Procedure : 2005/0238(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0081/2007

Texts tabled :

A6-0081/2007

Debates :

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

Votes :

PV 25/04/2007 - 11.6
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2007)0149

REPORT     ***I
PDF 453kWORD 490k
27 March 2007
PE 378.539v02-00 A6-0081/2007

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (recast)

(COM(2005)0588 – C6-0028/2006 – 2005/0238(COD))

Committee on Transport and Tourism

Rapporteur: Dominique Vlasto

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 port State control (recast)

(COM(2005)0588 – C6-0028/2006 – 2005/0238(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0588)(1),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0028/2006),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0081/2007),

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 4

(4) Safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions may be effectively enhanced through a drastic reduction of substandard ships from Community waters, which will be achieved by strictly applying international Conventions, codes and resolutions.

(4) Safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions may be effectively enhanced through a drastic reduction of substandard ships from Community waters, by strictly applying international Conventions, codes and resolutions.

Justification

Strict application of international conventions, codes and resolutions is a basic obligation which contributes to the stated objectives but is not the only means of attaining them.

Amendment 2

Recital 4a (new)

 

(4a) To this end, the Community hopes for the early ratification of the ILO's Maritime Labour Convention MLC 2006 part 5.2.1. of which refers to port state obligations.

Justification

This Convention, which codifies and updates international maritime labour law and contributes to the improvement of safety at sea, contains provisions applicable to port state control. It is desirable to mention this with a view to encouraging the Member States to ratify it at an early date.

Amendment 3

Recital 5

(5) Monitoring the compliance of ships with the international standards for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions should rest primarily with the flag State. However, there has been a serious failure on the part of a number of flag States to implement and enforce international standards. Henceforth the monitoring of compliance with the international standards for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions  should  also be ensured by the port State.

(5) Monitoring the compliance of ships with the international standards for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions should rest primarily with the flag State. However, there has been a serious failure on the part of a number of flag States to implement and enforce international standards. Henceforth the monitoring of compliance with the international standards for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions  should  also be ensured by the port State, on the understanding that a port state inspection is not an expert appraisal, that inspection reports are not equivalent to a seaworthiness certificate, and that port state control cannot absolve flag states from their responsibilities.

Justification

It is important to stress that the port state cannot act as a substitute for the flag state, even though port state controls are a necessary compensation for the deficiencies of the flag state and form an essential part of a modern maritime safety system.

Amendment 4

Recital 10

(10) The inspection by each Member State of at least one quarter of individual foreign ships which enter its ports in a given year in practice means that a large number of ships operating within the Community area at any given time have undergone an inspection.

deleted

Justification

To ensure consistency, provisions relating to the current system of inspections by the port State must be deleted to avoid any possible confusion with the new provisions.

Amendment 5

Recital 11

(11) An efficient port State control regime should however seek to ensure that all ships calling at a port within the European Union are regularly inspected, instead of limiting itself to the current objective of inspecting one quarter of incoming ships in each Member State. Inspection should concentrate on substandard ships, while quality ships, meaning those which have satisfactory inspection records or which fly the flag of a State complying with the IMO Member State Audit Scheme, should be rewarded by undergoing less frequent inspections. Such new inspection arrangements should be incorporated into the Community's port State control regime as soon as its various aspects have been defined and on the basis of an inspection-sharing scheme whereby each Member State contributes fairly to the achievement of the Community objective of a comprehensive inspection scheme.

(11) An efficient port State control regime should seek to ensure that all ships calling at a port within the European Union are regularly inspected. Inspection should concentrate on substandard ships, while quality ships, meaning those which have satisfactory inspection records or which fly the flag of a State complying with the IMO Member State Audit Scheme, should be rewarded by undergoing less frequent inspections. Such new inspection arrangements should be incorporated into the Community's port State control regime as soon as its various aspects have been defined and on the basis of an inspection-sharing scheme whereby each Member State contributes fairly to the achievement of the Community objective of a comprehensive inspection scheme.

Moreover, Member States should recruit and retain the requisite number of staff, including qualified inspectors, taking into account the volume and characteristics of shipping traffic at each port.

Justification

To ensure consistency, the reference to the current objective of inspecting 25% of vessels must be deleted. Reference The need for Member States to employ sufficient staff to meet the new inspection objectives should be expressly stated.

Amendment 6

Recital 11a (new)

 

(11 a) The inspection regime set up in this directive should be coordinated with the work done by the Paris MOU. Since any developments arising from the Paris MOU should be agreed at Community level before being made applicable within the EU, close coordination should be established between the Community and the Paris MOU, with a view to achieving a single distinct inspection regime.

Justification

The existence of two parallel inspection regimes, with the attendant risk of a significant increase in the burden of inspections and administration, should be prevented.

Amendment 7

Recital 13 a (new)

 

(13a) Under the inspection regime set up by this Directive, the intervals between periodic inspections on ships depend on their risk profile that is determined by certain generic and historical parameters. For high risk ships this interval should not exceed 6 months.

Justification

In future, the frequency of inspections at Community level will depend on the risk profile of every ship calling at a Community port or anchorage. For ships with a high risk profile, the interval between inspections must not exceed six months.

Amendment 8

Recital 14

(14) Some ships pose a manifest risk to maritime safety and the marine environment because of their poor condition, flag and history. They should therefore be refused access to Community ports, unless it can be demonstrated that they can be operated safely in Community waters. Guidelines  should  be established setting out the procedures applicable in the event of the imposition of such an access ban and of the lifting of the ban. In the interests of transparency, the list of ships refused access to Community ports should be made public.

(14) Some ships pose a manifest risk to maritime safety and the marine environment because of their poor condition, flag and history. They should therefore be refused access to Community ports and anchorages, unless it can be demonstrated that they can be operated safely in Community waters. Guidelines  should  be established setting out the procedures applicable in the event of the imposition of such an access ban and of the lifting of the ban. In the interests of transparency, the list of ships refused access to Community ports and anchorages should be made public.

Justification

Refusal of access should also apply to Community anchorages.

Amendment 9

Recital 19

(19) Pilots and port authorities should be enabled to provide useful information on defects found on board ships.

(19) Pilots and port authorities should be enabled to provide useful information on anomalies found on board ships.

Justification

Pilots and port authorities may report anomalies and thus assist the port State control system. However, they are not substitute inspectors, and it would be excessive to require them to report defects, which are not necessarily readily apparent.

Amendment 10

Recital 20

(20) Complaints regarding living and working conditions on board should be investigated. Any person lodging a complaint should be informed of the follow-up action given to that complaint.

(20) Complaints from persons with a confirmed legitimate interest regarding living and working conditions on board should be investigated. Priority should be given to dealing with complaints on board. Any person lodging a complaint should be informed of the follow-up action given to that complaint.

Justification

Recital brought into line with article. In addition, complaints from the crew should be given priority over other forms of complaint, since they have an indisputable legitimate interest.

Amendment 11

Recital 28 a (new)

 

(28a) In accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Member States should draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Community, their own tables, which will indicate the correlation between this Directive and their transposition measures, and should make those tables public.

Amendment by Robert Navarro

Amendment 12

Recital 28b (new)

 

(28b) In order not to impose a disproportionate administrative burden on Member States without seaports, a de minimis rule should permit them to derogate from the provisions of this directive, in accordance with rules to be adopted under the procedure set out in Article 24.

Justification

It is legitimate that states without access to the sea should not be required to apply all the provisions of this directive. However, states with ports on major river routes might under certain specific circumstances have to carry out controls under this directive. It is necessary to provide for derogations subject to strict conditions. Such derogations may be adopted by the comitology procedure.

Amendment 13

Article 1, point (b a) (new)

 

(ba) ensuring that all ships calling to ports or anchorages within the Community are inspected with a frequency depending on their risk profile, with ships posing a higher risk being subject to a more thorough inspection carried out at more frequent intervals;

Justification

The main purpose of recasting the directive is to change the Community inspection regime, which will depend on the risk profile of ship calling at a Community port or anchorage. To make the regime more effective, high-risk vessels will be subject to more thorough and frequent inspections.

Amendment 14

Article 1, point (b b) (new)

 

(bb) introducing elements related to a Community port State control regime, aiming to establishing common criteria for control of ships by the port State and harmonizing procedures on inspection and detention.

Justification

The recasting of the directive is also intended to introduce elements of a Community port State control regime which is consistent and harmonised at Community level. This is essential if the new provisions are to be complied with, properly applied and effective.

Amendment 15

Article 2, paragraph 2 a (new)

 

2a. "Framework and procedures for the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme" means IMO Assembly Resolution A. 974(24).

Justification

Definition derived from international law, and necessitated by the reference contained in Annex II, part I, point 1, paragraph (c).

Amendment 16

Article 2, paragraph 2a (new)

 

2a. "Paris MOU region" means the geographical area in which the states party to the Paris MOU conduct inspections in the context of the Paris MOU.

Justification

Since the term “Paris MOU region” appears on several occasions in the body of the directive, it is important for this term to be defined.

Amendment 17

Article 2, paragraph 4 a (new)

 

4a. "Port" means an area of land and water made up of such works and equipment as to permit, principally, the reception of ships, their loading and unloading, the storage of goods, the receipt and delivery of these goods, and embarkation and disembarkation of passengers.

Justification

It seems logical to include a definition of a port in the directive. The proposed definition comes from the proposal for a directive on access to the market in port services.

Amendment 18

Article 2, paragraph 9

9. “Inspection” means a visit on board a ship by an inspector, in order to check the ship’s compliance with the relevant Conventions and regulations and including at least the checks required by Article 7 (1).

9. “Initial inspection” means a visit on board a ship by an inspector, in order to check the compliance with the relevant Conventions and regulations and including at least the checks required by Article 8 (1).

Justification

The new inspection regime includes three types of inspection. The initial inspection is the basic one.

Amendment 19

Article 2, paragraph 10

10. “More detailed inspection” means an inspection where the ship, its equipment and crew as a whole or, as appropriate, parts thereof are subjected, in the circumstances specified in Article  7 (4), to an in-depth examination covering the ship's construction, equipment, manning, living and working conditions and compliance with on-board operational procedures.

