections are carried out with a sufficient interval between them, the REFIT fitness check demonstrated that this is not always the case. In order to clarify the inspection regime and ensure a harmonised inspection framework that ensures a high level of safety , while taking account of the common needs of the services, it should be clarified that the two annual inspections should take place at regular intervals that are approximately six months. Those consecutive inspections should be no less than four and no more than eight months apart. Similarly, the European Maritime Safety Agency should conduct and present a study on the actual consequences of the application of this Directive.

Amendment     3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(6a)  Given their high and specific risk profile, ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft should be systematically considered to be high-risk vessels and should therefore be inspected as a matter of priority. As such, inspections of ro-ro ferries should be included in the total number of annual inspections to be carried out by each Member State, as provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2009/16/EC, and, therefore, Annex II to that Directive should be amended accordingly.

Amendment     4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(8a)  Inspections should also take into account the working environments and personal lives of the crew, given that safety and social considerations are closely intertwined.

Amendment     5

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5)  'regular service' means a series of ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft crossings operated so as to serve traffic between the same two or more ports, or a series of voyages from and to the same port without intermediate calls, either:

(5)  'regular service' means a series of ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft crossings operated so as to serve traffic between the same two or more ports, or a series of voyages from and to the same port, without intermediate calls, in accordance with a publicly available or planned list of times of departures and arrivals, either:

Amendment     6

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12)  'inspector' means a public-sector employee or other person, duly authorised by the competent authority of the Member State to carry out the inspections provided for in this Directive and responsible to that competent authority and fulfilling the minimum criteria specified in Annex XI of Directive 2009/16/EC.

(12)  'inspector' means a public-sector employee or other person, duly authorised by the competent authority of the Member State to carry out the inspections provided for in this Directive and responsible to that competent authority.

Amendment    7

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12a)   ‘competent authority of the Member State’ means the authority appointed by the Member State under this Directive and responsible for carrying out the tasks assigned to it by this Directive.

Amendment    8

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  Prior to the start of operation by a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft on a regular service covered by this Directive, Member States shall carry out a pre-commencement inspection, consisting of:

1.  Prior to the start of operation by a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft on a regular service covered by this Directive, the competent authorities of the Member States shall carry out a pre-commencement inspection, consisting of:

Amendment     9

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph -1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

-1.  In the case of pre-commencement inspections, a Member State may dispense with certain requirements or procedures that are laid down or set out in Annexes I and II and that are relevant to an annual flag State survey or inspection carried out, within the previous six months, which either complied with the relevant procedures and guidelines for surveys as specified in HSSC or with procedures designed to achieve the same goal. Member States shall transfer the relevant information to the inspection database in accordance with Article 10.

Amendment    10

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  When a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft is to be engaged on another regular service, the Member State shall take into account inspections and surveys previously carried out for that ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft for operation on a previous regular service covered by this Directive. Provided that the Member State is satisfied with those previous inspections and surveys and that they are relevant to the new operational conditions, the inspections and surveys provided for in Article 3(1) need not be applied prior to the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft starting operation on the new regular service.

1.  When a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft is to be engaged on another regular service, the Member State may take into account inspections and surveys previously carried out for that ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft for operation on a previous regular service covered by this Directive. Provided that the Member State is satisfied with those previous inspections and surveys and that they are relevant to the new operational conditions, the inspections and surveys provided for in Article 3(1) need not be applied prior to the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft starting operation on the new regular service.

Amendment    11

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)  a visual inspection and document check raises no concerns that the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft does not fulfil the necessary requirements for safe operation, and

(Does not affect all language versions.)

orthographic correction in French

Amendment     12

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)  an inspection during a regular service, not before five months but not later than seven months following the inspection. This inspection shall cover the items listed in Annex III and sufficient number of the items listed in Annexes I and II to ensure that the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft continues to fulfil all the necessary requirements for safe operation.

(b)  a second inspection during a regular service, which shall not be carried out earlier than four months or later than eight months after the first inspection, referred to in point (a) ; that second inspection shall cover the items listed in Annex III and what, in the professional judgement of the inspector, is a sufficient number of the items listed in Annexes I and II to ensure that the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft continues to fulfil all the necessary requirements for safe operation.

Amendment    13

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.  Member States shall carry out an inspection in accordance with Annex II each time the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft undergoes repairs, alterations and modifications of a major character, or when there is a change in management, or a transfer of class. However, in case of change in management, or transfer of class, the Member State may, after taking account of inspections previously carried out for the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft, and provided that the safe operation of the ferry or craft is not affected by this change or transfer, dispense the ferry or craft from the inspection required by this paragraph.

3.  Member States shall carry out an inspection in accordance with Annex II each time the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft undergoes repairs, alterations and modifications of a major character, or when there is a change in management, or a transfer of class.

Amendment    14

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.  In the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety or health or which pose an immediate danger to life, the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft, its crew and passengers the Member State shall ensure that the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft is subject to a prohibition of departure order. The master shall be provided with a copy of the prohibition of departure order.

