Procedure : 2005/0237(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0070/2007

Texts tabled :

A6-0070/2007

Debates :

PV 24/04/2007 - 11
CRE 24/04/2007 - 11

Votes :

PV 25/04/2007 - 11.7
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2007)0150

REPORT     ***I
PDF 311kWORD 259k
20 March 2007
PE 378.538v02-00 A6-0070/2007

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

(COM(2005)0587 – C6-0038/2006 – 2005/0237(COD))

Committee on Transport and Tourism

Rapporteur: Luis de Grandes Pascual

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

(COM(2005)0587 – C6-0038/2006 – 2005/0237(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0587)(1),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0038/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0070/2007),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

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

Text proposed by the Commission  Amendments by Parliament

Amendment 1

Recital 2

(2) In its resolution of 8 June 1993 on a common policy on safe seas, the Council set the objective of removing all substandard vessels from Community waters and gave priority to Community action to secure the effective and uniform implementation of international rules by elaborating common standards for classification societies.

(2) In its resolution of 8 June 1993 on a common policy on safe seas, the Council set the objective of removing all substandard vessels from Community waters and gave priority to Community action to secure the effective and uniform implementation of international rules by elaborating common standards for classification societies, defined as ship inspection and survey organisations (hereinafter “recognised organisations”).

Justification

Although this is an authentic quotation and the wording was ‘classification societies’ it would seem appropriate to use the same term throughout the directive.

Amendment 2

Recital 5

(5) Member States are responsible for the issuing of international certificates for safety and pollution provided for under conventions such as SOLAS 74, Load Lines 66 and Marpol 73/78, and for the implementation of the provisions thereof.

(5) Member States are responsible for the issuing of international certificates for safety and the prevention of pollution provided for under conventions such as SOLAS 74, Load Lines 66 and Marpol 73/78, and for the implementation of the provisions thereof.

Justification

There is obviously a mistake in the Commission text, since the purpose of issuing the certificates is to prevent pollution.

Amendment 3

Recital 6

(6) In compliance with such conventions all Member States may authorise to a varying extent ship inspection and survey organisations, generally known as classification societies, for the certification of such compliance and may delegate the issue of the relevant safety certificates.

(6) In compliance with such conventions all Member States may authorise to a varying extent ship inspection and survey organisations, generally known as classification societies, for the certification of such compliance and may delegate the issue of the relevant certificates for safety and the prevention of pollution.

Justification

Technical improvement to correct a deficiency in the Commission text.

Amendment 4

Recital 7

(7) Worldwide a large number of the existing classification societies do not ensure either adequate implementation of the rules or reliability when acting on behalf of national administrations as they do not have adequate structures and experience to be relied upon and to enable them to carry out their duties in a highly professional manner.

(7) Worldwide a large number of the existing recognised organisations do not ensure either adequate implementation of the rules or reliability when acting on behalf of national administrations as they do not have adequate structures and experience to be relied upon and to enable them to carry out their duties in a highly professional manner.

This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate changes throughout.

Amendment 5

Recital 8

(8) Furthermore, these organisations are given the duty of producing and implementing rules for the design, construction, maintenance and inspection of ships and to meet the requirements of the international conventions for the issue of the relevant certificates. To enable them to carry out that duty in a satisfactory manner they need to have strict independence, highly specialised technical competence and rigorous quality management.

(8) Furthermore, these organisations produce and implement rules for the design, construction, maintenance and inspection of ships and they are responsible for inspecting ships on behalf of the flag States and certifying that those ships meet the requirements of the international conventions for the issue of the relevant certificates. To enable them to carry out that duty in a satisfactory manner they need to have strict independence, highly specialised technical competence and rigorous quality management.

Justification

It seems necessary to include an activity as highly skilled as the work delegated by the flag States.

Amendment 6

Recital 9 a (new)

 

(9a) This objective should be pursued through measures that adequately tie in with the work of the International Maritime Organisation and, where appropriate, build on and complement it.

Justification

Notwithstanding the need for proposals to be restricted solely to Community territory, where the EU has competence, it would be advisable to work towards international rules in the framework of the IMO, in line with the global nature of maritime activity.

Amendment 7

Recital 14

(14) A Member State may restrict the number of organisations it authorises in accordance with its needs, based on objective and transparent grounds, subject to control exercised by the Commission in accordance with a committee procedure.

(14) A Member State may restrict the number of recognised organisations it authorises in accordance with its needs, based on objective and transparent grounds, subject to control exercised by the Commission in accordance with a committee procedure.

Amendment 8

Recital 15

(15) Since this Directive ensures freedom to provide services in the Community, the Community should be entitled to negotiate, with those third countries where some of the recognised organisations are located, equal treatment for the recognised organisations located in the Community.

(15) Since this Directive ensures freedom to provide services in the Community, the Commission should be entitled to negotiate, with those third countries where some of the recognised organisations are located, equal treatment for the recognised organisations domiciled in the Community.

Amendment 9

Recital 16

(16) A tight involvement of the national administrations in ship surveys and in the issue of the related certificates is necessary to ensure full compliance with the international safety rules even if the Member States rely upon organisations outside their administration for carrying out statutory duties. It is appropriate, therefore, to establish a close working relationship between the administrations and the organisations, which may require that the organisation has a local representation on the territory of the Member State on behalf of which it performs its duties.

(16) A tight involvement of the national administrations in ship surveys and in the issue of the related certificates is necessary to ensure full compliance with the international safety rules even if the Member States rely upon recognised organisations outside their administration for carrying out statutory duties. It is appropriate, therefore, to establish a close working relationship between the administrations and the organisations authorised by them, which may require that the latter have a local representation on the territory of the Member State on behalf of which it performs its duties.

Amendment 10

Recital 17

(17) Divergence in the financial liability regimes of the organisations working on behalf of the Member States in would impede the proper implementation of this Directive. In order to contribute to solving this problem it is appropriate to bring about a degree of harmonisation at Community level of the liability arising out of any incident caused by a recognised organisation, as decided by a court of law, including settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures.

