1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/21/EC
of 19 June 1995
concerning the enforcement, in respect of shippingusing Community ports and sailing in the waters
under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution
prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
(OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
Nopage date
►M1Council Directive 98/25/EC of 27 April 1998 L 133 19 7.5.1998
►M2Commission Directive 98/42/EC of 19 June 1998 L 184 40 27.6.1998
►M3Commission Directive 1999/97/EC of 13 December 1999 L 331 67 23.12.1999
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 291, 14.11.1996, p. 42 (95/21)
▼B
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/21/EC
of 19 June 1995
concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Commu-
nity ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of theMember States, of international standards for ship safety, pollutionprevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State
control)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and
in particular Article 84 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),
Acting in accordance with Article 189c of the Treaty(3),
Whereas the Community is seriously concerned about shipping
casualties and pollution of the seas and coastlines of the Member States;
Whereas the Community is equally concerned about on-board living and
working conditions;
Whereas the Council, at its meeting on 25 January 1993, adopted
conclusions that urged the Community and the Member States to ensure
more effective application and enforcement of adequate international
maritime safety and environment protection standards and to implementthe new measures when adopted;
Whereas, in its resolution of 8 June 1993 on a common policy on safe
seas(
4), the Council urged the Commission to submit as soon as possible
to the Council suggestions for specific action and formal proposalsconcerning criteria for the inspection of ships, including the harmoniza-tion of detention rules, and including the possibility of publication of theresults of the inspections and refusal of access to Community ports;
Whereas safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working
conditions may be effectively enhanced through a drastic reduction ofsubstandard ships from Community waters, by strictly applyinginternational Conventions, codes and resolutions;
Whereas monitoring the compliance of ships with the international
standards for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living andworking conditions should rest primarily with the flag State; whereas,however, there is a serious failure on the part of an increasing number offlag States to implement and enforce international standards; whereas
henceforth the monitoring ofcompliance withthe international standards
for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and workingconditions has also to be ensured by the port State;
Whereas a harmonized approach to the effective enforcement of these
international standards by the Member States in respect of ships sailing
in the waters under their jurisdiction and using their ports will avoiddistortions of competition;
Whereas a framework in Community law for harmonizing inspection
procedures is fundamental to ensuring the homogeneous application of
the principles of shipping safety and prevention of pollution which lie atthe heart of Community transport and environment policies;
Whereas pollution of the seas is by nature a trans-boundary
phenomenon; whereas, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 2
(1)OJ No C 107, 15. 4. 1994, p. 14 and OJ NoC 347, 8. 12. 1944, p. 15.
(2) OJ No393, 31. 12. 1994, p. 50.
(3) Opinion of the European Parliament of 27 October 1994 (OJ No C 347, 8. 12.
1994, p. 15), Council common position of 14 March 1995 (OJ No C 93, 13. 4.
1995, p. 25) and European Parliament Decision of 18 May 1995 (not yet
published in the Official Journal) (SIC! OJ No C 151, 19. 6. 1995, p. 227).
(4) OJ NoC 271, 7. 10. 1993, p. 1.
