DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system
8.9.2008 - (5719/3/2008 – C6‑0225/2008 – 2005/0239(COD)) - ***II
Committee on Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Dirk Sterckx
PR_COD_2Recastingam
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system
(5719/3/2008 – C6‑0225/2008 – 2005/0239(COD))
(Codecision procedure: second reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Council common position (5719/3/2008 – C6‑0225/2008),
– having regard to its position at first reading[1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0589),
– having regard to the communication from the Commission (COM(2008)0310), concerning the common position adopted by the Council,
– having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6‑0334/2008),
1. Approves the common position as amended by Parliament;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
Amendment 1 Council common position – amending act Recital 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(6) The automatic ship identification systems (AIS – Automatic Identification System) referred to in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1 November 1974 make it possible not only to improve the possibilities of monitoring these ships but above all to make them safer in close navigation situations. AIS have accordingly been integrated into the enacting terms of Directive 2002/59/EC. Considering the large number of collisions involving fishing vessels that have clearly not been seen by merchant ships or which have not seen the merchant ships around them, extension of that measure to include fishing vessels with a length of more than 15 metres is very much to be desired. In the framework of the European Fisheries Fund, financial assistance may be provided for the fitting on board of fishing vessels of safety equipment such as AIS.
|
(6) The automatic ship identification systems (AIS – Automatic Identification System) referred to in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1 November 1974 make it possible not only to improve the possibilities of monitoring these ships but above all to make them safer in close navigation situations. AIS have accordingly been integrated into the enacting terms of Directive 2002/59/EC. Considering the large number of collisions involving fishing vessels that have clearly not been seen by merchant ships or which have not seen the merchant ships around them, extension of that measure to include fishing vessels with a length of more than 15 metres is very much to be desired. In the framework of the European Fisheries Fund, financial assistance may be provided for the fitting on board of fishing vessels of safety equipment such as AIS. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has recognised that the publication for commercial purposes on the worldwide web or elsewhere of AIS data transmitted by ships could be detrimental to the safety and security of ships and port facilities and has urged its member governments, subject to the provisions of their national laws, to discourage those who make available AIS data to others for publication on the worldwide web or elsewhere from doing so. In addition, the availability of AIS information on ships’ routes and cargoes should not be detrimental to fair competition between actors in the shipping industry. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 1 (EP, first reading). The text speaks for itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Council common position – amending act Recital 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(8) It would be useful to study what synergies might be possible between AIS and the positioning and communication systems used in the context of the common fisheries policy, such as the satellite-based vessel monitoring system. For this purpose, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, should study the feasibility and determine the detailed rules for integrating AIS with the positioning and communication systems used in the context of the common fisheries policy. Investigation of the possibilities of integrating these systems should take account of the needs and requirements of controlling fishing fleets, particularly as regards the security and confidentiality of the data transmitted. |
(8) From surveys carried out on behalf of the Commission, it clearly emerges that it is neither useful nor feasible to incorporate AIS in the positioning and communications systems used for the purposes of the common fisheries policy. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recital 8 needs to be updated. Research into the incorporation of AIS and the ‘blue box’ for the purposes of the Community fisheries policy has already been carried out by the EMSA (Study into synergies between AIS and the positioning and communication system used in the context of the common fisheries policy(VMS)). The study concludes that the advantages of incorporating both systems are heavily outweighed by the disadvantages (cost, the amount of time necessary to develop an integrated system, uncertainty regarding the results ...). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Council common position – amending act Recital 8 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(8a) Under Directive 2002/59/EC, a Member State which so requests is entitled to seek information from another Member State regarding a ship and the hazardous or pollutant cargo carried by it. It should be pointed out that this does not mean requests by one Member State to another but that such information can only be requested for reasons of maritime safety, maritime security or maritime environmental protection. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your rapporteur divided Amendment 64 (EP, first reading) into a recital and article (see Amendment 28). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Council common position – amending act Recital 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(10) In accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC, it seems necessary, in relation to the risks posed by exceptionally bad weather, to take into account the potential danger to shipping from ice formation. Therefore, where a competent authority designated by a Member State considers, on the basis of an ice forecast provided by a qualified meteorological information service, that the sailing conditions are creating a serious threat to the safety of human life or a serious threat of pollution, it should so inform the masters of the ships present in its area of competence or intending to enter or leave the port or ports in the area concerned. The authority concerned should be able to take any appropriate steps to ensure the safety of human life at sea and to protect the environment. |