(17) Divergence in financial liability regimes between organisations working on behalf of the Member States in would impede the proper implementation of this Directive. In order to contribute to solving this problem it is appropriate to bring about a degree of harmonisation at Community level of the liability arising out of any incident caused by a recognised organisation, as decided by a court of law, including settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures.

Amendment 11

Recital 18

(18) 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.

(18) 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 this Directive in order to apply subsequent amendments to the international conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions related thereto, to update the criteria in Annex I and to adopt the criteria to measure the safety and pollution prevention performance of recognised organisations. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, and to supplement this Directive by the addition of new non-essential elements, they should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

Justification

The new comitology procedure (regulatory procedure with scrutiny) should be introduced.

Amendment 12

Recital 20

(20) It is of the utmost importance that failure by a recognised organisation to fulfil its obligations can be addressed in a prompt, effective and proportionate manner. The primary objective should be to correct any deficiencies with a view to removing any potential threat to safety or the environment at an early stage. The Commission should therefore be given the necessary powers to require that the organisation undertakes the necessary preventive and remedial action, and to impose fines and periodic penalty payments as coercive measures.

(20) It is of the utmost importance that failure by a recognised organisation to fulfil its obligations can be addressed in a prompt, effective and proportionate manner. The primary objective should be to correct any deficiencies with a view to removing any potential threat to safety or the environment at an early stage. The Commission should therefore be given the necessary powers to require that the recognised organisation undertakes the necessary preventive and remedial action, and to impose fines and periodic penalty payments as coercive measures.

Amendment 13

Recital 23

(23) Each Member State should periodically assess the performance of the organisations working on its behalf and provide the Commission and all the other Member States with precise information related to such performance.

(23) Each Member State should periodically assess the performance of the recognised organisations working on its behalf and provide the Commission and all the other Member States with precise information related to such performance.

Amendment 14

Recital 24

(24) The continuous a posteriori monitoring of the recognised organisations to assess their compliance with the provisions of this Directive can be carried out more effectively in a harmonised and centralised manner. Therefore it is appropriate that the Commission, together with the Member State requesting the recognition, be entrusted with this task on behalf of the whole Community.

(24) The continuous a posteriori monitoring of the recognised organisations to assess their compliance with the provisions of this Directive can be carried out more effectively in a harmonised and centralised manner. Therefore it is appropriate that the Commission, together with the Member States that respectively authorise them to act on their behalf, be entrusted with this task on behalf of the whole Community.

Amendment 15

Recital 25

(25) It is crucial that Community inspectors have access to ships and ship files regardless of the ship’s flag in order to ascertain that the recognised organisations comply with the minimum criteria in respect of all ships in their respective class.

(25) As part of monitoring the operations of recognised organisations, Community inspectors must have access to ships and ship files regardless of the ship’s flag in order to ascertain that the recognised organisations comply with the minimum criteria laid down in this Directive in respect of all ships in their respective class.

Justification

Technical improvements to the text.

Amendment 16

Recital 28

(28) The ability of recognised organisations rapidly to identify and correct weaknesses in their rules, processes and internal controls is critical for the safety of the ships they inspect and certify. That ability should be enhanced by means of an independent joint body which can propose common action for the sustained improvement of all recognised organisations and ensure productive interaction with the Commission.

(28) The ability of recognised organisations rapidly to identify and correct weaknesses in their rules, processes and internal controls is critical for the safety of the ships they inspect and certify. That ability should be enhanced by means of an independent assessment committee which will act independently in order to propose action for the sustained improvement of all recognised organisations and ensure productive interaction with the Commission.

Justification

We can delete the word ‘joint’ as this refers only to recognised organisations when it must be more complex.

The phrase ‘an independent assessment committee which will act independently in order to propose action’ replaces ‘an independent joint body which can propose common action’ , because this is no empty declaration of independence but expresses the need for the body to have competence and the ability to manoeuvre.

Amendment 17

Recital 28 a (new)

 

(28a) The rules and regulations (of the recognised organisations) are a key factor for safety and the prevention of accidents and pollution. The recognised organisations have initiated the process that should lead to harmonisation of their rules and regulations. That process should be encouraged and supported by Community legislation, as it should have a positive impact on maritime safety and the competitiveness of the European shipbuilding industry.

Justification

It is clear that the harmonisation of regulations is a process that has already begun and should be encouraged by the EU to promote not only safety at sea but also the European shipbuilding industry’s ability to compete.

Amendment 18

Recital 29

(29) Recognised organisations should be obliged to update their technical standards and enforce them consistently in order to harmonise safety rules and ensure uniform implementation of international rules within the Community. Where the technical standards of recognised organisations are identical or very similar, mutual recognition of class certificates should be considered.

(29) Recognised organisations should be obliged to update their technical standards and enforce them consistently in order to harmonise safety rules and ensure uniform implementation of international rules within the Community. Where the technical standards of recognised organisations are identical or very similar, mutual recognition of class certificates should be considered in cases where this is possible, and taking the most demanding and rigorous certificates as the model.

Justification

Progressive harmonisation is desirable but it should never be a downward move but should take the best and most demanding practice as the model.

Amendment 19

Recital 31

(31) In order to prevent ships from changing class to avoid carrying out necessary repairs, the recognised organisations should exchange all relevant information among themselves concerning the conditions of ships changing class and involve the flag State when necessary.

(31) In order to prevent ships from changing class to avoid carrying out repairs called for by a classification society in its inspection, prior arrangements should be made for the recognised organisations to exchange all relevant information among themselves concerning the conditions of ships for which a change of class is sought and involve the flag State when necessary.

Amendment 20

Article 1

This Directive establishes measures to be followed by the Member States and organisations concerned with the inspection, survey and certification of ships for compliance with the international conventions on safety at sea and prevention of marine pollution, while furthering the objective of freedom to provide services. This process includes the development and implementation of safety requirements for hull, machinery and electrical and control installations of ships falling under the scope of the international conventions.

This Directive establishes measures to be followed by the Member States and organisations they have entrusted with the inspection, survey and certification of ships for compliance with the international conventions on safety at sea and prevention of marine pollution, while furthering the objective of freedom to provide services. This process includes the development and implementation of safety requirements for hull, machinery and electrical, radio and control installations of ships falling under the scope of the international conventions.