10. “More detailed inspection” means an inspection where the ship, its equipment and crew as a whole or, as appropriate, parts thereof are subjected, in the circumstances specified in Article 8 (2) to an in-depth examination covering the ship's construction, equipment, manning, living and working conditions and compliance with on-board operational procedures.

Justification

The ‘more detailed inspection’ is the second type of inspection and is left to the judgment of the inspector, in the light of his findings in the course of the initial inspection. To maintain the quality and effectiveness of inspectors’ work, it is essential to empower them to carry out more detailed inspections.

Amendment 20

Article 2, paragraph 11

11. “Expanded inspection” means an inspection whose scope includes as a minimum the items listed in Annex VIII Part C. An expanded inspection may include a more detailed inspection whenever there are clear grounds in accordance with Article 7 (4);

11.“Expanded inspection” means an inspection whose scope includes as a minimum the items listed in Annex VIII Part C. An expanded inspection may include a more detailed inspection whenever there are clear grounds in accordance with Article 7a;

Justification

Numbering amended for consistency with Mrs Vlasto’s amendments.

Amendment 21

Article 2, paragraph 12

12. “Complaint” means any information or report submitted by the master of the ship, a member of the crew, a professional body, an association, a trade union or, generally, any person with an interest in the safety of the ship, including an interest in safety or health hazards to its crew, shipboard living and working conditions and the prevention of pollution.

12. . “Complaint” means any information or report, other than the report on apparent anomalies or defects drawn up by pilots or port authorities in accordance with Article 17, submitted by any physical or legal person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safety of the ship, including an interest in safety or health hazards to its crew, shipboard living and working conditions and the prevention of pollution.

Justification

The possibility of lodging a complaint should remain open to anyone with a legitimate interest in the safety of the ship. Without restricting access to the possibility of lodging a complaint, it is nevertheless necessary to stipulate conditions to discourage malicious complaints and to clarify the distinction between complaints and the reports referred to in Article 17.

Amendment 22

Article 2, paragraph 14

14. “Refusal of access order” means a document issued to the master of a ship and to the company responsible for the ship notifying them that the ship will be refused access to ports of the Community.

14. “Refusal of access order” means a decision issued to the master of a ship, to the company responsible for the ship and to the flag State notifying them that the ship will be refused access to all ports and anchorages of the Community.

Justification

A ‘refusal of access order’ cannot be defined as a document: it is primarily a decision taken by the competent authority. To ensure the effective application of the order, the flag State should also be informed of the decision in question. Finally, refusal of access orders must apply to all Community ports and anchorages.

Amendment 23

Article 2, paragraph 16

16. “Company means the corporate owner of the ship or any other organisation or person such as the manager, or the bareboat charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for operation of the ship from the owner of the ship and who, on assuming such responsibility, has agreed to take over all the duties and responsibilities imposed by the International Safety Management (“ISM”) Code.

16. “Company means the owner of the ship or any other organisation or person such as the manager, or the bareboat charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for operation of the ship from the owner of the ship and who, on assuming such responsibility, has agreed to take over all the duties and responsibilities imposed by the International Safety Management (“ISM”) Code.

Justification

The rewording is designed to clarify the test.

Amendment 24

Article 2, paragraph 19

19. “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.

19. “Classification certificate” means a document issued by a recognised organisation, confirming compliance with SOLAS 74, Chapter II.1, Part A.1, Regulation 3.1.

Justification

The amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the applicable maritime law.

Amendment 25

Article 2, paragraph 20

20. “Inspection database means the central information system for port state inspection records.

20. “Inspection database means the information system for implementing the port State control regime within the Community and taking into account inspections made in the Paris MOU region.

Justification

The inspection database is a key element of the introduction of the port State control regime in the Community. It should primarily serve that objective, therefore. It should also be possible for the database to be used in connection with the new Paris MoU inspection regime, to the extent that that is both desirable and feasible.

Amendment 26

Article 3, paragraph 1

1. This Directive applies to any ship and its crew calling at a port or at an anchorage of a Member State.

 

For the purposes of this Directive a Member State may also exercise a power of inspection and detention, in accordance with international law, in relation to a ship which is in waters within its jurisdiction or at, or anchored off, an offshore installation or at any other installation or facility in the waters within its jurisdiction.

 

Nothing in this Article shall affect the rights of intervention available to a Member State under the relevant international Conventions.

.

1. This Directive applies to any ship and its crew calling at a port or at an anchorage of a Member State.

 

France may decide that the ports covered by this paragraph do not include ports situated in the overseas departments referred to in Article 299(2) of the Treaty .

 

Where a Member State carries out an inspection on a ship in its territorial waters but outside a port, such procedure shall be deemed to be an inspection for the purposes of this directive.

 

Nothing in this Article shall affect the rights of intervention available to a Member State under the relevant international Conventions.

 

Member States without sea ports may derogate option of exemption from the application of this directive, under certain conditions. The Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 24, the measures for the implementation of this derogation mechanism.

Justification

The French overseas departments, which are not covered by Directive 95/21/EC, should also be excluded from the scope of this directive, since they belong to completely different geographical areas covered by Memorandums of Understanding other than the Paris MOU.

It is legitimate that states without access to the sea should not be required to apply all the provisions of this directive. However, states with ports on major river routes might under certain specific circumstances have to carry out controls under this directive. It is necessary to provide for derogations, subject to stringent conditions. Such derogations may be adopted by the comitology procedure.

Amendment 21

Title

Obligations of Member States 

Inspection powers

Amendment 28

Article 4, paragraph 2

2. Member States shall maintain appropriate competent authorities for the inspection of ships and shall take whatever measures are appropriate to ensure that their competent authorities perform their duties as laid down in this Directive. In particular, they shall recruit and retain the requisite number of staff, including qualified inspectors, taking into account the volume and characteristics of shipping traffic at each port. 

 Member States shall put in place appropriate arrangements to ensure that inspectors are available for carrying out expanded and mandatory inspections in accordance with Article 8 and Annex I, Part A.1. 

2. Member States shall maintain appropriate competent authorities for the inspection of ships and shall take whatever measures are appropriate to ensure that they perform their duties as laid down in this Directive. In particular, they shall recruit and retain the requisite number of staff, including qualified inspectors, taking into account the volume and characteristics of shipping traffic at each port.

 Member States shall put in place appropriate arrangements to ensure that inspectors are available for carrying out initial and expanded inspections in accordance with Articles 7 and 7a and Annex II, Part II. 

Justification

It is appropriate to remind Member States of the need for an adequate and appropriate number of inspectors to carry out all the inspections required under the Community regime.

Amendment 29

Article 5, title

Inspection commitments

Community inspection regime

Justification

The inspection commitments which are created by this directive and are set out in this Article constitute the basis of the Community inspection regime. These core requirements must be clearly set out in an article with a suitably unambiguous title.

Amendment 30

Article 5, paragraph 1

1. Member States shall contribute an individual inspection effort which, added to the number of inspections carried out by the other Member States and States signatory to the Paris MOU, shall ensure that all ships entering the ports or anchorages of the European Union are inspected. This effort shall ensure that ships posing a higher risk are subject to a more in-depth inspection carried out at more frequent intervals.

The inspection regime established with a view to achieving the objective referred to in the first subparagraph shall include the elements described in Annex II.

1. The Member States shall carry out inspections in accordance with the selection scheme described in Article 7 and the provisions of Annex II .

 

Justification

A new Article 7 specifies the method of selecting vessels for inspection. It renders this part of Article 5 superfluous.

Amendment 31

Article 5, paragraph 2

2. The detailed rules of the inspection referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).

2. Each Member State shall carry out annually a total number of inspections of individual ships corresponding to its share of the total number of inspections to be carried out annually in the Community and in the Paris MOU area. This share shall be based on the number of ships calling at the ports or anchorages of the Member State in question in relation to the sum of the number of ships calling at the ports and anchorages of each Member State of the Community and of the states party to the Paris MOU.

Justification

The number of inspections to be carried out for each Member State is to be calculated on the basis of the total number of ships calling at a port or anchorage of the Community or of the Paris MOU area.

Amendment 32

Article 5, paragraph 3

3. As long as measures envisaged in paragraph 2 are not in force, the total number of inspections to be carried out annually by the competent authority of each Member State shall correspond to at least 25% of the annual number of individual ships which entered its ports. This annual number shall be the average of the last three calendar years for which statistics are available. The end of the period used shall not be more than one year prior to the start of the inspection year.

deleted

Justification

To ensure legal clarity, we should delete any provisions made obsolete by the entry into effect of the new objectives of the Community inspection regime.

Amendment 33

Article 5, paragraph 4

4. In selecting ships for inspection, the competent authority shall comply with the rules set out in Annex I.

deleted

Justification

The method of selecting ships for inspection is no longer set out in Annex I, which has been deleted, but in the new Article 7, as indicated in paragraph 1 of Article 5.

Amendment 34

Article 5 a (new)

 

Article 5a

Compliance with the Community inspection regime

 

In accordance with Article 5, each Member State shall:

 

(a) inspect all Priority I ships, as referred to in Article 7(a), calling at its ports and anchorages and

 

(b) annually carry out a total number of inspections on Priority I and Priority II ships, as referred to in Article 7(a) and (b), which correspond at least to its annual inspection commitment.

Justification

This article is intended to specify how the Member States should comply with their inspection commitments.

Amendment 35

Article 5 b (new), paragraph 1

 

Article 5b

Circumstances in which certain ships are not inspected

 

1. In the following circumstances, a Member State may decide to postpone the inspection of a Priority I ship:

 

(i)If the inspection may be carried out at the next call of the ship in the same Member State, provided that the ship does not call at any other port or anchorage in the Community or the Paris MoU region in between and the postponement does not exceed 15 days, or

 

(ii) If the inspection may be carried out in another port of call within the Community or the Paris MoU region within 15 days, provided that the State in which such port of call is located has agreed to perform the inspection.

 

If an inspection is postponed, but not performed in accordance with subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and not recorded in the inspection database, it shall be counted as a missed inspection against the Member State which postponed the inspection.

Justification

If a Member State is unable to carry out an inspection in a given port, a mechanism should exist to enable this inspection to be carried out in another port of call within 15 days, either in the same Member State or in another State within the Paris MoU region.