(10) In accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC, it seems necessary, in relation to the risks posed by exceptionally bad weather, to take into account the potential danger to shipping from ice formation. Therefore, where a competent authority designated by a Member State considers, on the basis of an ice forecast provided by a qualified meteorological information service, that the sailing conditions are creating a serious threat to the safety of human life or a serious threat of pollution, it should so inform the masters of the ships present in its area of competence or intending to enter or leave the port or ports in the area concerned. The authority concerned should be able to take any appropriate steps to ensure the safety of human life at sea and to protect the environment. In accordance with SOLAS 74, chapter II-1, Part A-1, Regulation 3.1, Member States are responsible for ensuring that ships flying their flag are designed, constructed and maintained in compliance with the structural, mechanical and electrical requirements of classification societies recognised by administrations. Therefore, Member States should establish requirements for navigation on ice filled waters in accordance with those of organisations recognised under Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations1 or equivalent national standards. Member States should have the possibility to verify that the necessary documentation on board provides evidence that the ship complies with strength and power requirements commensurate with the ice situation in the area concerned. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_______________ 1 OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4, (EP first reading – modified version) seeks to prevent discrepancies between different ice class conditions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Council common position – amending act Recital 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(11) Directive 2002/59/EC provides that Member States are to draw up plans to accommodate, if the situation so requires, ships in distress in their ports or in any other protected place in the best possible conditions, in order to limit the consequences of accidents at sea. However, taking into account the Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance annexed to Resolution A.949(23) of the International Maritime Organisation of 13 December 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “IMO Resolution A.949(23)”), which were adopted subsequently to Directive 2002/59/EC and refer to ships in need of assistance when safety of life is not involved, rather than to ships in distress, that Directive should be amended accordingly. |
(11) Directive 2002/59/EC provides that Member States are to draw up plans to accommodate, if the situation so requires, ships in distress in their ports or in any other protected place in the best possible conditions, in order to limit the consequences of accidents at sea. However, taking into account the Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance annexed to Resolution A.949(23) of the International Maritime Organisation of 13 December 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “IMO Resolution A.949(23)”), which were adopted subsequently to Directive 2002/59/EC and refer to ships in need of assistance, rather than to ships in distress, that Directive should be amended accordingly. This directive will not depart from the rules applicable to rescue operations such as those laid down by the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, where the safety of human life is at stake. This convention will hence continue to apply in full. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Based on IMO guidelines concerning places of refuge for ships in need of assistance, the Council wishes to replace the term ‘ships in distress’ with ‘ship in need of assistance’ in this directive. Your rapporteur can agree with this, but wishes to clarify the link with the SAR Convention. The Council’s formulation implies that saving human lives is of little consequence. The IMO guidelines, however, seek to make it clear that rescuing human lives is of top priority but that the provisions of the SAR Convention (1979) apply. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Council common position – amending act Recital 13 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13a) In order to obtain the full cooperation and trust of ships’ masters and crew, it needs to be ensured that those masters and crew can rely on good and fair treatment from the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. To that end, it is desirable that Member States, in accordance with their national legislation, apply the IMO guidelines on the fair treatment of crews in case of accidents at sea . | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 (EP first reading – slightly modified). The increasing tendency to regard ships’ crews as criminals is not conducive to the safety of shipping. Ships’ masters frequently refrain from seeking assistance in order to avoid arrest, sometimes endeavouring to reach the territorial waters of a ‘more lenient’ coastal state, thereby possibly increasing the risk of damage to their vessels and of a maritime disaster. The guidelines adopted by the IMO are a step in the right direction. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Council common position – amending act Recital 14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(14) When a ship is in need of assistance, a decision may have to be taken as regards the accommodation of that ship in a place of refuge. To this end, the authority concerned should make a preliminary evaluation of the situation on the basis of the information contained in the relevant plan for accommodation of ships in a place of refuge. |