Amendment 21

Article 2, point (c)

(c) ‘inspections and surveys’ means inspections and surveys that it is mandatory to carry out under the international conventions;

(c) ‘inspections and surveys’ means inspections and surveys that it is mandatory to carry out under the international conventions, and under this and other Community directives concerned with maritime safety;

Amendment 22

Article 2, point (k)

(k) “class certificate” means a document issued by a recognised organisation certifying the fitness of a ship for a particular use or service in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down and made public by that recognised organisation;

(k) “classification certificate” means a document issued by a recognised organisation certifying the fitness of a ship for a particular use or service in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down and made public by that recognised organisation;

Amendment 23

Article 2, point (m)

(m) ‘location’ refers to the place of the registered office, central administration or principal place of business of an organisation.

(m) ‘country of location’ refers to the state where the registered office, central administration or principal place of business of an organisation is located.

Amendment 24

Article 3, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1, point (ii)

(ii) to rely upon organisations to undertake fully or in part the inspections and surveys referred to in point (i);

(ii) to entrust organisations with the task of undertaking fully or in part the inspections and surveys referred to in point (i);

Amendment 25

Article 5

The Commission shall refuse to recognise organisations which fail to meet the requirements mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 4 or whose performance is considered an unacceptable threat to safety or the environment on the basis of the criteria laid down in accordance with Article 14.

The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2), refuse to recognise organisations which fail to meet the requirements mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 4 or whose performance is considered an unacceptable threat to safety or the environment on the basis of the criteria laid down in accordance with Article 14.

Justification

For such an important decision the Commission should be assisted by the COSS Committee.

Amendment 26

Article 6, paragraph 2

2. Recognition shall be granted to the parent entity, if any, within the organisation and shall apply to all entities within that organisation.

2. Recognition shall be granted to the relevant legal parent entity for all the legal entities that constitute the recognised organisations, extending recognition to all the legal entities in a recognised organisation that contribute to ensuring that the principal legal entity provides cover for their services globally.

Justification

Legal clarification to describe better the complex composition of recognised organisations.

Amendment 27

Article 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1

2. In order for a Member State to accept that a recognised organisation located in a third State is to carry out the duties mentioned in Article 3 or part of them it may request the third State in question to grant reciprocal treatment for those recognised organisations which are located in the Community.

2. In order for a Member State to accept that a recognised organisation located in a third State is to carry out on its behalf the duties mentioned in Article 3 or part of them it may require the third State in question to grant reciprocal treatment for those recognised organisations which are located in the Community.

Amendment 28

Article 8, paragraph 2, point (a)

(a) the provisions set out in Appendix II of IMO Resolution A.739(18) on guidelines for the authorisation of organisations acting on behalf of the administration, while drawing inspiration from the Annex, Appendices and Attachment to IMO MSC/Circular 710 and MEPC/Circular 307 on a model agreement for the authorisation of recognised organisations acting on behalf of the administration;

(a) the provisions set out in Appendix II of IMO Resolution A.739(18) on guidelines for the authorisation of organisations acting on behalf of the administration, while drawing inspiration from the Annex, Appendices and Attachment to IMO MSC/Circular 710 and MEPC/Circular 307 on a model agreement for the authorisation of recognised organisations acting on behalf of the administration.

 

Accordingly, when a recognised organisation, its inspectors or its technical staff issue the required certificates on behalf of the administration, they shall be subject to the same legal safeguards and the same jurisdictional protection, including the exercise of any defence actions, as those to which the administration and its members may have recourse in cases where the administration has issued the above required certificates itself;

Justification

To clarify the role of the recognised organisations when they are acting on behalf of the States, it seems desirable to add the content of paragraph 6.5.2 of the Annex to Circular IMO MSC 710.

Amendment 29

Article 8, paragraph 2, point (b), point (i)

(i) if liability arising out of any incident is finally and definitely imposed on the administration by a court of law or as part of the settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures, together with a requirement to compensate the injured parties for loss or damage to property or personal injury or death, which is proved in that court of law to have been caused by a wilful act or omission or gross negligence of the recognised organisation, its bodies, employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised organisation, the administration shall be entitled to financial compensation from the recognised organisation to the extent that the said loss, damage, injury or death is, as decided by that court, caused by the recognised organisation;

(i) if liability arising out of any marine casualty is finally and definitely imposed on the administration by a court of law or as part of the settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures, together with a requirement to compensate the injured parties for loss or damage to property or personal injury or death, which is proved in that court of law to have been caused by a wilful act or omission or gross negligence of the recognised organisation, its bodies, employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised organisation, the administration shall be entitled to financial compensation from the recognised organisation to the extent that the said loss, damage, injury or death is, as decided by that court, caused by the recognised organisation;

This amendment concerns the English version only and applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate changes throughout.

Justification

While the term ‘incident’ may be correct in English it is likely to cause confusion by association with a formal or procedural issue or a trivial matter. The phrase ‘marine casualty’ is more rigorous and is not restrictive.

Amendment 30

Article 8, paragraph 2, point (b), point (ii)

(ii) if liability arising out of any incident is finally and definitely imposed on the administration by a court of law or as part of the settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures, together with a requirement to compensate the injured parties for personal injury or death, which is proved in that court of law to have been caused by any negligent or reckless act or omission of the recognised organisation, its employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised organisation, the administration shall be entitled to financial compensation from the recognised organisation to the extent that the said personal injury or death is, as decided by that court, caused by the recognised organisation; the Member States may limit the maximum amount payable by the recognised organisation, which must, however, be at least equal to EUR 4 million;

(ii) if liability arising out of any incident is finally and definitely imposed on the administration by a court of law or as part of the settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures, together with a requirement to compensate the injured parties for personal injury not resulting in death, which is proved in that court of law to have been caused by any negligent or reckless act or omission of the recognised organisation, its employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised organisation, the administration shall be entitled to demand financial compensation from the recognised organisation to the extent that the said personal injury not resulting in death is, as decided by that court, caused by the recognised organisation; the Member States may limit the maximum amount payable by the recognised organisation, which must, however, be at least equal to EUR 4 million, except where the amount determined in the judgment or settlement is lower, in which case this last figure shall apply;