Amendment 36

Article 5 b (new), paragraph 2

 

2. Under the following exceptional circumstances an inspection not performed on Priority I ships for operational reasons shall not be counted as a missed inspection, provided that the reason for missing the inspection is recorded in the inspection data base, if in the judgement of the competent authority the conduct of the inspection would create a risk to the safety of inspectors, the ship, its crew or to the port, or to the marine environment.

Justification

In certain rare and exceptional circumstances, it may be impossible to carry out an inspection by virtue of the risks which might be incurred by the inspector, crew, ship, etc. In these cases only, provided they are duly justified, failure to inspect the vessel should not be counted as a missed inspection

Amendment 37

Article 5 b (new), paragraph 3

 

3. If an inspection is not performed on a ship at anchor, it shall not be counted as a missed inspection provided that, if subparagraph (ii) applies, the reason for missing the inspection is recorded in the inspection data base, if:

 

(i) the ship is inspected in another port within the Community or the Paris MOU region in accordance with Annex II within 15 days, or

 

(ii) in the judgement of the competent authority the conduct of the inspection would create a risk to the safety of inspectors, the ship, its crew or to the port, or to the marine environment.

Justification

In the case of ships at anchor, it can be extremely difficult to carry out inspections. Allowance should be made, therefore, for a degree of flexibility in the case of inspections of vessels at anchor.

Amendment 38

Article 5 b (new), paragraph 4

 

4. The Commission may adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24, the rules for the implementation of this Article.

Justification

As this is a new mechanism which requires considerable cooperation between the Member States and perfect coordination, the Commission, in cooperation with the European Maritime Safety Agency, will have to introduce practical implementing rules.

Amendment 39

Article 6

The operator, agent or master of a ship calling at a port or anchorage of a Member State shall notify its arrival in accordance with Annex III.

1. The operator, agent or master of a ship eligible for an expanded inspection in accordance with Article 7a bound for a port or anchorage of a Member State shall notify its arrival in accordance with the provisions of Annex III.

2. On receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 and in Article 4 of Directive 2002/59/EC, the relevant port authority shall pass on this information to the competent authority.

3. Electronic means shall be used for the purposes of any communication provided for in this article. Other means shall be used only when electronic means are not available.

4. The procedures and formats developed by the Member States for the implementation of Annex III shall comply with Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system.

Justification

To ensure consistency in numbering and terminology. The inspection in question is an expanded inspection, and in paragraph 2 the notification is the one referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment 40

Article 6a (new)

 

Ship risk profile

1. Every ship calling at a port or anchorage in a Member State shall be attributed a ship risk profile which determines the degree of priority of the inspection, the intervals between inspections and the scope of inspections. The ship risk profile of each ship shall be entered in the inspection database.

2. The risk profile of a ship shall be determined by a combination of generic and historic risk parameters, as follows:

 

a) Generic parameters

Generic parameters shall be based on the type, age, flag, recognised organisations involved and company performance in accordance with Annex II.1.(a) and Annex IIa.

 

b) Historic parameters

Historic parameters shall be based on the number of anomalies and detentions during a given period, in accordance with Annex II.1.(b) and Annex IIa.

 

3. The Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24, the rules for the implementation of this article, specifying in particular:

 

- the values attributed to each risk parameter,

 

- the combination of risk parameters corresponding to each level of ship risk profile,

 

- the conditions for implementing the flag state criteria referred to in Annex II.1.A (c) concerning the demonstration of compliance with the relevant instruments.

Justification

Adds a reference to the new Annex IIa, which contains the schedule for determining a ship’s risk profile.

Amendment 41

Article 6 b (new), paragraph 1

 

Article 6b

Frequency of inspections

 

1. Ships calling at Community ports or anchorages shall be subject to periodic inspections or to additional inspections as follows:

 

(a) Ships shall be subject to periodic inspections at predetermined intervals depending on their risk profile in accordance with Annex II.2. The interval between periodic inspections of high risk ships shall not exceed six months. The interval between periodic inspections of ships of other risk profiles shall increase as the risk decreases, in accordance with Annex II.2.

 

(b) Ships shall be subject to additional inspections regardless of the period since their last periodic inspection as follows:

(i) the competent authority shall ensure that ships to which aggravating factors listed in Annex II.3.(a) apply are subject to an inspection,

(ii) ships to which unexpected factors listed in Annex II.3.(b) apply may be subject to an inspection. The decision to undertake such an additional inspection shall be left to the professional judgment of the competent authority.

Justification

To ensure legal certainty and clarity, it is desirable for an article of the directive to specify the frequency of inspections to which ships may be subject. This frequency will depend on the ship’s risk profile and various aggravating or unforeseen factors, specified in Annex II.3, which could lead to the normal interval between inspections being altered.

Amendment 42

Article 6 b (new), paragraph 2

 

2. Periodic and additional inspections shall include an examination of pre-identified areas for each ship which will vary according to the type of ship, the type of inspection and the findings of previous port State control inspections.

The inspection database shall indicate the elements to identify the risk areas to be checked at each inspection.

Justification

The frequency of inspections does not determine their content, which will depend on the type of ship, the type of inspection and previous inspections. To ensure inspections are effectively harmonised, check-lists should be available.

Amendment 43

Article 6a, paragraph 3 (new)

 

3. The Commission shall adopt, accordance with the procedure set out in Article 24, and taking account of the procedures applied in the context of the Paris MOU, the rules for the implementation of this article, specifying in particular the list of areas to be inspected according to the type of the ship.

Justification

The Commission, in cooperation with the European Maritime Safety Agency, should produce lists of this kind to enhance harmonisation of inspections. Accordingly, there is a need to limit the risk of divergences from the guidelines developed in the context of the Paris MOU.

Amendment 44

Article 6 c (new)

 

Article 6c

Selection of ships for inspection

The competent authority shall ensure that ships are selected for inspection on the basis of their risk profile as described in Annex II.1 and when overriding or unexpected factors arise in accordance with Annex II.2.

With a view to the inspection of ships, the competent authority:

(a) shall select ships which are due for a mandatory inspection, referred to as "Priority I" ships, in accordance with the selection scheme described in Annex II. 4.A.,

(b) may select ships which are eligible for inspection, referred to as "Priority II" ships, in accordance with Annex II. 4.B.

Justification

This article specifies the means of selecting ships for inspection, which should be divided into two categories: ‘priority I’ ships and ‘priority II’ ships.

Amendment 45

Article 7

Inspection procedure

 

1. The competent authority shall ensure that the inspector shall as a minimum:

(a) check the certificates and documents  required to be kept on board in accordance with the Community maritime safety legislation and international Conventions, in particular those  listed in Annex  IV ;

 

 

Types of inspections

1. Member States shall ensure that ships which are selected for inspection in accordance with Article 6c are subject to an initial inspection, a more detailed inspection or an expanded inspection as follows:

2. Initial inspections

(a). On each initial inspection of a ship, the competent authority shall ensure that the inspector shall as a minimum:

(a) check the certificates and documents listed in Annex IV required to be kept on board in accordance with the applicable Community maritime safety legislation and international Conventions,

2. When a ship has been authorised to leave a port on condition that the deficiencies are rectified at the next port, the inspection at the next port shall be limited to verifying whether these deficiencies have been rectified.

 

(b). When a ship has been authorised to leave a port on condition that the deficiencies are rectified at the next port, the inspection at the next port shall be limited to verifying whether these deficiencies have been rectified.

However, the inspector may, in the exercise of his professional judgment, decide that the inspection must be extended to cover additional verifications.

However, the inspector may, in the exercise of his professional judgment, decide that the inspection must be extended to cover additional verifications.

3. The inspector may examine all relevant certificates and documents, other than those listed in Annex  IV  , which are required to be carried on board in accordance with the Conventions.

4. Whenever there are clear grounds for believing, after the inspection referred to in paragraphs 1, 2  and  3, that the condition of a ship or of its equipment or crew does not substantially meet the relevant requirements of a Convention, a more detailed inspection shall be carried out, including further checking of compliance with on-board operational requirements.

2. More detailed inspections

A more detailed inspection shall be carried out , including further checking of compliance with on-board operational requirements, whenever there are clear grounds for believing, after the inspection referred to in paragraph 1, that the condition of a ship or of its equipment or crew does not substantially meet the relevant requirements of a Convention.

"Clear grounds” exist when the inspector finds evidence which in his professional judgement warrants a more detailed inspection of the ship, its equipment or its crew.

“Clear grounds” exist when the inspector finds evidence which in his professional judgement warrants a more detailed inspection of the ship, its equipment or its crew.

Examples of “clear grounds” are set out in Annex  V and VII,  section C. 

Examples of “clear grounds” are set out in Annex  V and VII,  section C. 

5. The relevant procedures and guidelines for the control of ships specified in Annex  VI  shall also be observed.

However, when the procedures and guidelines referred to in Annex VI, point 4, diverge from Community legislation in force, Member States shall not adopt any provision of national law or any administrative measure which would result in the implementation of procedures or in inspection practices contrary to such Community legislation. They shall ensure that their competent authorities are duly informed of the relevant guidelines or procedures to be implemented in accordance with Community legislation and they shall verify their proper implementation.

6. When carrying out security checks on board, the inspector shall follow the procedures set out in Annex VII.

 

Justification

The amended article lists the three types of inspection to which ships can be subject. The basic inspection is the initial inspection. The article also specifies its extent. Paragraphs have to be renumbered accordingly. The more detailed inspection is the second type of inspection possible. Decisions as to whether to carry them out are left to the professional judgement of the inspector, on the basis of any evidence he uncovers in the course of the initial inspection. The inspector may decide to carry out the necessary and mandatory thorough checks without invoking the expanded inspection procedure.

Amendment 46

Article 7 a (new)

 

Article 7a         

 

Expanded inspections

 

1. The following categories of ships shall be eligible for an expanded inspection in accordance with Annex II.II.3.3.1(a) and (b):

- ships with a high risk profile,

- passenger ships, oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers and bulk carriers more than 12 years old,

- ships with a high risk profile or passenger ships, oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers and bulk carriers more than 12 years old, in case of overriding or unexpected factors,

- ships subject to a re-inspection following a refusal of access order in accordance with Article 10.

 

2. On reception of a pre-notification provided by a ship eligible for an expanded inspection, the competent authority shall inform the ship without delay whether an expanded inspection will be carried out.

