POROČILO o predlogu Sklepa Sveta ki pooblašča države članice, da v interesu Evropske skupnosti ratificirajo konvencijo Mednarodne organizacije dela o osebnih dokumentih pomorščakov (Konvencija št. 185)

10.2.2005 - (KOM(2004)0530 – C6‑0167/2004 – 2004/0180(CNS)) - *

Odbor za svoboščine in pravice državljanov, pravosodje in notranje zadeve
Poročevalec: Ioannis Varvitsiotis

OSNUTEK ZAKONODAJNE RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA

o predlogu Sklepa Sveta ki pooblašča države članice, da v interesu Evropske skupnosti ratificirajo konvencijo Mednarodne organizacije dela o osebnih dokumentih pomorščakov (Konvencija št. 185)

(KOM(2004)0530 – C6‑0167/2004 – 2004/0180(CNS))

(Postopek posvetovanja)

Evropski parlament,

–   ob upoštevanju predloga sklepa Sveta (KOM(2004)0530)[1],

–   ob upoštevanju člena 62(2)(b) in (i) in člena 300(2), prvi pododstavek, prvi stavek Pogodbe ES,

–   ob upoštevanju prvega pododstavka člena 300(3) Pogodbe ES, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom (C6‑0167/2004),

–   ob upoštevanju členov 51 in 83(7) svojega Poslovnika,

–   ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za svoboščine in pravice državljanov, pravosodje in notranje zadeve (A6‑0037/2005),

1.  odobri sklenitev sporazuma;

2.  naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj stališče Parlamenta posreduje Svetu in Komisiji ter vladam in parlamentom držav članic.

• [1]  Še neobjavljeno v UL.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

International Labour Organisation Convention No 185

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 185 (revised) concerning seafarers’ identification documents aims to improve the system of identifying seafarers by simplifying the formalities involved in going ashore in countries of which they are not nationals. To achieve that objective, the Convention lays down certain rules on visas for seafarers taking shore leave. The Convention also refers to the entry of seafarers into Member States’ territory, in particular in the event of transit, transfer or repatriation. Its ultimate objective is flexibility and security, notably through the introduction of biometric data.

The Convention was adopted by the Member States on 19 June 2003 at the General Conference of the ILO. The Commission took part in the negotiations as an observer, though only the Member States may accede to the Convention.

Three countries have ratified the Convention to date: France on 27 April 2004, Jordan on 8 August 2004, and Nigeria on 18 August 2004.

Subject of the proposal for a Council Decision

According to Title IV of the EC Treaty entitled ‘Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons’, policy on visas, of both short and long duration, falls within the Community’s competence. Article 62(2)(b)(i) establishes, in particular, that measures concerning the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement fall within the competence of the European Community.

Article 6(6) of the revised ILO Convention, which provides that ‘For the purpose of shore leave seafarers shall not be required to hold a visa’, incontestably falls within the scope of Title IV of the Treaty.

However, following the Court of Justice’s judgment on the AETR (European Agreement Concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in International Road Transport ) concerning external competences where the Community has already exercised a competence conferred on it by the Treaty, Member States are no longer free, on their own initiative, to ratify an international agreement which concerns those competences.

In the case in question, the Community has already exercised its competence in this field by adopting Council Regulation (EC) No 539/001 of 15 March 2001[1] listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

For that reason, the Commission proposes that the Council should authorise those Member States which are bound by Community rules in this particular area to ratify the Convention in the interests of the Community.

The rapporteur’s position

Your rapporteur fully endorses the objective of the Convention. Nevertheless, after having reviewed the matter, he would make two specific observations.

The first is that although the Convention touches on the visa requirement, since Article 6(6) thereof stipulates that 'For the purpose of shore leave seafarers shall not be required to hold a visa' it does not entail any amendment of the corresponding Community instrument. The instrument in question, namely Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement expressly states in Article 4(1)(b) that ‘A Member State may provide for exceptions from the visa requirement […] as regards […] (b) civilian air and sea crew’. The question which your rapporteur poses is whether, under these circumstances, Member States actually need the Council’s authorisation to ratify ILO Convention No 185. France clearly does not share that view since it has decided on its own initiative to ratify the Convention, which will enter into force in February 2005[2]. In any case, the symbolic value which the Commission would like to confer on such authorisation, and which would be strengthened by simultaneous ratification by all the Member States, confirming in the eyes of the rest of the world ‘the importance the Community attaches to the Convention’[3], has now been greatly diminished as the Council has decided to remove Article 2 of its Decision.

Secondly, your rapporteur can only express his surprise at the decision taken a year ago to enter biometric data on seafarers’ identity cards. This issue has given rise to numerous questions and continues to do so.