Amendment 31

Article 8, paragraph 2, point (b), point (iii)

(iii) if liability arising out of any incident is finally and definitely imposed on the administration by a court of law or as part of the settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures, together with a requirement to compensate the injured parties for loss or damage to property, which is proved in that court of law to have been caused by any negligent or reckless act or omission of the recognised organisation, its employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised organisation, the administration shall be entitled to financial compensation from the recognised organisation, to the extent that the said loss or damage is, as decided by that court, caused by the recognised organisation; the Member States may limit the maximum amount payable by the recognised organisation, which must, however, be at least equal to EUR 2 million;

(iii) if liability arising out of any incident is finally and definitely imposed on the administration by a court of law or as part of the settlement of a dispute through arbitration procedures, together with a requirement to compensate the injured parties for loss or damage to property, which is proved in that court of law to have been caused by any negligent or reckless act or omission of the recognised organisation, its employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised organisation, the administration shall be entitled to demand financial compensation from the recognised organisation, to the extent that the said loss or damage is, as decided by that court, caused by the recognised organisation; the Member States may limit the maximum amount payable by the recognised organisation, which must, however, be at least equal to EUR 2 million, except where the amount determined in the judgment or settlement is lower, in which case this last figure shall apply;

Amendment 32

Article 8, paragraph 2, point (d)

(d) the possibility for random and detailed inspections of ships;

(The amendment does not affect the English version.)

Amendment 33

Article 8, paragraph 2, point (e)

(e) provisions for reporting essential information about their classed fleet, changes, suspensions and withdrawals of class, as referred to in Article 20(3).

(e) provisions for the compulsory reporting of essential information about their classed fleet, changes, suspensions and withdrawals of class, as referred to in Article 20(3).

Amendment 34

Article 8, paragraph 3

3. The agreement or equivalent legal arrangement may require the recognised organisation to have a local representation on the territory of the Member State on behalf of which it performs the duties referred to in Article 3. A local representation of a legal nature ensuring legal personality under the law of the Member State and the competence of its national courts may satisfy such a requirement.

3. The agreement or equivalent legal arrangement may require the recognised organisation to have a local representation on the territory of the Member State on behalf of which it performs the duties referred to in Article 3. A local representation ensuring legal personality under the law of the Member State and the jurisdiction of its national courts may satisfy such a requirement.

Amendment 35

Article 8, paragraph 5

5. The Commission shall, no later than 22 July 2006, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council evaluating the economic impact of the liability regime provided for in this Article on the parties concerned and, more particularly, its consequences for the financial equilibrium of recognised organisations.

deleted

This report shall be drawn up in cooperation with the competent authorities of the Member States and the parties concerned, in particular recognised organisations. The Commission shall, if necessary in the light of this evaluation, submit a proposal amending this Directive with more specific reference to the principle of liability and the maximum liabilities.

 

Amendment 36

Article 9, paragraph 2a (new)

 

2a. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a(1) to (4), and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

Justification

The new regulatory procedure with scrutiny should be anchored in the comitology article.

Amendment 37

Article 10, paragraph 1, introductory wording

1. This Directive may, without broadening its scope, be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2), in order to:

1. This Directive may, without broadening its scope, be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2a), in order to:

Justification

As the measures listed in Article 10(1) are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, they should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

Amendment 38

Article 11, paragraph 2 a (new)

 

However, and without prejudice to their immediate implementation, the Commission must give advance notice of the measures that it intends to take to all Member States which have granted an authorisation to the organisation concerned.

Justification

Given that the organisations act on their behalf, it is essential for Member States to be informed of the intended measures beforehand.

Amendment 39

Article 12, paragraph 1, point (a)

(a) whose failure to fulfil the criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under this Directive or whose worsening performance reveals grave shortcomings in its structure, systems, procedures or internal controls; or

(a) whose serious or, alternatively, repeated failure to fulfil the criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under this Directive or whose worsening performance reveals grave shortcomings in its structure, systems, procedures or internal controls; or

Justification

An infringement is defined as a serious failure to fulfil the criteria, which may likewise be a repeated failure.

Amendment 40

Article 12, paragraph 1, point (b)

(b) which has provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment under Article 16(3) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.

(b) which has deliberately provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment under Article 16(3) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.

Justification

‘Deliberately’ is added to characterise the gravity of the infringement.

Amendment 41

Article 12, paragraph 3, subparagraph 2

They shall be imposed only after the organisation concerned has been given the opportunity to submit its observations.

They shall be imposed only after the organisation and the Member States concerned have been given the opportunity to submit their observations.

Justification

Adds the possibility for the Member States concerned likewise to submit their observations.

Amendment 42

Article 12, paragraph 3, subparagraph 3

The aggregate amount of the fines and periodic penalty payments shall not exceed 10 % of the total turnover of the recognised organisation in the preceding business year for the activities falling under the scope of this Directive.

The aggregate amount of the fines and periodic penalty payments shall not exceed 5 % of the total turnover of the recognised organisation in the preceding business year for the activities falling under the scope of this Directive.

Justification

Lowers the aggregate amount of the fines, which seems excessive, from 10 to 5 %.

Amendment 43

Article 13, paragraph 1, point (a)

(a) whose failure to fulfil the criteria set out in Annex I or their obligations under this Directive is such that it constitutes an unacceptable threat to safety or the environment;

(a) whose repeated and serious failure to fulfil the criteria set out in Annex I or their obligations under this Directive is such that it constitutes an unacceptable threat to safety or the environment;

Justification

There must be repetition and a degree of gravity in the kind of behaviour to justify a penalty as serious as the withdrawal of recognition.

Amendment 44

Article 13, paragraph 1, point (b)

(b) whose safety and pollution prevention performance is such that it constitutes an unacceptable threat to safety and the environment;

(b) whose repeated and serious failure in their safety and pollution prevention performance is such that it constitutes an unacceptable threat to safety and the environment;

Justification

There must be repetition and a degree of gravity in the kind of behaviour to justify a penalty as serious as the withdrawal of recognition.