Justification

In the interest of legal certainty and consistency, a number of criteria from Annex IX have been incorporated into this article with a view to specifying and determining the conditions for a refusal of access order and the lifting of such order.

Amendment 47

Article 8

Article 8

Expanded inspection of certain ships

1. A ship in one of the categories in Annex  VIII, point B,   shall be eligible for  an expanded inspection after a period of 12 months since the last expanded inspection carried out in a port of  a Member State or of  a State signatory  to  the  Paris  MOU.

 

2. If such a ship is selected for inspection in accordance with  Annex I, point A.2,  an expanded inspection shall be carried out. However an inspection in accordance with Article  7  may be carried out in the period between two expanded inspections.

 

Any ship  referred to in paragraph 1  not complying with  the notification requirements in Article 6  shall be subject to an expanded inspection at the port of  anchorage or  destination.

 

3. Member States shall, subject to Article  9,  ensure that an expanded inspection is carried out on a ship to which paragraph  1  applies and which has a target factor of 7 or more  , as referred to in Annex I,  at its first port visited after a period of 12 months since the  previous  expanded inspection.

 

4. An  expanded inspection shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures  set out  in  Annex VIII, point C .

deleted

Justification

To delete certain provisions in line with presentational changes.

                                                              Amendment 48

Article 9, title

Procedure in case certain ships cannot be inspected

Guidelines and procedures under Community maritime safety and security legislation

 

Justification

On the grounds of the autonomy of European law, only Community legislation should be taken into account here. The Paris MOU lies outside the Community's autonomous legislative sphere.

Amendment 49

Article 9, paragraph 1

1. In cases where, for operational reasons, a Member State is unable to carry out an inspection of a ship with a target factor of more than 50 as referred to in  Annex I  or a mandatory expanded inspection as referred to in Article  8(3)  , the Member State shall, without delay, inform the  competent authorities of the next port, if it is a port of a Member State or of a State signatory to the Paris MOU  that such inspection did not take place.

1. For the purposes of this Directive, the relevant procedures and guidelines for the control of ships specified in Annex VI shall be taken into account as appropriate.

 

Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities are duly informed of the relevant guidelines or procedures that need to be implemented in accordance with Community legislation and they shall verify their proper implementation.

Justification

This first part of paragraph 9 highlights the fact that the Community inspection regime must take into account, as far as possible, the Paris MoU and the applicable international maritime law.

Amendment 50

Article 9, paragraph 2

2. Such cases shall be notified, at intervals of six months, to the Commission together with the reasons for not inspecting the ships concerned. In addition, Member States shall provide the total number of inspections as referred to in Article 8(2) and in Annex I, point A.1 carried out during these six months.

These notifications shall be provided within four months from the end of the period to which data pertained.

 

2. As far as safety checks are concerned, the Member States shall apply the procedures set out in Annex VII to all ships referred to in Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) 725/2004 calling at their ports, as long as they do not fly the flag of the port state of inspection.

 

They shall apply those procedures to the ships referred to in Article 3(3) of Regulation 725/2004 when the provisions of that regulation have been extended to the ships referred to in Article 3(3).

                                                                 Justification       

To ensure consistency with Community law.

Article 3(3) of Regulation 725/2004 provides that the provisions of that regulation shall be extended to ships other than class A passenger ships operating domestic services only on a decision of the Member States following an assessment of the security risk. Accordingly, the wording of Article 9(2) needs to be adjusted to take account of the case of domestic services which are not covered by the ISPS code and consequently not subject to the security checks.

Amendment 51

Article 9, paragraph 3

3. During any  three consecutive  calendar years,  the missed inspections   as referred to in paragraph 1  shall not exceed 5 % of the number of ships eligible for the inspections referred to in paragraph 1 calling at the ports of the Member State  during that period.

3. The provisions of Article 8 concerning expanded inspections shall apply to ro-ro ferries and to high-speed passenger craft as referred to in Article 2 (a) and (b) of Directive 1999/35/EC.

 

When a ship has been surveyed in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 1999/35/EC, such specific survey shall be considered as a more detailed or an expanded inspection, as relevant, and recorded as such in the inspection database.

 

Without prejudice to a prevention of operation of a ro-ro ferry or a high-speed passenger craft decided in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 1999/35/EC, the provisions of this Directive concerning rectification of deficiencies, detention, refusal of access, follow-up to inspections, detentions and refusal of access, as appropriate, shall apply.

Justification

To ensure consistency with Community law.

Amendment 52

Article 9, paragraph 4

4. Ships referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to  a mandatory  inspection, as provided for in  Annex I, point A.1  or a mandatory expanded inspection as referred to in Article  8(2)  , as appropriate, in the next port of call in the Community.

deleted

Justification

To ensure internal consistency; this paragraph is no longer necessary.

Amendment 53

Article 9, paragraph 5

5. By 22 July 2008 the figure of 5 % referred to in paragraph 3 shall be amended on the basis of an assessment by the Commission, if it is considered appropriate, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article  24(2).

deleted

Justification

To ensure internal consistency; this paragraph is no longer necessary.

Amendment 54

Article 10, paragraph 1

1. A Member State shall ensure that any ship meeting the criteria listed in Annex IX, point A is refused access to its posts and anchorages, except in the situations described in Article 15(6) 11(6).

 

The refusal of access shall become applicable as soon as the ship has left the port or anchorage where it has been the subject of a third detention and where a refusal of access order has been issued.

1. A Member State shall ensure that any ship meeting the criteria specified in this paragraph is refused access to its posts and anchorages, except in the situations described in Article 15(6) 11(6) if the ship:

- flies the flag of a State which appears on the black list or grey list as defined by the Paris MOU on the basis of information recorded in the inspection database and as published annually by the Commission, and

- has been detained or issued with a prevention of operation order under Council Directive 99/35/EC more than twice in the course of the preceding 36 months in a port of a Member State or of a State signatory of the MOU.

For the purposes of this paragraph, the list defined by the Paris MOU shall enter into force as from 1 July each year.

The refusal of access order shall be lifted only after a period of three months has passed from the date of issue of the order and when the conditions in paragraphs 4 to 10 of Annex IX are met.

If the ship is subject to a second refusal of access, the period shall be raised to 12 months. Any subsequent detention in a Community port shall result in the ship being permanently refused access to any port or anchorage within the Community.

Justification

In the interest of legal certainty and consistency, a number of the criteria in Annex IX have been incorporated into this article in order to specify and determine the conditions for a refusal of access order and the lifting of such order.

.

Amendment 55

Article 10, paragraph 2

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall comply with the procedures laid down in Annex IX, point B.

2. For the purposes of this Article, Member States shall comply with the procedures laid down in Annex IX, point B.

Justification

The procedures contained in Annex IX, point B, arise from Article 10 on refusal of access orders imposed on certain ships.

Amendment 56

Article 12

All complaints regarding conditions on board shall be investigated.

All complaints made by persons with a demonstrated legitimate interest regarding conditions on board shall be the subject of an initial investigation by the competent authority.

 

The initial investigation must make it possible to establish as swiftly as possible whether the complaint is admissible or whether it is manifestly unfounded or clearly abusive

When the competent authority deems the complaint to be manifestly unfounded, it shall inform the complainant of its decision and of the reason for it.

When the competent authority deems the complaint to be manifestly unfounded, it shall inform the complainant of its decision and of the reason for it.

The identity of the person lodging the complaint shall not be revealed to the master or the shipowner of the ship concerned. The inspector shall ensure confidentially during any interviews of crew members.

If the complaint is admissible, the identity of the person lodging the complaint shall not be revealed to the master or the shipowner of the ship concerned. The inspector shall ensure confidentially during any interviews of crew members.

Member States shall inform the flag State administration, with a copy to the International Labour Organization (ILO) if appropriate, of complaints not manifestly unfounded and of follow-up action taken.

Member States shall inform the flag State administration, with a copy to the International Labour Organization (ILO) if appropriate, of complaints not manifestly unfounded and of follow-up action taken.

Justification

A mechanism should be introduced to enable persons with an interest in the safety of the vessel to lodge complaints with the authority competent to initiate inspections if necessary. However, this mechanism should not be completely unrestricted and enable anyone at all to lodge complaints in any way they choose. It is essential to distinguish between admissible and legitimate complaints and clearly abusive complaints. To discourage the latter, in the case of abusive complaints only, it should be possible for the identity of the person or persons lodging the complaint to be disclosed.

Amendment 57

Article 12, sub-paragraph 1

All complaints regarding conditions on board shall be investigated.

All complaints within the meaning of Article 2(1) regarding conditions on board shall be investigated.

Justification

Clarification. The definition of Article 2(12) takes over the wording of ILO Convention MLC 2006. That Convention restates the principle of anonymity of complainants, which is also to be found in IMO Resolution A.787(19) on port state control procedures. There is consequently no reason for this principle to be called into question.

Amendment 58

Article 13, paragraph 6

6. In the event of detention, the competent authority shall immediately inform, in writing and including the report of inspection, the flag State administration or, when this is not possible, the Consul or, in his absence, the nearest diplomatic representative of that State, of all the circumstances in which intervention was deemed necessary. In addition, nominated surveyors or recognised organisations responsible for the issue of class certificates or certificates issued on behalf of the flag State in accordance with international Conventions shall also be notified where relevant.

6. In the event of detention, the competent authority shall immediately inform, in writing and including the report of inspection, the flag State administration or, when this is not possible, the Consul or, in his absence, the nearest diplomatic representative of that State, of all the circumstances in which intervention was deemed necessary. In addition, nominated surveyors or recognised organisations responsible for the issue of class certificates or statutory certificates in accordance with international Conventions shall also be notified.

Justification

The certificates issued on behalf of the flag State are statutory certificates as defined in Article 2 of this directive. Informing designated inspectors or authorised organisations is an obligation under the SOLAS Convention (Rule 19d) which must be systematically applied.

Amendment 59

Article 13, paragraph 8 a (new)

 

8a. The competent authority shall inform the port authority at its earliest convenience when a detention order is issued.

Justification

To ensure good and efficient cooperation, the competent authority must be expressly required to inform the port authority of any decision affecting its activities.