2.  In the case of deficiencies in the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft which are clearly hazardous to safety or which pose an immediate danger to the health or the lives of its crew and passengers, the Member State shall ensure that the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft is subject to a prohibition of departure order. The master shall be provided with a copy of the prohibition of departure order.

Amendment     15

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.  The prohibition of departure shall not be lifted until the hazard has been removed or until the Member State has established that the ship can, subject to any necessary conditions, proceed to sea or the operation be resumed without risk to the safety and health of passengers or crew, or risk to the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft or other ships.

3.  The prohibition of departure shall not be lifted until the hazard has been reliably removed or until the Member State has established that the ship can, subject to any necessary conditions, proceed to sea or the operation be resumed without risk to the safety and health of passengers or crew, or risk to the ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft or other ships.

Amendment    16

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7.  In order to alleviate port congestion, the Member State may allow a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft subject to a prohibition of departure order to be moved to another part of the port if it is safe to do so. However, the risk of port congestion shall not be a consideration when deciding on a prohibition of departure order or the lifting a prohibition of departure order. Port authorities or bodies shall facilitate the accommodation of such ships.

7.  In order to alleviate port congestion, the competent authority of the Member State may allow a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft subject to a prohibition of departure order to be moved to another part of the port if it is safe to do so. However, the risk of port congestion shall not be a consideration when deciding on a prohibition of departure order or the lifting a prohibition of departure order. Port authorities or bodies shall facilitate the accommodation of such ships.

Amendment    17

Proposal for a directive

Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  Should the inspections referred to in Articles 3 and 5 confirm or reveal deficiencies warranting a prohibition of departure, all costs relating to the inspections shall be covered by the company.

1.  Should the inspections referred to in Articles 3 and 5 confirm or reveal deficiencies warranting a prohibition of departure, all costs relating to the inspections shall be covered by the company. The system of possible extra charges for the port shall be governed by the contractual relationship between the operator and the port.

Amendment     18

Proposal for a directive

Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.  The Commission shall develop, maintain and update an inspection database which will contain all the information required for the implementation of the inspection system provided for by this Directive or further enhance the inspection database referred in Article 24 of Directive 2009/16/EC.

1.  The Commission shall develop, maintain and update an inspection database which will contain all the information required for the implementation of the inspection system provided for by this Directive and will connect with the inspection database referred in Article 24 of Directive 2009/16/EC.

Amendment     19

Proposal for a directive

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.  Member States shall ensure that the information related to inspections performed in accordance with this Directive, including on deficiencies and prohibition of departure orders, is transferred to the inspection database as soon as the inspection report is completed or the prohibition of departure order lifted. With regard to the particulars of the information, provisions of Annex XIII of Directive 2009/16/EC shall apply mutatis mutandis.

2.  Member States shall ensure that the information related to inspections performed in accordance with this Directive, including on deficiencies and prohibition of departure orders, is transferred to the inspection database within 24 hours of the inspection report being completed or of the prohibition of departure order being lifted. With regard to the particulars of the information, provisions of Annex XIII of Directive 2009/16/EC shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Amendment    20

Proposal for a directive

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 12 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [the date of entry into force].

2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 12 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from [the date of entry into force of this Directive]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.

Amendment     21

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/16/EC

Article 14a – paragraph 4

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.  When a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft has been subject to an inspection, such inspection shall be recorded as an expanded inspection, in the inspection database and taken into account for the purposes of Articles 10, 11 and 12 and for calculating the fulfilment of the inspection commitment of each Member State, to the extent that all the items referred to in Annex VII to this Directive are covered.;

4.  When a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft has been subject to an inspection, such inspection shall be recorded as an expanded inspection, in the inspection database and taken into account for the purposes of Articles 10, 11 and 12 and for calculating the fulfilment of the inspection commitment of each Member State, to the extent that all the items referred to in Annex VII to this Directive are covered. It shall be included in the total number of compulsory inspections to be carried out by each Member State, as provided for in Article 5.

Amendment     22

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/16/EC

Article 14 a – paragraph 4a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a.  The inspector of the competent authority of the port State may agree, during an inspection of a ro-ro passenger ship or high-speed passenger craft, to be accompanied by a port State control inspector of another Member State, who shall act in the capacity of an observer. Where the flag of the vessel is that of a Member State, the port State shall, upon request, invite a representative of the flag State to accompany the inspection as an observer.

Amendment     23

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)

Directive 2009/16/EC

Article 19 – paragraph 10 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(5a)  In Article 19, the following paragraph 10 a is added:

 

10a.   When inspection is exercised under this Directive, all possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed;

(1)

OJ C 34, 2.2.2017, p. 176.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Background

The Commission proposal on inspections of ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft is part of the REFIT programme, which aims to simplify and rationalise the current legislative framework. Parliament’s debate on the proposal will open at a key moment for the maritime sector, as 2017 is the European year of the sea. 2017 should therefore be crucial in reinforcing the position of the maritime sector in the internal market.