Amendment 45

Article 14

The Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2), shall adopt:

The Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2a), shall adopt and publish:

(a) criteria to measure the safety and pollution prevention performance of recognised organisations, having particular regard to the data produced by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control and/or by other similar schemes;

(a) criteria to measure the effectiveness of the rules, regulations, and performance of the recognised organisations as regards the safety of, and the prevention of pollution from, their classified ships, having particular regard to the data produced by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control and/or by other similar schemes; and

(b) criteria to determine when such performance is to be considered an unacceptable threat to safety or the environment, which may take into account specific circumstances affecting smaller-sized or highly specialised organizations, and

(b) criteria to determine when a given performance, omission or delay is to be considered an unacceptable threat to safety or the environment, which may take into account specific circumstances affecting smaller-sized or highly specialised organizations.

(c) detailed rules for the implementation of Article 12 and, if appropriate, Article 13.

The Commission shall adopt detailed rules for the implementation of Article 12 and, if appropriate, Article 13 in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2).

Justification

The criteria under (a) and (b) to be adopted are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive; they should therefore be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

Amendment 46

Article 15, point (b)

(b) the Commission shall examine whether the suspension is justified for reasons of serious danger to safety or the environment;

(b) the Commission, having regard to safety and pollution prevention, must assess the reasons put forward by the Member State for suspending its authorisation of the recognised organisation;

Amendment 47

Article 15, point (c)

(c) acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2), the Commission shall inform the Member State whether or not its decision to suspend the authorisation is justified for reasons of serious danger to safety or the environment and, if it is not justified, request the Member State to withdraw the suspension.

(c) acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2), the Commission shall inform the Member State whether or not its decision to suspend the authorisation is sufficiently justified for reasons of serious danger to safety or the environment. If the decision is not justified, the Commission shall request the Member State to withdraw the suspension. If the decision is justified and the Member State, pursuant to Article 7(1), has restricted the number of organisations acting on its behalf, the Commission shall request the Member State to grant a new authorisation to another recognised organisation to replace the suspended organisation.

Amendment 48

Article 16, paragraph 1

1. Each Member State must satisfy itself that the recognised organisations acting on its behalf for the purpose of Article 3(2) effectively carry out the functions referred to in that Article to the satisfaction of its competent administration.

1. Each Member State must check that the recognised organisations acting on its behalf for the purpose of Article 3(2) effectively carry out the functions referred to in that Article to the satisfaction of its competent administration.

Amendment 49

Article 16, paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall carry out this task at least on a biennial basis and shall provide the other Member States and the Commission with a report on the results of this monitoring at the latest by 31 March of the year following the years for which compliance has been assessed.

2. Each Member State shall, at least on a biennial basis, monitor every organisation acting on its behalf and shall provide the other Member States and the Commission with a report on the results of these monitoring activities at the latest by 31 March of the year following the years in which they are carried out.

Amendment 50

Article 16, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1

3. All the recognised organisations shall be assessed by the Commission, together with the Member State which submitted the relevant request for recognition, on a regular basis and at least every two years to verify that they meet their obligations under this Directive and fulfil the criteria of Annex I.

3. All the recognised organisations shall be assessed by the Commission, together with the Member State which submitted the relevant request for recognition, on a regular basis and at least every two years to verify that they meet their obligations under this Directive and fulfil the criteria of Annex I. The assessment must be confined to the maritime activities of the recognised organisations that fall within the scope of this Directive.

Justification

It makes sense to distinguish between activities of the recognised organisations that are relevant to the directive and those that are not; the Commission does so with the effects of the liabilities that are relevant to the organisations’ business funds.

Amendment 51

Article 19, paragraph 2

2. A Member State may decide to use rules it considers equivalent to those of a recognised organisation only on the proviso that it immediately notifies them to the Commission in conformity with the procedure under Directive 98/34/EC and to the other Member States and they are not objected to by another Member State or the Commission and found through the procedure referred to in Article 9(2) of this Directive not to be equivalent.

2. A Member State may decide to use rules it considers equivalent to the rules and regulations of a recognised organisation only on the proviso that it immediately notifies them to the Commission in conformity with the procedure under Directive 98/34/EC and to the other Member States and they are not objected to by another Member State or the Commission and found through the procedure referred to in Article 9(2) of this Directive not to be equivalent.

Amendment 52

Article 20, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1

1. The recognised organisations shall consult with each other periodically with a view to maintaining equivalence of their rules and regulations and the implementation thereof. They shall cooperate with each other with a view to achieving consistent interpretation of the international conventions, without prejudice to the powers of the flag States. Recognised organisations shall agree on the conditions under which they will mutually recognise their respective class certificates based on equivalent standards, taking particularly into account marine equipment bearing the wheelmark in accordance with Directive 96/98/EC.

1. The recognised organisations shall consult with each other periodically with a view to maintaining equivalence and securing the harmonisation of their rules and regulations and the implementation thereof. They shall cooperate with each other with a view to achieving consistent interpretation of the international conventions, without prejudice to the powers of the flag States. Recognised organisations shall, in appropriate cases, agree on the technical and procedural conditions under which they will mutually recognise their respective class certificates based on equivalent standards, taking the most demanding and rigorous models as their reference and taking particularly into account marine equipment bearing the wheelmark in accordance with Directive 96/98/EC.

Justification

Specifies the aim of progressive harmonisation.

Points out that mutual recognition will take place only when appropriate in cases in which the technical standards are identical or very similar.

The reference model must not be a downward move but must take account of the most rigorous standards.

Amendment 53

Article 20, paragraph 1 a (new)

 

1a. Three years from the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, based on an independent study, on the level reached in the process of harmonising the rules and regulations and on mutual recognition. In the event of failure by the recognised organisations to fulfil the provisions of Article 20(1), the Commission shall propose to the European Parliament and the Council the necessary measures.

Justification

The Commission quite rightly does not use imperative terms in the proposed directive, but advocates progressive harmonisation. It makes sense to assess, after a reasonable period, how far the aim has been achieved.

Amendment 54

Article 20, paragraph 4

4. The recognised organisations shall not issue statutory certificates to a ship, irrespective of its flag, which has been declassed or is changing class for safety reasons, before giving the opportunity to the competent administration of the flag State to give its opinion within a reasonable time in order to determine whether a full inspection is necessary.