           Amendment 60

Article 14, paragraph 1

1. The owner or the operator of a ship or his representative in the Member State shall have a right of appeal against a detention decision or refusal of access taken by the competent authority. An appeal shall not cause the detention or refusal of access to be suspended.

1. The owner or the operator of a ship or his representative in the Member State shall have a right of appeal against a detention decision or refusal of access taken by the competent authority. An appeal shall not cause the detention or refusal of access to be suspended, but shall be mentioned in the inspection database.

Justification

The fact that the right of appeal against a detention or refusal of access order has been exercised is sufficiently useful and important to be mentioned in the inspection database.

Amendment 61

Article 14, paragraph 2

2. Member States shall establish and maintain appropriate procedures for this purpose in accordance with their national legislation.

2. Member States shall establish and maintain appropriate procedures for this purpose in accordance with their national legislation and shall cooperate in order to achieve coherent norms and procedures for the implementation of this Article, particularly with a view to ensuring that appeals are dealt with in a reasonable time.

Justification

The rules and procedures applicable to the right of appeal in the various Member States should be consistent, both for the sake of operators and to ensure appeals are properly dealt with. Appeals should be processed within a reasonable time in order to avoid penalising operators wishing to exercise their right of appeal.

Amendment 62

Article 14, paragraph 3

3. The competent authority shall properly inform the master of a ship referred to in paragraph 1 of the right of appeal.

3. The competent authority shall properly inform the master of a ship referred to in paragraph 1 of the right of appeal and the practical arrangements relating thereto.

Justification

The rules and procedures applicable to the right of appeal in the various Member States should be consistent and functional in practice.

Amendment 63

Article 15, paragraph 1

1. Where deficiencies as referred to in Article 13 (2) cannot be rectified in the port of inspection, the competent authority of that Member State may allow the ship concerned to proceed to the nearest available repair yard to the port of detention where follow-up action can be taken, as chosen by the master and the authorities concerned, provided that the conditions determined by the competent authority of the flag State and agreed by that Member State are complied with. Such conditions shall ensure that the ship can proceed without risk to the safety and health of passengers or crew, or risk to other ships, or without there being an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment.

1. Where deficiencies as referred to in Article 13 (2) cannot be rectified in the port of inspection, the competent authority of that Member State may allow the ship concerned to proceed directly to the nearest available repair yard to the port of detention where follow-up action can be taken, as chosen by the master and the authorities concerned, provided that the conditions determined by the competent authority of the flag State and agreed by that Member State are complied with. Such conditions shall ensure that the ship can proceed without risk to the safety and health of passengers or crew, or risk to other ships, or without there being an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment.

Justification

If a ship is authorised to leave a port to have a deficiency rectified in a repair yard, there are obvious safety reasons why it must proceed there by the direct route.

Amendment 64

Article 15, paragraph 4, introductory part

4. Member States shall take measures to ensure that access to any port within the Community is refused to ships referred to in paragraph 1 which proceed to sea:

4. Member States shall take measures to ensure that access to any port or anchorage within the Community is refused to ships referred to in paragraph 1 which proceed to sea:

Justification

Refusal of access in these conditions should also apply to anchorages. A ship having a deficiency which has been detected and has not yet been repaired is a danger to maritime safety whether it is going to another port or another anchorage.

Amendment 65

Article 15, paragraph 6

6. By way of derogation from the provisions of paragraph 4, access to a specific port may be permitted by the relevant authority of that port State in the event of force majeure or overriding safety considerations, or to reduce or minimize the risk of pollution or to have deficiencies rectified, provided that adequate measures to the satisfaction of the competent authority of such Member State have been implemented by the owner, the operator or the master of the ship to ensure safe entry.

6. By way of derogation from the provisions of paragraph 4, access to a specific port or anchorage may be permitted by the relevant authority of that port State in the event of force majeure or overriding safety considerations, or to reduce or minimize the risk of pollution or to have deficiencies rectified, provided that adequate measures to the satisfaction of the competent authority of such Member State have been implemented by the owner, the operator or the master of the ship to ensure safe entry.

Justification

The scope of the directive also covers anchorages.

Amendment 66

Article 16, paragraph 3

3. The competent authority, the inspectors carrying out port State control and the persons assisting them shall have no commercial interest either in the port of inspection or in the ships inspected, nor shall the inspectors be employed by or undertake work on behalf of non-governmental organizations which issue statutory and class certificates or which carry out the surveys necessary for the issue of those certificates to ships.

3. The competent authority, the inspectors carrying out port State control and the persons assisting them shall have no commercial interest either in the port of inspection or in the ships inspected, nor shall the inspectors be employed by or undertake work on behalf of non-governmental organizations which issue statutory and classification certificates or which carry out the surveys necessary for the issue of those certificates to ships.

Justification

Correction.

Amendment 67

Article 16, paragraph 6

6. Member States shall ensure that inspectors receive appropriate training in relation to changes to the port State control regime as laid down in this Directive and amendments to the Conventions.

6. Member States shall ensure that inspectors receive appropriate training in relation to changes to the Community port State control regime as laid down in this Directive and amendments to the Conventions.

Justification

This directive introduces changes to the Community port State control regime. Consequently, changes at international level should not be taken into account unless they are adopted at Community level and incorporated into Community maritime law.

Amendement 68

Article 17

Reports from pilots and port authorities

Reports from pilots and port authorities

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that their pilots engaged on the berthing or unberthing of ships or engaged on ships bound for a port or in transit within a Member State shall immediately inform the competent authority of the port State or the coastal State, as appropriate, whenever they learn in the course of their normal duties that there are defects which may prejudice the safe navigation of the ship, or which may pose a threat of harm to the marine environment.

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that their pilots engaged on ships bound for a port or in transit within a Member State may immediately inform the competent authority of the port State or the coastal State, as appropriate, whenever they learn in the course of their normal duties that there are anomalies/findings or apparent defects which may prejudice the safe navigation of the ship, or which may pose a threat of harm to the marine environment.

2. If port authorities, when exercising their normal duties, learn that a ship within their port has defects which may prejudice the safety of the ship or poses an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, such authority shall immediately inform the competent authority of the port State concerned.

2. If port authorities, when exercising their normal duties, learn that a ship within their port has anomalies/findings or apparent defects which may prejudice the safety of the ship or poses an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, such authority shall immediately inform the competent authority of the port State concerned.

3. Member States shall require pilots and and port authorities to use the model report in Annex XIII or that of an equivalent report, in electronic format whenever possible. Member States shall ensure that proper follow-up action is taken on defects notified by pilots and port authorities. Every year Member States shall provide the Commission with a report on the implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2, including details on action taken to follow-up defects reported by pilots and port authorities.

3. Member States shall ensure that pilots and port authorities report the following information in electronic format whenever possible:

- ship information( name, IMO number, call sign and flag)

- sailing information (port of origin, port of destination)

-description of anomalies/findings or apparent defects found on board.

 

3a. The Commission may adopt in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 24, measures for the implementing of this article, including a harmonised electronic format and procedures for the reporting of anomalies/findings or apparent defects by pilots and port authorities and of follow-up action taken by Member States.

Amendment 69

Article 18, paragraph 3 a (new)

 

3a. Each Member State shall ensure that the competent port State control authority provides port authorities with relevant information in their possession.

Justification

To ensure the system operates efficiently, there should be an explicit provision to the effect that cooperation and the exchange of information between the relevant competent authorities extends to port authorities.

Amendement 70

Article 18 a (new)

 

Article 18a

Inspection database

 

1. A database shall be established, which shall be a common database for both the European Union and the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. The Commission shall develop and maintain the inspection database, with the assistance of the European Maritime Safety Agency showing the risk profiles of ships, indicating all ships due for inspection, calculating the inspection commitment and capable of receiving ship movement data.

 

1b. The database shall also be used to classify Member States' ships in the white,grey and black lists in accordance with the method of calculation established by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down at Article 24.

 

2. The core of the system shall be the joint EU/Paris MoU requirements. However, in the case of specific EU requirements, the Community shall have full discretion to take decisions on the development and possible adaptation of the system to meet such requirements.

 

3. The inspection database shall have the capability of adapting to future developments and to interface with other Community maritime safety databases and, where appropriate, to relevant national information systems.

 

4. The inspection database shall, as appropriate, incorporate specific requirements from the Paris MoU and be capable of receiving information concerning inspections recorded by third States which are parties to the Paris MoU for the purposes of this Directive.

 

5. The inspection database shall be accessible in "read only" mode by the administrations of Members of the International Maritime Organization to bodies under their responsibility and to the parties concerned. Such access shall be dependent on a confidentiality agreement similar to that required of inspectors of Member States.

Amendment 71

Article 20

The Commission shall establish and publish every year a black-list showing the performance of ship operators and companies in accordance with the procedures and criteria laid down in Annex XV.

The Commission shall establish and publish at least once a month, on a public website, information relating to companies whose performance with a view to determining the ship risk profile as referred to in Annex II.I.1 (e) has been considered as poor or very poor for a period of three months or more.

 

The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure in Article 24, adopt the rules required to implement this Article.

Justification

Using information from the database the list can be updated in real time and thus amended frequently. The monthly frequency is indicative but ‘publication’ could be daily or weekly in practice.

As for the list, it is important that it should take account not just of companies with very low performance but also those with low performance, to encourage the latter to improve.

           Amendment 72

Article 21, paragraph 1

1. Should the inspections referred to in Articles 7 and 8 confirm or reveal deficiencies in relation to the requirements of a Convention warranting the detention of a ship, all costs relating to the inspections in any normal accounting period shall be covered by the shipowner or the operator or by his representative in the port State.

1. Should the inspections referred to in Articles 7 and 7a confirm or reveal deficiencies in relation to the requirements of a Convention warranting the detention of a ship, all costs relating to the inspections in any normal accounting period shall be covered by the shipowner or the operator or by his representative in the port State.

Justification

Consistent numbering.

Amendment 73

Article 22

Member States shall provide the Commission with the information listed in Annex XVI at the intervals stated in that Annex.

Member States shall provide the Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency with the information listed in Annex XVI at the intervals stated in that Annex.

Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the Commission has a full and unrestricted access to all data administered by the inspection database referred to in Article 18(2).

Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency have full and unrestricted access to all data administered by the inspection database referred to in Article 18(2).