(14) When a ship is in need of assistance, a decision may have to be taken as regards the accommodation of that ship in a place of refuge. This is particularly important in the event of a situation of distress at sea, that is to say a situation that could give rise to loss of a vessel or an environmental or navigational hazard. In all such cases it is necessary to be able to call on an independent authority in each Member State or region, depending on the internal structure of a Member State, having the necessary powers and expertise to take any necessary decisions, to assist the vessel in distress with a view to protecting human lives and the environment and minimising economic damage. It is desirable that the competent authorities should be permanent in nature. In particular, the authority should be empowered to take an independent decision as regards the accommodation of a ship in distress in a place of refuge. To this end, it should make a preliminary evaluation of the situation on the basis of the information contained in the relevant plan for accommodation of ships in a place of refuge. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 (EP first reading – slightly modified). This amendment clarifies which authority is empowered to accommodate ships needing assistance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Council common position – amending act Recital 15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(15) Plans for accommodating ships in need of assistance should describe precisely the decision-making chain with regard to alerting and dealing with the situations in question. The authorities concerned and their remits should be clearly described, as should the means of communication between the parties involved. The applicable procedures should ensure that an appropriate decision can be taken quickly on the basis of expertise and adequate information available to the competent authority. |
(15) Plans for accommodating ships in need of assistance should describe precisely the decision-making chain with regard to alerting and dealing with the situations in question. The authorities concerned and their remits should be clearly described, as should the means of communication between the parties involved. The applicable procedures should ensure that an appropriate decision can be taken quickly on the basis of specific maritime expertise in handling incidents where serious harmful consequences can be expected and adequate information available to the competent authority. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 (EP, first reading). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Council common position – amending act Recital 17 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(17b) The absence of financial guarantees or insurance does not exonerate a Member State from its obligation to assist a ship in distress and to accommodate it in a place of refuge if by doing so it can reduce the risks to the crew and the environment. Though the competent authorities may verify whether the ship is covered by insurance or some other financial guarantee permitting appropriate compensation for costs and damages associated with its accommodation in a place of refuge, the act of requesting this information must not delay the rescue operation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 (EP, first reading). The Council has omitted both the amendments of the EP and the proposals of the Commission regarding financial guarantees. Your rapporteur has reinstated them here. The amendment seeks to emphasise that the absence of insurance does not in itself exonerate the Member State from its duty to accommodate a ship in distress. An uninsured ship in difficulties off a European coast and threatened with disaster must be accommodated like any other ship. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Council common position – amending act Recital 17 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(17c) Ports which accommodate a ship needing assistance must be able to rely on prompt reimbursement in respect of costs and any damage arising from the operation. To that end, it is important that the provisions of not only Directive 2007/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of ...[on the civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners] and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, but also the International Convention of 1996 on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (the ‘HNS’ Convention), the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (the Bunker Oil Convention) and the Wreck Removal Convention (the Wreck Convention) of 2007 be applied. Member States must therefore ratify these conventions as soon as possible. In exceptional cases Member States shall ensure the reimbursement of costs and economic damage suffered by a port as a result of accommodating a ship, particularly if such costs and economic damage are not covered by the financial guarantees of the shipowners and other existing compensation mechanisms. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A port which accommodates a ship in distress may receive compensation for some of the damage suffered under the HNS Convention (1996, ratified by only three Member States), the Bunker Convention (ratified by 12 Member States), the IOPC Fund and the recently approved Wreck Convention. Even if these conventions are applied, however, certain economic losses (resulting for example from occupation of a quay or restricted access to the port) are not recovered. In such cases the Member State in question should intervene as a stop-gap to compensate those who have suffered damage and may subsequently recover the amount in question from those responsible. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Council common position – amending act Recital 19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(19) In accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC, Member States and the Commission have made substantial progress towards harmonising electronic data exchange, in particular as regards the transport of dangerous or polluting goods. SafeSeaNet, in development since 2002, should now be established as the reference network at Community level. |
(19) In accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC, Member States and the Commission have made substantial progress towards harmonising electronic data exchange, in particular as regards the transport of dangerous or polluting goods. SafeSeaNet, in development since 2002, should now be established as the reference network at Community level. It is important to ensure that it does not result in increased administrative or cost burdens for industry, that there is harmonisation with international rules and that confidentiality in relation to any possible commercial implications is taken into account. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 (EP, first reading). SafeSeaNet is an important step forward but it is essential to ensure commercial confidentiality and conformity with international rules as well as to avoid excessive burdens for the industry. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Council common position – amending act Recital 20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(20) The progress made in the new technologies and in particular in their space applications, such as beacon-based ship monitoring systems, imaging systems or Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), now makes it possible to extend traffic monitoring further offshore and thereby to ensure better coverage of European waters, including by Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) systems. There will have to be full cooperation within the Community on this work if these tools are to become an integral part of the vessel traffic monitoring and information system established by Directive 2002/59/EC. |