4. The recognised organisations shall not issue statutory certificates to a ship, irrespective of its flag, which has been declassed or is changing class for safety reasons, before giving the opportunity to the competent administration of the flag State to give its opinion within a reasonable time as to whether a full inspection is necessary.

Amendment 55

Article 20, paragraph 5, subparagraph 1, introduction

5. In cases of transfer of class from one recognised organisation to another, the losing organisation shall inform the gaining organisation of:

5. In cases of transfer of class from one recognised organisation to another, the losing organisation shall provide the gaining organisation with the complete file of the ship and, in particular, inform it of:

Amendment 56

Article 20, paragraph 5, subparagraph 2

On transfer, the losing organisation shall provide the gaining organisation with the complete history file of the ship. The certificates of the ship can be issued by the gaining organisation only after all overdue surveys have been satisfactorily completed and all overdue recommendations or conditions of class previously issued against the ship have been completed as specified by the losing organisation.

New certificates for the ship can be issued by the gaining organisation only after all overdue surveys have been satisfactorily completed and all overdue recommendations or conditions of class previously issued in respect of the ship have been completed as specified by the losing organisation.

Amendment 57

Article 20, paragraph 5, subparagraph 3

Prior to the issue of the certificates, the gaining organisation must advise the losing organisation of the date of issue of the certificates and confirm the date, place and action taken to satisfy each overdue survey, overdue recommendation and overdue condition of class.

Before completing the new certificates, the gaining organisation must advise the losing organisation of their date of issue and, for each overdue survey, overdue recommendation and overdue condition of class, confirm the action taken, specifying its starting place and date and the place where, and the date when, it was satisfactorily completed.

Amendment 58

Article 21, paragraph 1, introductory wording

1. Recognised organisations shall set up by …. at the latest and maintain a joint body to undertake the following tasks:

1. The Member States, together with the recognised organisations, shall set up an Assessment Committee in accordance with the EN 45012 quality standards. The relevant professional associations working in the shipping industry may participate in an advisory capacity. The Committee shall carry out the following tasks:

Justification

The assessment body is given a name, i.e. the Assessment Committee.

The committee should not be set up by the recognised organisations alone: on the contrary, the Member States also have a part to play.

Amendment 59

Article 21, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1, point (a)

(a) continuous quality management system assessment;

(a) regulation and assessment of the systems for management of the quality of recognised organisations, in accordance with the ISO 9001 quality standard criteria;

Justification

To name the assessment body as the Assessment Committee.

The Committee should be set up not just by recognised organisations but also by the Member States, in consultation with the IMO.

It should have the powers to enable it to act independently, adopting its own rules of procedure.

Amendment 60

Article 21, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1, point (b)

(b) quality system certification;

(b) certification of the quality system of recognised organisations;

Justification

To name the assessment body as the Assessment Committee.

The Committee should be set up not just by recognised organisations but also by the Member States, in consultation with the IMO.

It should have the powers to enable it to act independently, adopting its own rules of procedure.

Amendment 61

Article 21, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1, point (c)

(c) issue of binding interpretations of internationally recognised quality standards, in particular to take account of the specific features of the nature and obligations of recognised organisations, and

(c) issue of binding interpretations of internationally recognised quality management standards, in particular to take account of the specific features of the nature and obligations of recognised organisations, and

Justification

To name the assessment body as the Assessment Committee.

The Committee should be set up not just by recognised organisations but also by the Member States, in consultation with the IMO.

It should have the powers to enable it to act independently, adopting its own rules of procedure.

Amendment 62

Article 21, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2

The joint body shall be independent of the recognised organisations and shall have the necessary means to carry out its duties effectively and to the highest professional standards.

The Assessment Committee shall be independent, shall have the necessary competences to act independently of the recognised organisations and shall have the necessary means to carry out its duties effectively and to the highest professional standards. The Committee shall lay down its working methods and rules of procedure.

Justification

To name the assessment body as the Assessment Committee.

The Committee should be set up not just by recognised organisations but also by the Member States, in consultation with the IMO.

It should have the powers to enable it to act independently, adopting its own rules of procedure.

Amendment 63

Article 21, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3

It shall adopt an annual work plan.

deleted

Justification

To name the assessment body as the Assessment Committee.

The Committee should be set up not just by recognised organisations but also by the Member States, in consultation with the IMO.

It should have the powers to enable it to act independently, adopting its own rules of procedure.

Amendment 64

Article 21, paragraph 1, subparagraph 4

It shall provide the Commission and the authorising Member States with full information on its annual work plan as well as on its findings and recommendations, particularly with regard to situations where safety might have been compromised.

The Assessment Committee shall provide the interested parties, including the Commission, with full information on its annual work plan as well as on its findings and recommendations, particularly with regard to situations where safety might have been compromised.

Justification

To name the assessment body as the Assessment Committee.

The Committee should be set up not just by recognised organisations but also by the Member States, in consultation with the IMO.

It should have the powers to enable it to act independently, adopting its own rules of procedure.

Amendment 65

Article 21, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1

2. The joint body referred to in paragraph 1 shall be periodically assessed by the Commission, which may require recognised organisations to take the measures the Commission deems necessary to ensure full compliance with paragraph 1.

2. The Assessment Committee shall be periodically audited by the Commission, which may, acting in accordance with the committee procedure referred to in Article 9(2), require the Assessment Committee to adopt the measures the Commission deems necessary to ensure full compliance with paragraph 1.

Justification

To name the assessment body as the Assessment Committee.

The Committee should be set up not just by recognised organisations but also by the Member States, in consultation with the IMO.

It should have the powers to enable it to act independently, adopting its own rules of procedure.

Amendment 66

Article 23, paragraph 1

In the course of the assessment pursuant to Article 16(3), the Commission shall verify that the holder of the recognition is the parent entity within the organisation. If that is not the case, the Commission shall amend the recognition accordingly by decision.

In the course of the assessment pursuant to Article 16(3), the Commission shall verify that the holder of the recognition is the relevant legal entity within the organisation to which the provisions of this Directive apply. If that is not the case, the Commission shall amend the recognition accordingly by decision.