Justification

Clarifies the wording. As the Agency’s task is to manage and update the database it should have access to the data from the Member States.

Amendment by Dominique Vlasto

Amendment 74

Article 24, paragraph 2, first subparagraph

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

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

Or. en

Amendment 75

Article 25, point (a)

(a) adapt the obligations referred to in Articles 5 to 17 and 19 to 22 and in the Annexes to which these Articles refer, on the basis of the experience gained from the implementation of this Directive and taking into account developments in the Paris MoU;

(a) adapt the Annexes on the basis of the experience gained from the implementation of this Directive and taking into account developments in the Paris MoU;

Justification

In view of the changes made to the articles of the proposal, which specify and lay down the provisions applicable to the Community port State control regime, the comitology procedure should be used for the purpose of adapting the annexes (and, furthermore, in cases where it is specifically mentioned in the text of the articles themselves).

Amendment 76

Article 25, point (b)

(b) adapt the Annexes in order to take into account amendments which have entered into force to the Community legislation on maritime safety and security, and to the Conventions, Protocols, codes and resolutions of relevant international organizations and to the Paris MoU;

(b) adapt the Annexes, except Annex II, in order to take into account amendments which have entered into force to the Community legislation on maritime safety and security, and to the Conventions, Protocols, codes and resolutions of relevant international organizations and to the Paris MoU;

Justification

Annex II contains all the parameters required to implement the Community port State control regime. It follows from several new articles introduced into the text, which form the heart of it. It should not therefore be modified in accordance with developments in international law and should only be altered if this directive is revised.

Amendment 77

Article 25, point (c)

(c) amend the definitions in, and update, in Article 2, the list of international Conventions which are relevant for the purposes of this Directive.

(c) amend the definitions in, and the list of international Conventions which are relevant for the purposes of this Directive.

Justification

It must be possible to amend the list of relevant international conventions and certain definitions in the light of these conventions.

Amendment 78

Article 26

Article 26

Integration of the new inspection regime into Community law

Additional measures may be adopted, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24 (2), in order to:

 

- establish the values attributed to each risk parameter; Flag State performance, elements related to classification societies and company performance should be given higher values than other criteria;

 

- determine the combination of risk parameters corresponding to each level of ship risk profile;

 

- develop criteria and procedures related to the type and scope of inspections;

 

- develop the principles and modalities related to the inspection commitments of Member States;

 

Each year, the Commission shall review the implementation of the ship risk parameters and, if appropriate, make a proposal in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) with a view to adjusting the parameters in the light of experience gained or policy objectives to be met.

 

deleted

Justification

This article is no longer necessary since the directive no longer combines elements of the existing port State control regime with new provisions; existing provisions will continue to apply until the entry into force of this directive.

Amendment 79

Article 27, title

Sanctions

Penalties

Justification

The term ‘sanctions’ is too general, and does not clarify or enhance the provisions contained in the article.

Amendment 80

Article 27

Member States shall lay down a system of sanctions for the breach of national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that those sanctions are applied. The sanctions thus provided shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Member States shall lay down a system of penalties for the breach of national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that those penalties are applied. The penalties thus provided shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

 

The Commission shall ensure that the penalties thus defined allow for uniform application of the inspection regime throughout the Community and do not create distortions between Member States.

Justification

It is important to ensure that the system of penalties under the directive has a measure of uniformity, so as to avoid distortion in different cases where the Community port state inspection regime is applied.

Amendment 81

Article 28, paragraph 1

The Commission shall review the implementation of this Directive no later than 18 months after expiry of the time limit for the transposition of this Directive. The review will examine, inter alia, the number of port State control inspectors in each Member State and the number of inspections carried out, including mandatory expanded inspections.

The Commission shall review the implementation of this Directive no later than 18 months after expiry of the time limit for the transposition of this Directive. The review will examine, inter alia, the fulfilment of the overall Community inspection commitment laid down in Article 5, the number of port State control inspectors in each Member State, the number of inspections carried out and the functioning of the fair share mechanism for missed inspections laid down in Article 5b.

Justification

In view of the changes made to the text compared to the initial recasting proposal, the review should be extended to cover these new provisions.

Amendment 82

Article 29, paragraph 1

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles […] and points […] of Annexes [….] [ articles or subdivisions thereof, and points of Annexes which have been changed as to their substance by comparison with the earlier Directive] not later than 18 months after the date fixed in Article 31. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles […] and points […] of Annexes [….] [ articles or subdivisions thereof, and points of Annexes which have been changed as to their substance by comparison with the earlier Directive] not later than 18 months after the date fixed in Article 31.

Justification

This provision is no longer justified, since the changes made to the text mean that the existing Community inspection regime will no longer coexist with the future Community inspection regime.

Amendment 83

Annex I

This annex is deleted

Justification

The new procedure for selecting ships by reference to their risk profile renders this annex superfluous.

Amendment 84

Annex II, title

Main elements of the Community Port State Inspection Regime

(as referred to in Article 5(2))

Elements of the Community Port State Inspection Regime

(as referred to in Article 5)

Justification

To ensure consistency with new Article 5.

Amendment 85

Annex II, Part I(f), sbparagraph 3

The risk profile of a ship is determined by a combination of the following parameters:

The risk profile of a ship is determined by a combination of the following generic and historic parameters:

Justification

To ensure clarity, it is appropriate to distinguish between two types of parameters, which should be combined in order to determine the ship risk profile.

Amendment 86

Annex II, Part I, section 1, title (new)

 

1. Generic parameters

 

(a) Type of ship

 

Passenger ships, oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers and bulk carriers are considered as posing a higher risk

(a) Type of ship

 

Passenger ships, oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers and bulk carriers are considered as posing a higher risk

Justification

The type and age of the ship are raw data which do not require interpretation. They are basic parameters which should be dealt with under the same point.

Amendment 87

Annex II, Part I, point (b)

(b) Age of ship

Older ships are considered as posing a higher risk.

(b) Age of ship

Ships more than 12 years old are considered as posing a higher risk.

Justification

The 12-year age limit for ships should be retained as it is in the interest of greater safety.

Amendment 88

Annex II,Part I, point (c)(iii)

(iii) Ships flying the flag of a State for which an independent audit has been carried out in accordance with the Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments which has demonstrated compliance with the relevant instruments are considered as posing a lower risk.

 

(iii) Ships flying the flag of State for which an audit has been carried out in accordance with the Framework and procedures for the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme and which has demonstrated compliance with the relevant instruments in accordance with the measures referred to in Article 6a, paragraph 3, third indent, or, until such measures have been adopted, provides evidence that a corrective action plan has been submitted, are considered as posing a lower risk.

Justification

To ensure consistency with international maritime law.

Amendment 89

Annex II, Part I, point (f)

(f) Inspection history in the European Union and Paris MOU region

2. Historical parameters

(i) Ships which have been detained more than once are considered as posing a higher risk.

(i) Ships which have been detained more than once are considered as posing a higher risk.

 

(ii) Ships which, during inspection(s) carried out within the past 36 months, have presented fewer than five deficiencies per inspection and have not been detained within the past 36 months are considered as posing a lower risk.

(ii) Ships which have not been detained within the previous 36 months and have had few deficiencies are considered as posing a lower risk.

(iii) Ships which have not been detained within the past 36 months are considered as posing a lower risk.

The risk parameters referred to in the first subparagraph shall be combined to determine the following ship risk profiles:

The risk parameters referred to in Section 1 shall be combined to determine the following ship risk profiles:

– high risk,

– high risk,

– standard risk,

– standard risk,

– low risk.

– low risk.

In determining these risk profiles greater emphasis will be given to the parameters for flag State performance, recognised organisations and company performance.

In determining these risk profiles greater emphasis shall be given to the parameters for type of ship, flag State performance, recognised organisations and company performance.

Justification

Historical parameters change depending on the ship’s maintenance and are related to the results of ship inspections within the previous 36 months (subparagraph ii as amended). So they should appear in a separate section. By combining these historical and generic parameters it is possible to determine a high, standard or low risk profile for each ship.

Amendment 90

Annex II, paragraph II, point 1, subparagraph 1

The intervals between periodic inspections shall be determined by the ship risk profile. The interval between periodic inspections of high risk ships shall not exceed 6 months. The interval between periodic inspections of ships of other risk profiles shall increase as the risk decreases.

Periodic inspections shall be carried out at predetermined intervals. Their frequency shall be determined by the ship risk profile. The interval between periodic inspections of high risk ships shall not exceed 6 months. The interval between periodic inspections of ships of other risk profiles shall increase as the risk decreases.

Member States shall carry out a periodic inspection on:

Member States shall carry out a periodic inspection on:

Justification

The frequency of inspections depends on the ship risk profile. Periodic inspections are carried out at predetermined intervals, which may not exceed six months in the case of high-risk ships.

Amendment 91

Annex II, Part II, point 1, indent 3

- Any ship with a low risk profile which has not been inspected in a port of the EU or of the Paris MoU region during the last 36 months. Low risk ships become eligible for inspection as from the 24th month.

- Any ship with a low risk profile which has not been inspected in a port of the EU or of the Paris MoU region during the last 30 months. Low risk ships become eligible for inspection as from the 24th month.

Justification

In the case of ships which become eligible for inspection as from the 24th month, a reasonable time ought to be allowed within which the inspection must take place. Six months is adequate, whereas a year is excessive.

Amendment 92

Annex II, paragraph II, point 2

2. Additional inspections

 

Ships to which the following unexpected factors apply are subject to an inspection regardless of the period since their last periodic inspection.

2. Additional inspections

 

Ships to which the following overriding or unexpected factors apply are subject to an inspection regardless of the period since their last periodic inspection.

 

2.1. Overriding factors

 

Ships to which the following overriding factors apply shall be inspected regardless of the period since their last periodic inspection:

- Ships which have been suspended or withdrawn from their class for safety reasons since the last inspection in the European Union or in the Paris MoU region.

- Ships which have been suspended or withdrawn from their class for safety reasons since the last inspection in the European Union or in the Paris MoU region.

- Ships carrying certificates issued by a formerly recognised organisation whose recognition has been withdrawn since the last inspection in the European Union or in the Paris MoU region.

 

- Ships which have been the subject of a report or notification by another Member State.

 

- Ships which cannot be identified in the inspection database.