(20) The progress made in the new technologies and in particular in their space applications, such as satellite-based ship monitoring systems, imaging systems or Galileo, now makes it possible to extend traffic monitoring further offshore and thereby to ensure better coverage of European waters. Furthermore, the IMO has amended the SOLAS Convention for Maritime Safety and Security and Maritime Environment Purposes with a view to developing systems for global long-range identification and tracking of ships (LRIT). In accordance with the architecture approved by the IMO which provides for the possibility of setting up regional LRIT data centres and taking into account the experience gained from the SafeSeaNet project, a LRIT European Data Centre should be set up for the collection and management of LRIT information. In order to retrieve LRIT data, Member States will need to be connected to the LRIT European data centre. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 (EP, first reading). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Council common position – amending act Recital 20 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(20a) In order to enable cost saving and avoid unnecessary fitting of equipment on board ships sailing in maritime areas within the coverage of AIS monitoring stations, AIS data should be integrated into the LRIT system. To this end, Member States and the Commission should take any appropriate initiatives, in particular within the IMO. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The amendment relates to amendment 14(EP, first reading), but takes more account of the actual situation. There is no point in making the fitting of LRIT systems compulsory on vessels which navigate only within areas fully covered by the AIS. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Council common position – amending act Recital 22 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(22a) Information gathered pursuant to this directive may only be disseminated and used to prevent situations which threaten the safety of human life at sea and the protection of the marine environment. It is therefore desirable that the Commission, in cooperation with European Network and Information Security Agency, investigate how to tackle any network and information security problems. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 (EP, first reading – modified). The provisions concerning AIS and SafeSeaNet will give rise to a considerable number of confidentiality issues for those affected who fear that the information transmitted via these networks is not sufficiently protected against commercial abuse and espionage. Your rapporteur wishes for the Commission to examine this problem further. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Council common position – amending act Recital 25 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(25b) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. In particular, the Commission should be empowered to amend Annexes I, III and IV in the light of experience gained, lay down requirements for regarding the fitting of LRIT equipment on board ships sailing within the coverage of AIS fixed-based stations of Member States lay down policy rules and principles governing access to information in the LRIT European Data Centre and amend the definitions, references or annexes so as to bring them into line with Community or international law. Since such measures are of a general nature amending non-essential parts of the directive they must be adopted in accordance with regulatory procedures with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 (EP, first reading); reference to new regulatory procedure with scrutiny. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Council common position – amending act Recital 28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Council common position |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(28) In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public. |
deleted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As originally proposed by the Commission, there should be an obligation for Members States to draw up correspondence tables, which indicate exactly by which provisions each of the requirements laid down in the Directive are transposed into national legislation. These tables are necessary to enable the Commission to verify thoroughly whether the Directive is correctly transposed and implemented by the Member States. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Council common position – amending act Article 1 - point -1 (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Title | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point -2 (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 1 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 (EP, first reading). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point -3 (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point -1 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 2 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 1 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 (EP, first reading). Bunker fuels up to 5000 tonnes must also be included in the scope of this Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 2 a) i a) (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 3 – point a – indent (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 2 a) i b) (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 3 – point a – indent (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point (a) – point (ii) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 3 – point (a) – indent (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 (EP, first reading) (updated). The growing tendency to treat ships’ crews as criminals is not conducive to ships’ safety. In order to avoid arrest, ships’ masters frequently refrain from seeking assistance, possibly causing greater damage to the ship and increasing the risk of a maritime disaster. The guidelines adopted by the IMO are a step in the right direction. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 2 b a) (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 3 – point k a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 3 – point (v) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Council has introduced this new definition of ‘ship in need of assistance’ based on IMO guidelines concerning places of refuge for ships needing assistance which use this wording. Your rapporteur can agree but considers that the formulation chosen by the Council is somewhat unfortunate creating the impression that the rescue of persons on board is unimportant. In fact, the intention is to make it clear that the rescue of persons on board is primarily governed by the Search and Rescue Convention (1979). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 2 c) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 3 – point v a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point c Directive 2002/59/EC Article 3 – point u a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 (EP, first reading). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Council common position – amending act Article 1 point 2 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 4 of the Directive places a requirement on vessels bound for a port of a Member State to notify the information contained in Annex I(1) of the Directive to a port prior to arrival in that port. The burden created by this requirement on vessels operating on scheduled services within a Member State is unreasonable. The obligation on port authorities to upload prior notification of entry into ports by vessels operating on scheduled services into a Member State’s national vessel traffic monitoring system for onward transmission to the Community system, SafeSeaNet, is unreasonable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 3 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 6 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Retabling of Amendment 59(EP, first reading) with a number of modifications to take account of recent developments. The objective is to reflect in Community legislation the progress made regarding LRIT systems within the IMO. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 (EP, first reading). It is important to make it clear that the shipper is primarily responsible for providing accurate information to the master or operator concerning the consignment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point (b) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 (EP, first reading – slightly modified). It is desirable to ensure that the data complies with what has been agreed with the IMO in this connection. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27(EP, first reading). The shipper must provide the master or operator of a vessel with a data sheet setting out the physico-chemical properties and viscosity of the mineral oils he is to transport. Consultations with the sector show that this information is highly relevant in the event of a problem with the ship. Your rapporteur therefore considers that vessels coming from outside the Community and heading for a European port should also be in possession of this information. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 12 – paragraph 1 – final wording | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 (EP, first reading). It must also be made clear that the operator or master cannot be made responsible if the shipper gives an ‘inadequate description’ of the shipment and provides wrong or misleading information. The last indent should be made a separate paragraph of Article 12, given that it refers to two previous paragraphs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 4 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 14 – paragraph 2 – letter (c) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 (EP, first reading – slightly modified). The scope of this article in Directive 2002/59/EC as it now stands is unclear. In this amendment, your rapporteur is seeking to make it clear that that a vessel is not required to provide information systematically and that this is only necessary in given situations. See also Amendment 3 in this connection. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Directive 2002/59/EC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point (d) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Council omitted the reference to the above proposal for a directive COM(2005)0593 and COM(2007)0674 since it did not support the proposal. Given that the European Parliament is seeking the adoption of this Directive, it is desirable to keep a reference thereto in the text. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Directive 2002/59/EC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 18 a – paragraph 1 – point (b) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 (EP, first reading). Authorities should not be allowed to ban ships from entering or leaving ports, etc. on grounds of arbitrary judgment. Documentation should be sufficient to ensure this. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Directive 2002/59/EC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 19 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 (EP, first reading – slightly modified). These guidelines were drawn up in response to a growing tendency to treat ships’ masters and crews as criminal. The masters of both the Erica and the Prestige were arrested without any proof of wrongdoing. The fear of arrest sometimes leaves the master of a ship in the event of an accident at sea to bring his damaged ship into the waters of another Member State, thereby risking greater damage to the ship. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 7 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Directive 2002/59/EC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 19 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendments 31, 32 and 33 (EP, first reading). This amendment seeks to make it clear the extent to which the competent authority needs to be independent and what its other tasks are over and above the decision to accommodate a ship in a place of refuge. Many of the tasks are set out in a non-exhaustive list in Annex IV of the current monitoring Directive 2002/59/EC. Your rapporteur considers it desirable that this list be incorporated into this article. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Directive 2002/59/EC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 20 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your rapporteur takes the view that ships should be admitted to a place of refuge wherever it is possible to limit damage as a result. However in certain limited cases – for example if there is a danger of explosion – the consequences of this would be far less serious for humans and the environment if it occurred out at sea than if it occurred in a place of refuge. Therefore we cannot automatically assume that a place of refuge is the best solution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Directive 2004/49/EC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 20 a – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 (EP, first reading). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 a – paragraph 2 – point (c) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Council has changed the Commission’s text. In this amendment your rapporteur is seeking to clarify the text. The coastline must be clearly and analytically mapped in order to facilitate a rapid choice of place of refuge in practice. Information concerning the coastline is in itself insufficient. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment partially reinstates the Commission’s original text and is consistent with Amendment 32. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 b (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 c (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 d (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 d (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 e (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 e (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 f (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 f (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 g (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 g (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 h (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 h (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 i (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission proposals concerning the Community traffic-monitoring system and ship owners’ civil liability are two of the constituent parts of the ‘Third Maritime Safety Package’ and they constitute a set of interconnected proposals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to Rule 62(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of this amendment is to take into account in particular a new legal situation which has arisen since first reading – namely, the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on 24 June 2008 in Case C-188-07. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 j (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendments 39 and 40 (EP, first reading). The Council had entirely omitted Article 20 b concerning financial guarantees and Parliament’s amendments thereto. Your rapporteur has retabled Article 20 and stresses that the absence of insurance must not mean that a ship in distress does not receive assistance or shelter. A Member State may request a certificate or proof of insurance in order to complete its documentation but this must not delay the rescue operations, the saving of human lives and the avoidance of an environmental disaster. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 9 b (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 20 k (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41(EP, first reading). Your rapporteur is retabling Article 20 b as amended by Parliament in first reading. The accommodation of a ship may lead to damage and costs for a port. Parliament has on several occasions sought for a compensation scheme for ports and places of refuge. The existing funds and conventions (most of which have not yet taken effect) do not in most cases compensate for the financial losses of a port. Your rapporteur calls for a compensation scheme to cover these exceptional cases. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 22 a – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 (EP, first reading – modified version). On reflection it appears preferable not to amend the definition of SafeSeaNet (see Amendment 58) but Article 22 a. The principles of SafeSeaNet can be incorporated in Annex III, which should be drawn up in consultation with the Commission. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/59/EC Article 22a – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 (EP, first reading). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Council common position – amending act Article 1– point 12 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new) and 1 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendments 66 and 49 (EP, first reading – modified). This directive, and in particular its provisions concerning AIS and SafeSeaNet, give rise to a considerable number of confidentiality issues for those involved, who fear that the information transmitted via these networks is not sufficiently protected against commercial abuse and espionage. It is important that Member States take the necessary measures to prevent abuse. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Council common position – amending act Article 1 – point 12 b (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Article 27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment of the annexes in the light of experience gained should be done under the new scrutiny procedure so that Parliament can object if it considers this to be necessary. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Common position of the Council – amending act Article 1 – point 13 a (new) Directive 2002/59/EC Annex I – paragraph 4 – indent X | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Common position of the Council – amending act Article 2 – point 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Common position of the Council |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by … they shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures. |
1. The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive on at the latest twelve months from the date of entry into force. They shall communicate to the Commission the text of those measures together with the table showing how the provisions correspond to this directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As originally proposed by the Commission, there should be an obligation for Members States to draw up correspondence tables, which indicate exactly by which provisions each of the requirements laid down in the Directive are transposed into national legislation. These tables are necessary to enable the Commission to verify thoroughly whether the Directive is correctly transposed and implemented by the Member States. |
- [1] Texts adopted, 25.4.2007, P6_TA(2007)0146.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
The disasters of the Erika (December 1999) and Prestige (November 2002) painfully highlighted the inadequacy of European policy and the Member State’s approach in the event of a disaster at sea.
Consequently the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have worked hard over the past few years to strengthen policy on safety at sea. In less than three years two packages of measures have been adopted.
On 23 November 2005 the Commission approved a third packet of seven measures, of which the monitoring directive review is one. A brief summary of what preceded is now given to clarify the importance of reviewing the monitoring directive.