Justification

Legal clarification that is more in tune with the organisation and composition of recognised organisations.

Amendment 67

Annex I, part A, paragraph 1

1. A recognized organisation must have legal personality in the State of its location. Its accounts shall be certified by independent auditors.

1. To be eligible to obtain or to continue to enjoy Community recognition, an organisation must have legal personality in the State of its location. Its accounts shall be certified by independent auditors.

Amendment 68

Annex I, part A, paragraph 3

3. The organisation must be established with significant managerial, technical, support and research staff commensurate with the size of the fleet in its class, its composition and the organization’s involvement in the construction and transformation of ships. The organization must be capable of assigning to every place of work, when and as needed, means and staff commensurate with the tasks to be carried out in accordance with general minimum criteria 6 and 7 and with the specific minimum criteria.

3. The organisation must be established at all times with significant managerial, technical, support and research staff commensurate with the size of the fleet in its class, its composition and the organization’s involvement in the construction and conversion of ships. The organization must be capable of assigning to every place of work, when and as needed, means and staff commensurate with the tasks to be carried out in accordance with general minimum criteria 6 and 7 and with the specific minimum criteria.

Amendment 69

Annex I, part B, paragraph 4 a (new)

 

4a. The organisation, its inspectors, and its technical staff shall carry out their work without in any way harming the intellectual property rights of shipyards, equipment suppliers, and shipowners, including patents, licences, know-how, or any other kind of knowledge whose use is legally protected at Community or national level; under no circumstances, and notwithstanding Article 17, may either the organisation or the inspectors and technical staff whom it employs pass on or divulge commercially relevant data obtained in the course of their work of inspecting, checking, and monitoring ships under construction or repair.

Justification

In view of the justified misgivings of recognised organisations, reflected in their unwillingness to recognise bodies not as technologically advanced as themselves, other operators need to safeguard their intellectual property rights.

Amendment 70

Annex I, part B, paragraph 6, point (g)

(g) surveyors have an extensive knowledge of the particular type of ship on which they carry out their work as relevant to the particular survey to be carried out and of the relevant applicable requirements;

(Does not affect English version.)

Amendment 71

Annex I, part B, paragraph 7

7. The organisation has developed, implemented and maintains an effective internal quality system based on appropriate parts of internationally recognised quality standards and in compliance with EN ISO/IEC 17020:2004 (inspection bodies) and with EN ISO 9001:2000, as interpreted and certified by the joint body referred to in Article 21(1).

7. The organisation has developed, implemented and maintains an effective internal quality system based on appropriate parts of internationally recognised quality standards and in compliance with EN ISO/IEC 17020:2004 (inspection bodies) and with EN ISO 9001:2000, as interpreted and certified by the Assessment Committee referred to in Article 21(1).

 

The Assessment Committee shall act independently and shall accordingly have access to all the resources needed to be able to operate properly and carry out thorough and consistent work. It shall possess highly specialised and extensive technical skills and a code of conduct that will safeguard the independence of the auditors’ activities.

Justification

To be consistent with the body’s name in the amendments.

There is a need to describe the features of the joint body, which must be autonomous and have the abilities to fulfil its tasks.

Amendment 72

Annex I, part B, paragraph 8

8. The rules and regulations of the organisation are implemented in such a way that the organisation remains in a position to derive from its own direct knowledge and judgement a reliable and objective declaration on the safety of the ships concerned by means of class certificates on the basis of which statutory certificates can be issued.

8. The rules and regulations of the organisation are implemented in such a way that the organisation remains in a position to derive from its own direct knowledge and judgement a reliable and objective declaration on the safety of the ships concerned by means of classification certificates on the basis of which statutory certificates can be issued.

(1)

Not yet published in OJ.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Background and purpose of the proposal

The purpose of this fourth revision is none other than to strengthen and clarify the role of classification societies recognised by the EU, now known as ‘recognised organisations’, having found that there are significant failings in the process of inspecting and certifying the safety of the world’s shipping.

Previous directives, particularly Directive 2001/105/EC, one of three proposals in the Erika 1 legislative package, have already raised the serious need to reform the present system for Community recognition of classification societies, set up by Directive 94/57/EC; the substantial progress that they made was then reinforced by the Council’s conclusions of 13 December 2002 and Parliament’s resolutions on strengthening safety at sea (2003/2235(INI) and the resolution adopted after the wreck of the Prestige (2003/2066(INI)).

The reason for returning to this question is the need for further tightening up of the activity of these organisations which, as has been said by the various operators making up the sea transport sector, if they did not exist would need inventing as they fulfil a vital task in maintaining safety at sea.

However, as mentioned there are still serious deficiencies today in the process of inspecting and certifying recognised organisations, and this poses a serious and unacceptable threat to safety and the environment. Recognised organisations are a major concentration of power in the sea transport safety network and must be closely supervised by the appropriate authorities. These should guarantee that the organisations that are required to ensure that the vessels on our seas comply with the relevant international safety and anti-pollution standards act with independence and rigour.

Reforms proposed by the Commission directive

In its ‘Third package of legislative measures on maritime safety’ the Commission has put forward a proposal with the aim of reforming the current rules and regulations for recognised organisations classifying and inspecting ships, thus amending Directive 94/57/EC. Since this directive has already been substantially amended on previous occasions, in this fourth update it has been decided to make use of the technique of recasting the text.

The proposal contains five sections of reform:

1.        Improving the systems for the monitoring of recognised organisations

The recognised organisations will establish a joint body for quality system assessment and certification. This body will be independent of the recognised organisations and have all the necessary resources to enable work to be carried out in depth and on a continuous basis.

2.        Harmonising the system of ordinary and limited recognition

The present system limits recognition according to the size of the organisation. The Commission proposes to abandon this system and to tie in Community recognition based on the organisation’s performance in terms of quality and safety. At the same time the Commission is introducing a safeguard mechanism enabling it to prevent a recognised organisation, whatever its size, from acting on behalf of Member States in specialised areas for which it does not have the necessary capability.