▼B
the development of the means of taking preventive action in this field as
regards the seas adjacent tothe Member States is best do ne atCommunity level, since Member States cannot take adequate and
effective action in isolation;
Whereas the adoption of a Council Directive is the appropriate
procedure for laying down the legal framework and the harmonized
rules and criteria for port State control;
Whereas advantage should be taken of the experience gained during the
operation of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on PortState Control (PSC), signed in Paris on 26 January 1982;
Whereas the inspection by each Member State of at least 25% of the
number of individual foreign ships which enter its ports in a given yearin practice means that a large number of ships operating within the
Community area at any given time have undergone an inspection;
Whereas further efforts should be made to develop a better targeting
system;
Whereas the rules and procedures for port-State inspections, including
criteria for the detention of ships, must be harmonized to ensureconsistent effectiveness in all ports, which would also drastically reducethe selective use of certain ports of destination to avoid the net of propercontrol;
Whereas the casualty, detention and deficiency statistics published in the
Commission's communication entitled ‘A common policy on safe seas’and in the annual report of the MOU show that certain categories of
ships need tobe subject toan expanded inspectio n;
Whereas non-compliance with the provisions of the relevant Conven-
tions must be rectified; whereas ships which are required to takecorrective action must, where the deficiencies in compliance are clearly
hazardous to safety, health or the environment, be detained until such
time as the non-compliance has been rectified;
Whereas a right of appeal should be made available against decisions for
detention taken by the competent authorities, in order to prevent
unreasonable decisions which are liable to cause undue detention and
delay;
Whereas the facilities in the port of inspection may be such that the
competent authority will be obliged to authorize the ship to proceed to
an appropriate repair yard, provided that the conditions for the transferare complied with; whereas non-complying shipswould continue to posea threat to safety, health or the environment and to enjoy commercialadvantages by not being upgraded in accordance with the relevantprovisions of the Conventions and should therefore be refused access to
all ports in the Community;
Whereas there are circumstances where a ship which has been refused
access to ports within the Community has to be granted permission to
enter; whereas under such circumstances the ship should only be
permitted access to a specific port if all precautions are taken to ensure itsafe entry;
Whereas, given the complexity of the requirements of the Conventions
as regards a ship's construction, equipment and manning, the severe
consequences of the decisions taken by the inspectors, and the necessityfor the inspectors to take completely impartial decisions, inspectionsmust be carried out only by inspectors who are duly authorized publicservice employees or other such persons, and highly knowledgeable andexperienced;
Whereas pilots and port authorities may be able to provide useful
information on the deficiencies of such ships and crews;
Whereas cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member
States and other authorities or organizations is necessary to ensure aneffective follow-up with regard to ships with deficiencies which havebeen permitted to proceed and for the exchange of information aboutships in port;1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 3
▼B
Whereas the information system called Sirenac E established under the
MOU provides a large amount of the additional information needed forthe application of this Directive;
Whereas publication of information concerning ships which do not
comply with international standards on safety, health and protection ofthe marine environment, may be an effective deterrent discouragingshippers touse such ships, and an incentive totheir o wners totakecorrective action without being compelled to do so;
Whereas all costs of inspecting ships which warrant detention should be
borne by the owner or the operator;
Whereas for the purposes of implementing this Directive use should be
made of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 12 of Council
Directive 93/75/EEC of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum
requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports andcarrying dangerous or polluting goods(
1) in order to assist the
Commission with the task of adapting Member States' inspectionobligations on the basis of experience gained, taking into accountdevelopments in the MOU, and also adopting the Annexes as necessary
in the light of amendments to the Conventions, Protocols, codes and
resolutions of relevant international bodies and to the MOU,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Purpose
The purpose of this Directive is to help drastically to reduce substandard
shipping in the waters under the jurisdiction of Member States by:
— increasing compliance with international and relevant Community
legislation on maritime safety, protection of the marine environmentand living and working conditions on board ships of all flags,
— establishing common criteria for control of ships by the port State
and harmonizing procedures on inspection and detention, takingproper account of the commitments made by the maritime authorities
of the Member States under the Paris Memorandum of Under-
standing on Port State Control (MOU).
Article 2
Definitions
For the purpose of this Directive including its Annexes:
1. ‘Conventions ’ means:
— the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (LL 66),
— the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
(Solas 74),
— the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships, 1973, and the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (Marpol73/78),
— the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certifi-
cation and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STEW 78),
— the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea, 1972 (Colreg 72),
— the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships,
1969 and
— the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976
(ILO No147),
together with the Protocols and amendments to these Conventions
and related codes of mandatory status, ►
M3in force on 1 July
1999◄.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 4
(1) OJ NoL 247, 5. 10. 1993, p. 19.
▼B
2. ‘MOU’ means the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State
Control, signed in Paris on 26 January 1982, ►M3as it stands on 1
July 1999 ◄.
3. ‘Ship’ means any seagoing vessel to which one or more of the
Conventions apply, flying a flag other than that of the port State.
4. ‘Off-shore installation ’ means a fixed or floating platform operating
on or over the continental shelf of a Member State.
5. ‘Inspector ’ means a public-sector employee or other person, duly
authorized by the competent authority of a Member State to carry
out port-State control inspections, and responsible to that competent
authority.
6. ‘Inspection ’ means a visit on board a ship in order to check both the
validity of the relevant certificates and other documents and the
condition of the ship, its equipment and crew, as well as the livingand working conditions of the crew.
7. ‘More detailed inspection ’ means an inspection where the ship, its
equipment and crew as a whole or, as appropriate, parts thereof aresubjected, in the circumstances specified in Article 6 (3), toan in-depth inspection covering the ship's construction, equipment,
manning, living and working conditions and compliance with on-
board operational procedures.