The first Monitoring Directive (2002) arose as a consequence of the oil tanker Erika off the French coast. Given that the Erika had encountered problems with being accommodated in the port of refuge, the Commission developed a European policy on ports of refuge and a system to improve the monitoring of ships travelling along our coasts.
In the debate on the monitoring system your rapporteur argued firstly for compulsory insurance for ships, secondly for a compensation system for the reimbursement of costs and any damage caused to a port accommodating a ship in distress. At that time it seemed premature to propose legislative measures on this topic. It was decided, however, to consider both proposals. On 27 June 2002, under the Spanish Presidency, the directive was finally adopted. The Member States were required to transpose the measures by February 2004.
Hardly six months after the Council had given its approval to this legal framework for the accommodation of ships in distress, the Prestige disaster occurred (November 2002). In spite of the legal framework which had just been approved, the Spanish authorities ordered the ship out to sea: 77 000 tonnes of crude oil escaped to pollute mainly Spanish coasts.
As a result of this environmental disaster, the Member States decided to bring forward the submission dates for plans for the accommodation of ships in distress. The European Parliament decided to set up a temporary committee on improving safety at sea (MARE). The result of this was a resolution of 21 April, 2004 in which Parliament called for:
- the existing rules governing the accommodation of ships in distress to be fully implemented by all Member States;
- a clear decision-making and command structure for dealing with maritime emergencies and an independent authority having the powers of expertise to take the necessary decisions, in particular as regards to the selection and mandatory assignment of an emergency mooring or port to be set up;
- the Commission to submit proposals for financial compensation for places of refuge;
- an investigation into the scope of introducing mandatory insurance for vessels in European waters.
On 23 November 2005 the Commission approved the proposal amending directive 2009/59/EC, taking account of the calls made by the European Parliament Council and Commission and the various interested parties on several points:
- tightening policy on the accommodation of ships in distress;
- designation by the Member States of an independent competent authority for the accommodation of ships in distress;
- measures to be taken in the presence of ice;
- treatment of uninsured ships;
- the development of Safe Sea Net, a European system for the exchange of maritime information.
It also made a number of new proposals:
- use of AIS to be made compulsory for fishing vessels longer than 15 metres;
- tightening of the shipper’s obligation to provide information.
On first reading the European Parliament fully endorsed the Commission proposal. Parliament’s amendments merely sought to clarify the Commission’s proposal and highlight a number of principles more clearly. In particular:
- the independence of experts and the tasks of the authorities responsible for the accommodation of ships in distress;
- implementation of IMO guidelines for the fair treatment of master and crews should accidents occur;
- accommodation of uninsured ships in places of refuge: ships without insurance are suspect vessels. However the fact that the ship is not insured is not a reason to refuse it refuge;
- information which must be provided by the shipper for every vessel entering a European harbour. It is the task and responsibility of the shipper to provide accurate information;
- compensation for ports and places of refuge in cases where this is not covered by existing international conventions;
- confidentiality requirements in respect of AIS and SafeSeaNet information, need for further investigation to provide better protection against wrongful use of data.
On one point, the European Parliament sought greater flexibility, that is to say the installation of AIS on fishing vessels. Parliament did not wish for vessels of less than 24 metres to be equipped with AIS and sought a more flexible timetable and guarantees regarding the confidentiality and use of AIS data for reasons other than safety.
Assessment of Council’s common position
At the Transport Council of 8 to 9 June 2006 the Council adopted a general approach with regard to its proposal containing all the elements forming part of the Council’s present common position.
The European Parliament adopted its opinion on first reading on 25 April 2007. In other words, at no time did the Council take account of Parliament’s views, and it shows. In fact, the Council has adopted only five of Parliament’s amendments.
Proposals by your rapporteur on second reading
Your rapporteur takes the firm view that the original Commission proposal together with Parliament’s amendments on first reading, forms a good basis for further improving European policy regarding the accommodation of vessels in distress. Given that the Council has not considered Parliament’s views on first reading and has, in addition, abandoned a number of Commission proposals, your rapporteur recommends an almost full return to the status quo regarding Parliament’s position on first reading.