Article 3(8) of the Convention stipulates that seafarers’ identity documents shall include, in addition to particulars such as name, sex, date and place of birth, nationality, special physical characteristics, a digital or original photograph and signature, ‘a template or other representation of a biometric of the holder which meets the specification provided for in Annex I.’

Annex I then defines this template for seafarers’ identity documents. As regards the biometric data, the model chosen is a ‘biometric template based on a fingerprint printed as numbers in a bar code conforming to a standard to be developed.’[4] However, in a document published in November last by the committee set up under Article 6 of Regulation 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas, your rapporteur read on the subject of the practical feasibility of including biometric identifiers in standardised visas and residence permits for third country nationals and in passports and travel documents issued by the Member States, that ‘owing to its limited storage capacity, the bar code does not comply with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards’, which constitute the reference point on that subject. Moreover, a note from the delegation of a Member State to the working party on visas draws attention to the fact that the biometric rules applied to seafarers’ identity documents, as conceived by the International Labour Organisation, are not consistent with ICAO standards, which had already been clearly established by ICAO’s technical advisory group in Montreal in May 2004. However, in the ‘proposal for a regulation laying down standards for security features and the use of biometric data in passports and other travel documents issued by Member States’, the Council points out that the ICAO’s specifications, in particular those contained in document 9303 concerning machine readable travel documents, will have to be taken into account.

It would appear, therefore, that there is a gap, at the technical level, between the rules applied to seafarers’ identity documents on the basis of the ILO Convention and the rules applied to travel documents issued by Member States. This difference would logically entail having different equipment to manufacture and read one or other type of document. Your rapporteur would query the advisability of such measures as well as their financial implications. In his view, greater coherence would be desirable in such a complex and sensitive area.

Nevertheless, it is the Member States which bear responsibility for carrying out their obligations and assuming the financial implications of their decisions. On that point, therefore, your rapporteur sees no obstacle to ratification of the Convention.

• [1]  OJ L 081, 21.03.2001, amended by Council Regulations (EC) Nos. 2414/2001 of 7 December 2001 and
  453/2003 of 6 March 2003.
• [2]  See http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/french/convdisp1.htm. Article 12 of the Convention states:
  ‘1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organization whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.
  2. It shall come into force six months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.’
• [3]  See COM(2004)530 final, Explanatory Memorandum, paragraphs 17 and 23.
• [4]  Annex I, III (k) of Convention No 185.

POSTOPEK

Naslov	Predlog Sklepa Sveta ki pooblašča države članice, da v interesu Evropske skupnosti ratificirajo konvencijo Mednarodne organizacije dela o osebnih dokumentih pomorščakov (Konvencija št. 185)
Referenčni dokumenti	KOM(2004)0530 – C6–0167/2004 -2004/0180(CNS)
Pravna podlaga	člen 300(3), prvi pododstavek, ES
Podlaga v Poslovniku	člena 51 in 83(7)
Datum posvetovanja s Parlamentom	29.10.2004
Pristojni odbor    Datum razglasitve na zasedanju	LIBE 16.11.2004
Odbori, zaprošeni za mnenje           Datum razglasitve na zasedanju	TRAN 16.11.2004	EMPL 16.11.2004
Odbori, ki niso dali mnenja              datum sklepa	TRAN 29.9.2004	EMPL 20.9.2004
Okrepljeno sodelovanje    Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Poročevalec(-ka) Datum imenovanja	Ioannis Varvitsiotis 5.10.2004
Prejšnji poročevalec
Poenostavljeni postopek    datum sklepa
Oporekanje pravni podlagi               datum mnenja JURI		/
Popravek finančne ocene sredstev  datum mnenja BUGD		/
Posvetovanje z Ekonomsko-socialnim odborom   Datum sklepa na zasedanju
Posvetovanje z Odborom regij         Datum sklepa na zasedanju
Obravnava v odboru	19.1.2005	1.2.2005
Datum sprejetja	1.2.2005
Izid končnega glasovanja	za: proti: vzdržani:		43 0 0
Poslanci, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju	Alexander Nuno Alvaro, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Johannes Blokland, Mario Borghezio, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Michael Cashman, Giusto Catania, Charlotte Cederschiöld, Carlos Coelho, António Costa, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Rosa Díez González, Antoine Duquesne, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Adeline Hazan, Lívia Járóka, Timothy Kirkhope, Ewa Klamt, Ole Krarup, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Edith Mastenbroek, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Hartmut Nassauer, Bogdan Pęk, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Manfred Weber, Stefano Zappala, Tatjana Ždanoka
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju	Frederika Brepoels, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Camiel Eurlings, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sophia in 't Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Vincent Peillon, Herbert Reul, Marie-Line Reynaud, Jan Zahradil
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju v skladu s členom 178(2)
Datum predložitve – A6	10.2.2005			A6-0037/2005
Pripombe	...