The proposal aims to eliminate the legal uncertainty and redundancy caused by the coexistence of two directives on the inspection of vessels: Directive 1999/35/EC, which lays down rules for inspections of ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft, and Directive 2009/16/EC, which sets out a system of inspections by the port State for ships on the basis of risk evaluation.

The Commission proposal should also help reduce the administrative and financial burden on operators/owners by eliminating the overlap between the specific surveys provided for under Directive 1999/35/EC and the expanded inspections under Directive 2009/16/EC, and the annual flag State surveys, whilst maintaining a high level of security.

Intended to replace Directive 1999/35/EC, the proposal in fact reduces its scope. It restricts inspections to ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft operating on a regular service between a port of a Member State and a port in a third State where the flag of the vessel is the same as that of the Member State in question or on domestic voyages on a regular service in sea areas in which ships of Class A may operate in accordance with Directive 2009/45/EC.

The scope of Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control is broadened with details of the kinds of inspections necessary to ensure the safe operation of ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft.

Position of the rapporteur

The rapporteur supports and warmly welcomes the Commission proposal, which aims to put in place clear, simplified and more robust common rules for ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft starting and finishing journeys in the EU. He believes this strong, coherent legal framework to be necessary to ensure not only a common safety level but also a competitive environment which is fair for all operators irrespective of their nationality or the flag of the vessel.

He considers in particular that the proposal will help simplify matters by eliminating legal redundancy and clarifying the scope of this Directive and that of Directive 2009/16/EC with regard to the port State inspection regime.

The proposal will also strengthen the Directive by stipulating biannual inspections (two inspections separated by a six-month period) and by resolving legal uncertainty without, however, jeopardising the simplification of the Directive.

Some specific points should be made. In recital 3, the rapporteur wishes to introduce more clarity between the scope of this Directive and that of Directive 2009/16/EC by setting out the different scenarios for regular services between Member States and non-Member States in order to mitigate against any legal uncertainty.

The rapporteur considers it necessary to define the competent authority of the Member State in Article 2, since this is referred to several times in the Directive and may well differ in nature between the Member States.

In the rapporteur’s view the exemption in Article 5 from inspections of regular services as proposed by the Commission might threaten passenger safety and security. The rapporteur therefore recommends its removal from the proposal.

With regard to the costs arising when a vessel is immobilised, the rapporteur proposes making the text clearer by specifying that such costs in connection with the port shall be covered in the contractual relationship, thereby avoiding any legal uncertainty.

Finally, there is a need for some extra details with a view to making the text clearer.


PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Title

System of inspections for the safe operation of ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC

References

COM(2016)0371 – C8-0210/2016 – 2016/0172(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

6.6.2016

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

TRAN

9.6.2016

 

 

 

Rapporteurs

       Date appointed

Dominique Riquet

27.6.2016

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

27.2.2017

 

 

 

Date adopted

11.4.2017

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

45

0

0

Members present for the final vote

Daniela Aiuto, Lucy Anderson, Inés Ayala Sender, Georges Bach, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Deirdre Clune, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Andor Deli, Isabella De Monte, Ismail Ertug, Jacqueline Foster, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Merja Kyllönen, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Bogusław Liberadzki, Peter Lundgren, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar, Jens Nilsson, Markus Pieper, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Tomasz Piotr Poręba, Gabriele Preuß, Dominique Riquet, Massimiliano Salini, David-Maria Sassoli, Claudia Schmidt, Claudia Țapardel, Keith Taylor, Pavel Telička, István Ujhelyi, Peter van Dalen, Wim van de Camp, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Janusz Zemke, Kosma Złotowski, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska

Substitutes present for the final vote

Jakop Dalunde, Maria Grapini, Kateřina Konečná, Evžen Tošenovský, Matthijs van Miltenburg, Henna Virkkunen

Date tabled

19.4.2017


FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

45

+

ALDE

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Dominique Riquet, Pavel Telička, Matthijs van Miltenburg

ECR

Jacqueline Foster, Tomasz Piotr Poręba, Evžen Tošenovský, Kosma Złotowski, Peter van Dalen

EFDD

Daniela Aiuto, Peter Lundgren

GUE/NGL

Kateřina Konečná, Merja Kyllönen, Jiří Maštálka,

PPE

Georges Bach, Deirdre Clune, Andor Deli, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar, Markus Pieper, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Massimiliano Salini, Claudia Schmidt, Henna Virkkunen, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Wim van de Cam

S&D

Lucy Anderson, Inés Ayala Sender, Isabella De Monte, Ismail Ertug, Maria Grapini, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Bogusław Liberadzki, Jens Nilsson, Gabriele Preuß, David-Maria Sassoli, Claudia Țapardel, István Ujhelyi, Janusz Zemke

VERTS/ALE

Michael Cramer, Jakop Dalunde, Keith Taylor

0

-

 

 

0

0

 

 

Key to symbols:

+  :  in favour

-  :  against

0  :  abstention

Last updated: 25 September 2017Legal notice