– Designation of an independent competent authority
The designation of an independent competent authority for the accommodation of vessels in distress has always been something to which Parliament has always attached great importance with the full support of the Commission. The successive disasters and near-disasters show that much time is often wasted because it was not clear who was responsible for what or because those competent to take a decision had to call on the expertise of a team which often had to be set up on an ad hoc basis.
The Council’s own provisions on this matter are vague and would result in practically no improvement in practice.
The amendments proposed by your rapporteur do not require the Member State to abandon totally their internal structure. They seek to ensure that the competent authority has the necessary independent (maritime) expertise to be able to decided independently should an incident occur on the best course of action to avoid a disaster or contain the consequences thereof as far as possible.
– The concept of a ship in need of assistance as opposed to a ship in distress
The Commission, supported by the European Parliament, used the expression ‘ship in distress’. Basing itself of IMO guidelines for the accommodation of ships in need of assistance, the Council used the expression ‘ship in need of assistance’. You rapporteur can agree with the Council but is dissatisfied with the Council’s definition, which appears to disregard the importance of human lives in accommodating ships in difficulties. The link with the Search and Rescue Convention of 1979 (SAR) concerning the rescue of human lives must be clarified.
– Fair treatment of masters and crews in the event of an accident
Your rapporteur calls for the implementation by the Member States of IMO guidelines concerning the fair treatment of ships’ crews. The Council does not mention this. The trend towards treating ships’ crews as criminals is not conducive to safety at sea. For fear of arrest, masters often postpone calling for help, thus wasting valuable time.
– Consequences of absence of an insurance certificate or financial guarantee
The absence of evidence of financial security must be a factor in the assessment and decision on accommodating a ship in distress. Naturally a problem arises if a ship in distress does not have (adequate) insurance. However, it is not desirable that only insured vessels should be accommodated in a place of refugee.
The Council decided to simply abandon Article 20 b of the Commission proposal and omit all references to the directive on the financial responsibility of shipowners (COM(2005)0593 and COM(2007)0674, Savary report).
– Compensation schemes for places of refuge and ports
In exceptional cases, the accommodation of a ship may give rise to damage and costs for the port in question which are not covered by existing funds or conventions. Parliament has repeatedly called in recent years for a compensation scheme to be devised for such cases. A compensation arrangement might help to reduce any resistance of ports to providing refuge.
– Introduction of automatic identification system for fishing vessels
On first reading, Parliament called for a less stringent timetable for fishing vessels, a proposal which the Council did not accept. This is one of the few points where the Council’s proposals are more stringent than those of Parliament. Your rapporteur agrees with the Council. The AIS is clearly of value to small fishing vessels, in particular since this is the category of vessel frequently involved in collisions with fatal consequences for the crew.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that accommodating a ship in difficulties was one of the main problems in the case of both the Erika and the Prestige, the Council refuses to provide a clear definition of the authority competent to make decisions in case of disaster. Your rapporteur calls on the Member States once more to show the necessary political courage to take a further step forward regarding European maritime safety policy. Let us not wait until we are forced to do so by another shipping disaster.
PROCEDURE
Title |
Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system |
|||||||
References |
05719/3/2008 – C6-0225/2008 – 2005/0239(COD) |
|||||||
Date of Parliament’s first reading – P number |
25.4.2007 |
T6-0146/2007 |
||||||
Commission proposal |
COM(2005)0589 – C6-0004/2006 |
|||||||
Date receipt of common position announced in plenary |
19.6.2008 |
|||||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
TRAN 19.6.2008 |
|||||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Dirk Sterckx 24.6.2008 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
14.7.2008 |
25.8.2008 |
4.9.2008 |
|
||||
Date adopted |
4.9.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
40 0 0 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Gabriele Albertini, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Paolo Costa, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Petr Duchoň, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Brigitte Fouré, Mathieu Grosch, Georg Jarzembowski, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Timothy Kirkhope, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jörg Leichtfried, Bogusław Liberadzki, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Erik Meijer, Reinhard Rack, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Yannick Vaugrenard, Roberts Zīle |
|||||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Luigi Cocilovo, Zita Gurmai, Lily Jacobs, Anne E. Jensen, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Vladimír Remek, Dominique Vlasto, Corien Wortmann-Kool |
|||||||
Date tabled |
9.9.2008 |
|||||||