- Ships which have been the subject of a report or notification by another Member State.

 

- Ships which cannot be identified in the inspection database.

- Ships which:

- have been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their way to the port,

- have been accused of an alleged violation of the provisions on discharge of harmful substances or effluents, or

- have manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner whereby routing measures, adopted by the IMO, or safe navigation practices and procedures have not been followed.

- Ships which:

- have been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their way to the port,

- have been accused of an alleged violation of the provisions on discharge of harmful substances or effluents, or

- have manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner whereby routing measures, adopted by the IMO, or safe navigation practices and procedures have not been followed.

 

- Ships which have failed to comply with the relevant notification requirements referred to in Article 6 of this Directive, in Directive 2000/59/EC, Directive 2002/59/EC and if appropriate in Regulation (EC) N° 725/2004.

 

- Ships which have been reported with outstanding deficiencies, except those for which deficiencies had to be rectified within 14 days after departure, or for deficiencies which had to be rectified before departure.

 

2.2. Unexpected factors

 

Ships to which the following unexpected factors apply shall be subject to inspection regardless of the period since their last periodic inspection. However, the decision to undertake such an additional inspection is left to the professional judgement of the inspector.

- otherwise been operated in such a manner as to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment, or

- Ships which have:

 

- been operated in such a manner as to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment, or

- not complied with recommendations on navigation adopted by the IMO.

- not complied with recommendations on navigation through the entrances to the Baltic Sea as given in the Annexes to Resolution MSC.138(76) of the IMO.

- ships carrying certificates issued by a formerly recognised organisation whose recognition has been withdrawn since the last inspection in the European Union or in the Paris MoU region.

- Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as having defects which may prejudice their safe navigation or pose a threat of harm to the environment in accordance with Article 17 of this Directive.

- Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as having anomalies/findings or apparent which may prejudice their safe navigation or pose a threat of harm to the environment in accordance with Article 17 of this Directive.

- Ships which have failed to comply with the relevant notification requirements referred to in Article 6 of this Directive, in Directive 2000/59/EC, Directive 2002/59/EC and if appropriate in Regulation (EC) N° 725/2004.

 

- Ships which have been the subject of a report or complaint by the master, a crew member, or any person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship, shipboard living and working conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the Member State concerned deems the report or complaint to be manifestly unfounded.

- Ships which have been the subject of a report or complaint by the master, a crew member, or any person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship, shipboard living and working conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the Member State concerned deems the report or complaint to be manifestly unfounded.

- Ships which have been previously detained more than three months ago.

- Ships which have been previously detained more than three months ago.

- Ships which have been reported with outstanding deficiencies.

 

- Ships which have been reported with problems concerning their cargo, in particular noxious and dangerous cargoes.

 

- Ships which have been operated in such a manner as to pose a danger to persons, property or to the environment.

- Ships which have been reported with problems concerning their cargo, in particular noxious and dangerous cargoes.

 

- Ships which have been operated in such a manner as to pose a danger to persons, property or to the environment.

 

- Ships where information from a reliable source became known, that their risk parameters differ from the recorded ones and the risk level is thereby increased.

(Please note that some of the bold/italics indicate old text that has been moved)

Justification

It ought to be possible to carry out additional inspections, regardless of the normal frequency of inspections, if the unexpected or overriding factors listed in this section are found to apply. In the case of unexpected factors, the decision to carry out an additional inspection is left to the professional judgement of the inspector.

Amendment 93

Annex II, Part II, point 3

3. Scope of inspections

 

Periodic and additional inspections shall include an examination of pre-identified areas for each ship which will vary according to the type of the ship, the type of inspection and the finding of previous port state controls. Periodic inspection of high risk ships and ships posing a higher risk due to their type and age, and re-inspections of ships to which a refusal of access order has been issued in accordance with Annex XII shall be more in-depth.

The inspection database will indicate the elements to identify the risk areas to be checked at each inspection.

3. Selection scheme

 

3.1. Priority I ships shall be inspected as follows:

 

(a) An expanded inspection shall be carried out on:

- any ship with a high risk profile not inspected in the previous six months,

- any passenger vessel, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a standard risk profile not inspected in the previous 15 months, and

- any passenger vessel, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a low risk profile not inspected in the previous 36 months.

 

(b) An initial or a more detailed inspection, as appropriate, shall be carried out on:

- any ship not being a passenger vessel, an oil tanker, a gas or a chemical tanker or a bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a standard risk profile not inspected in the last 12 months, and

- any ship not being a passenger vessel, an oil tanker, a gas or a chemical tanker or a bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a low risk profile not inspected in the previous 36 months

 

(c) In case of an overriding factor:

- a more detailed or an expanded inspection, according to the professional judgement of the inspector, shall be carried out on any ship with a high risk profile and on any passenger vessel, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or bulk carrier older than 15 years of age,

- a more detailed inspection shall be carried out on any other ship not being a passenger vessel, an oil tanker, a gas or a chemical tanker or a bulk carrier older than 15 years of age.

 

3.2. Priority II ships shall be inspected as follows:

 

(a) An expanded inspection may be carried out on:

- any ship with a high risk profile not inspected in the previous five months,

- any passenger vessel, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a standard risk profile not inspected in the previous ten months, and

- any passenger vessel, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a low risk profile not inspected in the previous 24 months.

 

(b) An initial or a more detailed inspection, as appropriate, may be carried out on:

- any ship not being a passenger vessel, an oil tanker, a gas or a chemical tanker or a bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a standard risk profile not inspected in the previous ten months, and

- any ship not being a passenger vessel, an oil tanker, a gas or a chemical tanker or a bulk carrier older than 15 years of age with a low risk profile not inspected in the previous 24 months

 

(c) In case of an unexpected factor:

- a more detailed or an expanded inspection, according to the professional judgement of the inspector, may be carried out on any ship with a high risk profile or any passenger vessel, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or bulk carrier older than 15 years of age,

- a more detailed inspection may be carried out on any other ship not being a passenger vessel, an oil tanker, a gas or a chemical tanker or a bulk carrier older than 15 years of age.

Justification

This section supplements the provisions laid down in the new Article 7. It distinguishes between priority I and priority II ships and lists, for each of these categories, the factors justifying an initial or, if necessary, more detailed inspection and the factors necessitating an expanded inspection. This ensures that the selection of ships is based on precise and clear criteria, which are essential if the system is to work properly.

Amendment 94

Annex II, Part III

III. INPECTION COMMITMENTS OF MEMBER STATES

 

Member States shall contribute an equitable effort towards the objective of inspecting all eligible ships calling at EU ports.

A Member State shall carry out a proportion of the total number of inspections required in the Paris MoU Region. This proportion is based on the number of individual ships calling at ports of the Member State concerned relative to the sum of the number of individual ships calling at each Member State.

In addition the compliance of Member States with the above objective shall be evaluated in the light of the number of missed periodic inspections.

A mechanism shall be developed, as appropriate, for a fair sharing of the inspections between Member States.

deleted

Justification

These provisions are incorporated in the new Articles 5a and 5b.

Amendment 95

Annexe IIa (new), Design of Ship Risk Profile

 

Profile

High Risk Ship (HRS)

Standard Risk Ship (SRS)

Low Risk Ship (LRS)

Generic Parameters

Criteria

Weighting points

Criteria

Criteria

 

 

1

 

 

Type of ship

Chemical tankship

Gas Carrier

Oil tankship

Bulk carrier

Passenger ship

 

 

2

neither a high risk nor a low risk ship

 

 

All types

2

Age of ship

all types > 12 y

1

All ages

 

 

3a

Flag

 

 

BGW-list

Black - VHR, HR,

M to HR

2

 

 

White

Black - MR

1

3b

IMO-Audit

-

-

Yes

 

 

 

4a

Recognized

Organisation

 

Performance

H

-

-

High

M

-

-

-

L

Low

1

-

VL

Very Low

-

4b

EU recognised

-

-

Yes

 

 

5

Company

Performance

H

-

-

High

M

-

-

-

L

Low

 

2

-

VL

Very low

 

-

Historic parameters

 

 

 

 

 

6

Number of def. recorded in each insp. within previous 36 months

Deficiencies

Not eligible

 

 

 

-

 

 

≤ 5 (and at least one inspection carried out in previous 36 months)

 

 

7

Number of Detention within previous 36 months

Detentions

≥ 2 detentions

1

 

No

detention

HRS are ships which meet criteria to a total value of 5 or more weighting points.

LRS are ships which meet all the criteria of the Low Risk Parameters.

SRS are ships which are neither HRS nor LRS

Justification

Ship risk profile table approved by the Commission, the Council and the Paris MOU.

Amendment by Dominique Vlasto

Amendment 96

Annex III

ANNEX III

ANNEX III

Notification
(as referred to in Article 6)

Notification

 

Information to be provided in accordance with Article 6(2)

1. The operator, agent or master of a ship eligible for an expanded inspection in accordance with Article 8(1) bound for a port or anchorage of a Member State shall notify the information listed below to the port authority or to the authority or body designated for that purpose at least three days before the expected time of arrival in the port or anchorage or before leaving the previous port or anchorage if the voyage is expected to take fewer than three days:

The information listed below shall be submitted to the port authority or to the authority or body designated for that purpose at least three days before the expected time of arrival in the port or anchorage or before leaving the previous port or anchorage if the voyage is expected to take fewer than three days:

(a) ship identification (name, call sign, IMO identification number or MMSI number);

(a) ship identification (name, call sign, IMO identification number or MMSI number);

(b) planned duration of the call;

(b) planned duration of the call and list of Community ports successively visited on the same voyage;

(c) for tankers:

(c) for tankers:

(i) configuration: single hull, single hull with SBT, double hull;

(i) configuration: single hull, single hull with SBT, double hull;

(ii) condition of the cargo and ballast tanks: full, empty, inerted;

(ii) condition of the cargo and ballast tanks: full, empty, inerted;

(iii) volume and nature of the cargo;

(iii) volume and nature of the cargo;

(d) planned operations at the port or anchorage of destination (loading, unloading, other);

(d) planned operations at the port or anchorage of destination (loading, unloading, other);

(e) planned statutory survey inspections and substantial maintenance and repair work to be carried out whilst in the port or anchorage of destination;

(e) planned statutory survey inspections and substantial maintenance and repair work to be carried out whilst in the port or anchorage of destination;

(f) date of last expanded inspection in the Paris MOU.