8. ‘Expanded inspection ’ means an inspection as specified in Article 7.
9. ‘Detention ’ means the formal prohibition of a ship to proceed to sea
due to established deficiencies which, individually or together, make
the ship unseaworthy.
10. ‘Stoppage of an operation ’ means a formal prohibition of a ship to
continue an operation due to established deficiencies which,
individually or together, would render the continued operationhazardous.
Article 3
Scope
1. This Directive applies toany ship and its crew:
— calling at a port of a Member State or at an off-shore installation, or
— anchored off such a port or such an installation.
Nothing in this Article shall affect the rights of intervention available to
a Member State under the relevant international Conventions.
2. In case of ships of a gross tonnage below 500, Member States shall
apply those requirements of a relevant Convention which are applicableand shall, to the extent that a Convention does not apply, take suchaction as may be necessary to ensure that the ships concerned are not
clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment. In their
application of this paragraph, Member States shall be guided by Annex1 tothe MOU.
3. When inspecting a ship flying the flag of a State which is not a
party to a Convention, Member States shall ensure that the treatment
given to suchship and its crew is nomore favourable than that given to a
ship flying the flag of a State which is a party to that Convention.
4. Fishing vessels, ships of war, naval auxiliaries, wooden ships of a
primitive build, government ships used for non-commercial purposes
and pleasure yachts not engaged in trade shall be excluded from the
scope of this Directive.
Article 4
Inspection body
Member States shall maintain appropriate national maritime adminis-
trations, hereinafter called ‘competent authorities’, for the inspection ofships and shall take whatever measures are appropriate to ensure thattheir competent authorities perform their duties as laid down in thisDirective.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 5
▼B
Article 5
Inspection commitments
1. The competent authority of each Member Sate shall carry out an
annual total number of inspections corresponding to at least 25% of thenumber of individual ships which entered its ports during a
representative calendar year.
2. In selecting ships for inspection the competent authority shall give
overriding priority to the ships referred to in Annex I, Part I. Indetermining the order of priority for inspection of the other ships listedin Annex I, the competent authority shall use the ship's overall target
factor referred to in Annex I, Part II.
3. Member States shall refrain from inspecting ships which have been
inspected by any Member State within the previous six months, providedthat:
— the ship is not listed in Annex I, and
— no deficiencies have been reported, following a previous inspection,
and
— no clear grounds exist for carrying out an inspection.
4. The provisions of paragraph 3 shall not apply to any of the
operational controls specifically provided for in the Conventions.
5. The Member States and the Commission shall cooperate in seeking
to develop priorities and practices which will enable ships likely to be
defective tobe targeted mo re effectively.
Any consequent amendment of this Article, except to the figure of 25%
in paragraph 1, shall be made under the provisions of Article 19.
Article 6
Inspection procedure
1. The competent authority shall ensure that the inspector shall as a
minimum:
(a) check the certificates and documents listed in Annex II, to the extent
applicable;
(b) satisfy himself of the overall condition of the ship, including the
engine room and accommodation and including hygienic conditions.
2. The inspector may examine all relevant certificates and docu-
ments, other than those listed in Annex II, which are required to becarried on board in accordance with the Conventions.
3. Whenever there are clear grounds for believing, after the
inspection referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, that the condition of aship or of its equipment or crew does not substantially meet the relevantrequirements of a Convention, a more detailed inspection shall be
carried out, including further checking of compliance with on-board
operational requirements.
‘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 III.4. The relevant procedures and guidelines for the control of ships
specified in Annex IV shall alsobe o bserved.
Article 7
Expanded inspection of certain ships
1. Where there are clear grounds for a detailed inspection of a ship
belonging to the categories listed in Annex V, Member States shallensure that an expanded inspection is carried out.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 6
▼M2
▼B
▼B
2. Annex V, section B, contains non-mandatory guidelines for
expanded inspection.
3. The ships referred toin paragraph 1 shall be subject toan
expanded inspection by any of the competent authorities of the MemberStates only once during a period of 12 months. However, these shipsmay be subject to the inspection provided for in Article 6 (1) and (2).
4. In the case of passenger ships operating on a regular schedule in or
out of a port in a Member State, an expanded inspection of each shipshall be carried out by the competent authority of that Member State.