The Commission will also examine cases of limited recognition granted under the current directive and decide through the comitology procedure whether the limitations should be replaced or scrapped.

3.        Reform of the recognition criteria

The aim is to simplify the criteria for granting recognition, since they have been developed in a somewhat disorderly manner. The proposed changes are centred on the number of inspectors in proportion to the fleet being classified, the use of non-exclusive inspectors and consideration of the legal structure of recognised organisations.

4.        Reform of the system of penalties

The Commission wants ultimately to make the penalty system more flexible. This means creating a list of infringements and penalties, in addition to replacing the suspension of recognition with financial penalties, taking account of the gravity of the infringement and the financial capacity of the recognised organisation concerned (only the basic features of the system will be defined).

5.        Clarifying the scope and facilitating the application of certain provisions in the present directive

This point refers to the specific arrangements to define the Community’s inspection powers. It clarifies the access of inspector-auditors to the ships’ documentation.

Another fundamental aspect is the legal structure of recognised organisations: to this end the Commission proposes to introduce a broad organisational concept, so as to ensure that recognition applies at the highest level which that concept entertains. On the question of scope, the text refers to the SOLAS Convention, though excluding a section on protection.

Consultation of interested parties

The rapporteur thought fit to meet the industry a second time to re-acquaint himself with its criteria. He accordingly arranged meetings with IACS, the international umbrella organisation for the main recognised organisations carrying out inspection and certification of more than 90 % of cargo vessels throughout the world and representing ten of the 12 organisations recognised by the Community. There were also meetings with shipbuilders, shipowners and representatives of the European marine equipment industry.

Furthermore, the rapporteur held a public hearing at the European Parliament that was open to the full Committee on Transport, with the aim of meeting the wish of the IACS to explain the scope and significance of recognised organisations.

The rapporteur’s considerations and proposals

The rapporteur takes a positive view of the proposed directive, which is a step forward in providing for safety at sea and controlling pollution. However, the report does put forward a number of amendments which in our view improve the proposal.

(a)       Improving the systems for monitoring recognised organisations

The creation of a joint body for assessing and certifying quality is a welcome development. The rapporteur gives this body a name, ‘Assessment Committee’, and calls for it to have independent status to safeguard its autonomy of action, and for it to be given the powers required to carry out its work. With regard to its establishment, this will not be a matter solely for the recognised organisations but will take place in conjunction with the Member States and in consultation with the IMO.

(b)       Merging the present twofold system of ordinary and limited recognition

The Commission proposes to end the present twofold system and calls for a Community recognition scheme based on qualitative criteria, rather than quantitative criteria dependent on size. The rapporteur sees this as a positive reform but points out that mutual recognition is a controversial matter.

In the rapporteur’s judgement the Commission rightly argues that the approach to mutual recognition should not be imperative but prudential, confining it to cases in which the rules and regulations of the recognised organisations are identical or very similar. The rapporteur has put forward a number of amendments here to further clarify such cases, and ensure that when the rules are harmonised this should be done by reference to the most demanding and rigorous standards.

(c)       Reform of the system of penalties

In the rapporteur’s judgement the system that the Commission advocates comes closer to equity than its predecessor. A system of graduated penalties proportionate both to the severity of the infringement and the organisation’s economic capacity is fairer and more effective. However, the rapporteur has proposed some amendments to define more clearly the type of infringement that is likely to be penalised.

The Member States are also brought in, as they must be notified of any corrective or preventive measures that the Commission may require of a recognised organisation that fails to comply with the criteria laid down in Annex I, or with the requirements of the directive when the organisation is acting on behalf of a Member State. Moreover, we have added the option enabling Member States to put their allegations to the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS), to avoid a situation in which they are unable to defend themselves. Finally, the total reference figure for penalty fines is reduced to 5 %, as 10 % appears excessive.

(d)       Limited or unlimited liability

Whether or not recognised organisations should have limited liability is a matter of controversy, and both sides put forward good reasons to support their views.

Back in 2001, there was provision in Article 8(5) of the directive for the Commission to submit to Parliament and the Council an assessment report on the economic impact of the civil liability regime laid down in Directive 94/57/EC. The Commission undertook to submit such a report by 22 July 2006.

The report’s conclusions are as follows.

The directive states that in cases of gross negligence there must be provision for unlimited liability, and this principle is not disputed.

As to the liability arrangements applicable in the event of simple negligence, the directive does not require unlimited liability but leaves it to the parties concerned to negotiate and agree on the sums to be applied. The current situation with cases of simple negligence is this: 17 Member States and Norway have established limited liability for cases of simple negligence. The amounts to a large extent reflect those in the directive, which were thresholds and are now ceilings. Five Member States have approved the option provided by Article 6 of the current directive and have agreed with the authorised recognised organisations on unlimited liability even in cases of simple negligence.

As a result the rapporteur concludes that the Commission proposal is a balanced one and meets the majority’s criteria in the European Union.


PROCEDURE

Title

Ship inspection and survey organisations (recast version)

References

COM(2005)0587 - C6-0038/2006 - 2005/0237(COD)

Committee responsible

 Date announced in plenary

TRAN

14.2.2006

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

 Date announced in plenary

ENVI

14.2.2006

 

 

 

Not delivering opinions

 Date of decision

ENVI

21.2.2006

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

 Date appointed

Luis de Grandes Pascual

28.3.2006

 

 

Discussed in committee

19.4.2006

13.9.2006

22.11.2006

23.1.2007

Date adopted

27.2.2007

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

-:

0:

44

0

2

Members present for the final vote

Inés Ayala Sender, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, Paolo Costa, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Christine De Veyrac, Petr Duchoň, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Mathieu Grosch, Georg Jarzembowski, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jörg Leichtfried, Bogusław Liberadzki, Eva Lichtenberger, Erik Meijer, Seán Ó Neachtain, Willi Piecyk, Luís Queiró, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Georgios Toussas, Yannick Vaugrenard, Marta Vincenzi, Lars Wohlin, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Roberts Zīle

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Zsolt László Becsey, Johannes Blokland, Philip Bradbourn, Roland Gewalt, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Anne E. Jensen, Rosa Miguélez Ramos

Last updated: 12 April 2007Legal notice