(f) date of last expanded inspection in the Paris Memorandum of Understanding.

2. The operators, agents or masters of other ships bound for a port of a Member State shall notify their arrival in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2002/59/EC.

 

3. On receipt of the information listed above, the relevant port authority or body shall forward such information to the port State control competent authority. Electronic means shall be used whenever possible.

 

4. The procedures and formats developed by the Member States for the purposes of this Annex shall comply with the relevant provisions laid down in Directive 2002/59/EC regarding ships’ notifications.

 

Justification

To be consistent with Article 6 as amended, which contains the provisions deleted here.

Amendment 97

Annex V, title

EXAMPLES OF “CLEAR GROUNDS” FOR A MORE DETAILED INSPECTION

(as referred to in Article 7(3))

EXAMPLES OF “CLEAR GROUNDS” FOR A MORE DETAILED INSPECTION

(as referred to in Article 7(2))

Justification

To ensure consistency with the amended version of Article 8.

Amendment 98

Annex V, point 1

1. Ships identified in Annex I, Part B.I and Part B.II, paragraphs II-3, II-4, II-5b, II-5c and II-8

1. Ships identified in Annex II 3A and 3B.

Justification

To ensure consistency with the amended version of Annex II.

Amendment 99

ANNEX VII, Point A, paragraph 1

1. This guidance applies only to ships mentioned in articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 725/2004, as long as they do not fly the flag of the port state of inspection.

1. This guidance applies only to ships mentioned in Articles 3(1) and 3(2) and, where appropriate, 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 725/2004, as long as they do not fly the flag of the port state of inspection.

Justification

To be consistent with Article 9.2 as amended.

Amendment 100

Annex VIII, title

PROCEDURES FOR EXPANDED INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS

(as referred to in Article 8)

PROCEDURES FOR EXPANDED INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS

(as referred to in Article 7a)

Justification

To ensure consistency with the proposed new Article 8.

Amendment 101

Annex VIII, paragraph A

A. MEASURES TO FACILITATE THE CONDUCT OF AN EXPANDED INSPECTION

 

On reception of a pre-notification provided by a ship eligible for an expanded inspection, the competent authority shall inform the ship without delay whether or not an expanded inspection will be carried out.

The operator or master of the ship shall ensure that sufficient time is available in the operating schedule to allow the expanded inspection to be carried out.

Without prejudice to control measures required for security purposes the ship shall remain in the port or anchorage until the inspection is completed.

deleted

Justification

To ensure consistency with the new Article 8(3).

Amendment 102

Annex VIII, paragraph B

B. Categories of ships subject to expanded inspection (as referred to in Article 8(1))

1. Gas and chemical tankers older than 12 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

2. Bulk carriers older than 12 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

3. Oil tankers with a gross tonnage of more than 3 000 gt and older than 12 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

4. Passenger ships older than 12 years of age other than the passenger ships referred to in Article 2(a) and (b) of Council Directive 1999/35/EC.

deleted

Justification

To ensure consistency with the new Annex II, part 3.

Amendment 103

Annex VIII, paragraph C, title

C. PROCEDURES RELATING TO EXPANDED INSPECTION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF SHIPS (as referred to in Article 8(4))

C. PROCEDURES RELATING TO EXPANDED INSPECTION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF SHIPS

Justification

To ensure consistency with Article 8 and Annex II; this reference has become superfluous.

Amendment 104

Annex X, paragraph 1, point 13

13. Name and address of the ship's owner or the operator

13. Name and address of the ship's company or the operator

Justification

It would be more appropriate to use the defined term ‘company’ than the term ‘owner’.

Amendment 105

Annex XIII

ANNEX XIII

Report from Pilot or Port Authority to Port State or Coastal State.

(as referred to in Article 17(1))

deleted

Justification

To ensure consistency with the changes made to Article 17, which lists the minimum information to be supplied in these reports and calls on the Commission, using the comitology procedure, to propose, in the light of experience, a harmonised electronic format for the reports.

Amendment 106

Annex XV

ANNEX XV

Blacklist of operators and companies

(as referred to in Article 20)

 

The blacklist of operators and companies shall include the name and address of :

 

– ship operators and companies operating a ship or ships that have been refused access in a port of a Member State during the last 12 months;

 

– ship operators or companies operating a fleet in which more than one ship has been detained in a port of a Member State during the last 12 months;

 

– ship operators or companies with one ship detained more than once in a port of a Member State during the last 12 months.

deleted

Justification

To ensure consistency with the changes made to Article 20. The black list of under-performing companies will be based on the risk profile of the ships operated, as indicated in Annex II.1.

(1)

Not yet published in OJ.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1. General context: why is Directive 95/21/EC being recast?

Directive 95/21/EC is concerned with an essential element of maritime safety: port State control, in other words the inspection of ships entering a European Union port.

Since flag State control does not provide adequate safeguards with regard to the state of certain vessels, port State control has become a supplementary but essential means of identifying sub-standard ships and obliging them to comply with international and Community navigation rules and standards.

Directive 92/21/EC was revised following the 'Erika' disaster in December 1999. In December 2002, following the sinking of the 'Prestige', the Council asked the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, a proposal to strengthen port State control procedures.

On 27 April 2004, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in the light of the work of the Temporary Committee on Improving Safety at Sea (MARE Committee) which called for better and more frequent inspections of ships in European Union ports.

The recast directive proposed by the Commission was requested by both Parliament and Council. It is also designed to consolidate the directive on port State control, a system which has undergone many changes both at Community and at international level, particularly in the context of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU Paris).

2. Summary of the proposal and Commission intentions

Your rapporteur considers that, by proposing to recast Directive 95/21/EC, the Commission has a triple objective in mind:

- making port State control more effective by targeting sub-normal ships and improving the way the control regime is applied at Community ports and anchorages;

- simplifying, clarifying, and updating a directive which has gradually become more complex and cumbersome because of the increasing number of requirements imposed on mandatory inspections in ports;

- taking account of recent legislative developments in the European Union and the work in progress in connection with the Paris Memorandum of Understanding.

To attain this triple objective, the Commission proposes a number of major changes:

· The proposal introduces a new inspection regime which would no longer be based on the quantitative threshold of 25% of ships inspected by Member State, but on the collective objective of inspecting all ships calling at Union ports and anchorages, with more frequent inspections for high-risk ships. Individual risk profiles would be established for each ship by reference to a combination of precise parameters.

· The Commission also introduces a number of changes to the inspection regime, which would include three types of inspection: initial, detailed and expanded.

· The recast directive introduces inspection procedures laid down by the Paris Memorandum with regard to the safety of ships and port installations.

· The text introduces new provisions on refusal of access to Community ports.

· The Commission also tightens up the criteria for inspectors by specifying the requirements as regards inspectors’ professional profile, in other words their qualifications and competence.

· The proposal also reinforces the notification obligations incumbent on pilots and extends to deep-sea pilots the obligation to report defects.

· Finally, the recast proposal provides for a blacklist of companies to be drawn up.

3. Position of the rapporteur

Your rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s plans and largely endorses its aim of simplifying and improving the effectiveness of port State control.

However, your rapporteur was surprised at the method chosen by the Commission, namely recasting the directive. This approach does not really seem to allow the Commission to achieve all its objectives, as the scope of the proposed recasting seems to be too limited.

In agreement with the Commission, and after preliminary consultations with the Council, your rapporteur supports a more ambitious recasting of Directive 95/21/EC.

Consequently, your rapporteur proposes a text which departs considerably from the original proposal so as to make it possible to:

· simplify the structure of the proposal and make it more coherent;: in particular, the proposal no longer provides for the provisions of the existing inspection regime to co-exist with those of the future regime, a change which requires the deletion, inter alia, of Article 26 and Annex 1;

· clarify several articles of the text, and in particular the following articles:

- 5 (on the inspection regime),

- 5a (new, on Member States’ compliance with inspection objectives),

- 6a (new, on ship risk profiles),

- 6b (new, on frequency of inspections),

- 7 (new, on the selection of ships for inspection),

- 8 (new, on the various types of inspection),

- 9 (new, on compliance with general Community guidelines and the Paris Memorandum),

- 18a (new, on the inspection database);

· limit the use of the comitology procedure to the area to which it is normally confined, by excluding articles from its scope but providing for it to be used to update annexes in the light of changes in practice and Community and international maritime law;

· describe more precisely the future inspection database, which is crucial for the success of the future inspection regime;

· strengthen and clarify the link between the Community inspection regime and the Paris Memorandum inspection regime.

Your rapporteur considers that this text provides a much better basis for the first reading.

However, further amendments might prove necessary to take account of developments in the discussions with the Commission and the Council, and also in the context of the Paris Memorandum.

Your rapporteur considers, however, that regardless of the outcome of the Paris Memorandum proceedings, it is essential for this recast directive to be accepted and adopted by the Member States. The many changes made to the text clarify the link with the Paris Memorandum and make it possible to ensure a greater degree of convergence with the latter. It is essential, therefore, that the Council make the adoption of this recast directive a priority. With a clear and strong text such as the one proposed by your rapporteur, there are no longer any valid reasons for waiting for the definitive conclusion of the Paris Memorandum proceedings before adopting this directive.

It is possible that a certain number of technical points - relating to such matters as the application of the inspection regime at anchorages, rules on lodging and dealing with complaints, the drawing up of a blacklist of under-performing shipping companies and inspection procedures - will need to be clarified further.

Your rapporteur will continue her consultations, therefore, and does not rule out the possibility of submitting additional amendments at a later date, to ensure that the recast directive provides a solid and clear basis for a Community port State control regime.


PROCEDURE

Title

Port State control (recast version)

References

COM(2005)0588 - C6-0028/2006 - 2005/0238(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

23.11.2005

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

TRAN

1.2.2006

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Dominique Vlasto

28.3.2006

 

 

Discussed in

19.4.2006

13.9.2006

22.11.2006

23.1.2007

Date adopted

26.2.2007

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:+:

–:

0:0:

46

0

0

Members present for the final vote

Gabriele Albertini, Inés Ayala Sender, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, 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

Date tabled

27.3.2007

Last updated: 13 April 2007Legal notice