When a passenger ship operates such a schedule between ports in
Member States, one of the States between which the ship is operatingshall undertake the expanded inspection.
Article 8
Report of inspection to the master
1. On completion of an inspection, a more detailed inspection, or an
expanded inspection, the master of the ship shall be provided by theinspector with a document in the form specified in Annex 3 to the MOU,giving the results of the inspection and details of any decisions taken bythe inspector, and of corrective action to be taken by the master, owner
or operator.
2. In the case of deficiencies warranting the detention of a ship, the
do cument tobe given tothe master in acco rdance with paragraph 1 shall
include information about the future publication of the detention order in
accordance with the provisions of this Directive.
Article 9
Rectification and detention
1. The competent authority shall be satisfied that any deficiencies
confirmed or revealed by the inspection referred to in Articles 6 and 7are or will be rectified in accordance with the Conventions.
2. In the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety,
health or the environment, the competent authority of the port Statewhere the ship is being inspected shall ensure that the ship is detained,or the operation in the course of which the deficiencies have beenrevealed is stopped. The detention order or stoppage of an operationshall not be lifted until the hazard is removed or until such authority
establishes that the ship can, subject to any necessary conditions,
proceed to sea or the operation be resumed without risk to the safety andhealth of passengers or crew, or risk to other ships, or without therebeing an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment.
3. When exercising his professional judgment as to whether or not a
ship should be detained, the inspector shall apply the criteria set out inAnnex VI.
4. In exceptional circumstances, where the overall condition of a ship
is obviously substandard, the competent authority may suspend theinspection of that ship until the responsible parties have taken the stepsnecessary to ensure that it complies with the relevant requirements of the
Conventions.
5. In the event that the inspections referred to in Articles 6 and 7 give
rise to detention, the competent authority shall immediately inform, in
writing, the administration of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to
fly (hereinafter called ‘flag administration’) or the Consul or, in hisabsence, the nearest diplomatic representative of the State, of all thecircumstances in which intervention was deemed necessary. In addition,nominated surveyors or recognized organizations responsible for theissue of the ship's certificates shall also be notified where relevant.
6. The provisions of this Directive shall be without prejudice to the
additional requirements of the Conventions concerning notification andreporting procedures related to port State control.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 7
▼B
7. When exercising port State control under this Directive, all
possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained ordelayed. If a ship is unduly detained or delayed, the owner or operator
shall be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered. In any
instance of alleged undue detention or delay the burden of proof shall liewith the owner or operator of the ship.
Article 9a
Procedure applicable in the absence of ISM certificates
1. Where the inspection reveals that the copy of the document of
compliance or the safety management certificate issued in accordancewith the International management code for the safe operation of shipsand for pollution prevention (ISM Code) are missing on board a vesselto which, within the Community, the ISM Code is applicable at the dateof the inspection, the competent authority shall ensure that the vessel is
detained.
2. Notwithstanding the absence of the documentation referred to in
paragraph 1, if the inspection finds no other deficiencies warranting
detention the competent authority may lift the detention order in order to
avoid port congestion. Whenever such a decision is taken, the competentauthority shall immediately inform the competent authorities ofthe otherMember States thereof.
3. Member States shall take the measures necessary toensure that all
ships authorised to leave a port in a Member State under thecircumstances referred toin paragraph 2 shall be refused access toallports in the Community, except in the situations referred to in Article
11(6), until the owner or operator of the vessel has demonstrated, to the
satisfaction of the competent authority of the Member State in whichdetention was ordered, that the ship has valid certificates issued inaccordance with the ISM Code. Where deficiencies as referred to inArticle 9(2) are found and cannot be rectified in the port of detention,the relevant provisions of Article 11 shall also apply.
Article 10
Right of appeal
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 decisiontaken by the competent authority. An appeal shall not cause thedetention to be suspended.
2. Member States shall establish and maintain appropriate procedures
for this purpose in accordance with their national legislation.
3. The competent authority shall properly inform the master of a ship
referred to in paragraph 1 of the right of appeal.
Article 11
Follow-up to inspections and detention
1. Where deficiencies as referred toin Article 9 (2) canno t be
rectified in the port of inspection, the competent authority of thatMember State may allow the ship concerned to proceed to the nearestappropriate repair yard available, 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 Stateare complied with. Such conditions shall ensure that the ship canproceed without risk to the safety and health of passengers or crew, orrisk to other ships, or without there being an unreasonable threat of harmtothe marine enviro nment.
2. In the circumstances referred toin paragraph 1, the co mpetent
authority of the Member State in the port of inspection shall notify thecompetent authority of the State where the repair yard is situated, the1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 8
▼M1
▼B
▼B
parties mentioned in Article 9 (5) and any other authority as appropriate
of all the conditions for the voyage.
3. The notification of the parties referred to in paragraph 2 shall be in
accordance with Annex 2 to the MOU.
The competent authority of a Member State receiving such notification
shall inform the notifying authority of the action taken.
4.
Member States shall take measures toensure that ships referred toin
paragraph 1 which proceed to sea:
(i) without complying with the conditions determined by the competent
authority of any Member State in the port of inspection; or
(ii) which refuse to comply with the applicable requirements of the
Conventions by not calling into the indicated repair yard;
shall be refused access to any port within the Community, until the
owner or operator has provided evidence to the satisfaction of thecompetent authority of the Member State where the ship was founddefective that the ship fully complies with all applicable requirements of
the Conventions.
5. In the circumstances referred toin paragraph 4 (i), the co mpetent
authority of the Member State where the ship was found defective shallimmediately alert the competent authorities of all the other MemberStates.
In the circumstances referred toin paragraph 4 (ii), the co mpetent
authority of the Member State in which the repair yard lies shallimmediately alert the competent authorities of all the other MemberStates.
Before denying entry, the Member State may request consultations with
the flag administration of the ship concerned.
6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 4, access to a specific
port may be permitted by the relevant authority of that port State in theevent offorce majeure or overriding safety considerations, or to reduce
or minimize the risk of pollution or to have deficiencies rectified,
provided 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.
Article 12
Professional profile of inspectors
1. The inspections shall be carried out only by inspectors who fulfil
the qualification criteria specified in Annex VII.
2. When the required professional expertise cannot be provided by
the competent authority of the port State, the inspector of that competentauthority may be assisted by any person with the required expertise.
3. 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 employedby or undertake work on behalf of non-governmental organizationswhich issue statutory and classification certificates or which carry outthe surveys necessary for the issue of those certificates to ships.
4. Each inspector shall carry a personal document in the form of an
identity card issued by his competent authority in accordance with the
national legislation, indicating that the inspector is authorized to carryout inspections.
A common model for such an identity card shall be established in
accordance with the procedure in Article 19.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 9
▼B
Article 13
Reports from pilots and port authorities
1. Pilots of Member States, engaged in berthing or unberthing ships
or engaged on ships bound for a port 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 theirnormal duties that there are deficiencies which may prejudice the safenavigation of the ship, or which may pose a threat of harm to the marineenvironment.
2. If port authorities, when exercising their normal duties, learn that a
ship within their port has deficiencies which may prejudice the safety of
the ship or poses an unreasonable threat of harm to the marineenvironment, such authority shall immediately inform the competentauthority of the port State concerned.
Article 14
Cooperation
1. Each Member State shall make provision for cooperation between
its competent authority, its port authorities and other relevant authoritiesor commercial organizations to ensure that its competent authority can
obtain all relevant information on ships calling at its ports.
2. Member States shall maintain provisions for the exchange of
information and cooperation between their competent authority and thecompetent authorities of all other Member States and maintain theestablished operational link between their competent authority, theCommission and the Sirenac E information system set up in St Malo,
France.
3. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be that specified in
Annex 4 to the MOU, and that required to comply with Article 15 of thisDirective.
Article 15
Release of information
1. The competent authority of each Member State shall take
necessary measures in order to ensure that information listed in Annex
VIII, Part I, concerning ships which have been detained in, or which are
subject to refusal of access to, a port of this Member State during theprevious month, is published at least every month.
2. The information available in the Sirenac system concerning ships
inspected in ports of the Member States, referred to in Annex VIII, Part Iand Part II, shall be made public, through appropriate technical
arrangements, as soon as possible after the inspection has been
completed, or the detention has been lifted.
3. Member States and the Commission shall cooperate in order to
establish the appropriate technical arrangements referred to in paragraph2.
4. Where appropriate, the Sirenac information system is amended in
order to implement the abovementioned requirements.
Article 16
Reimbursement of costs
1. Should the inspections referred to in Articles 6 and 7 confirm or
reveal deficiencies in relation to the requirements of a Conventionwarranting the detention of a ship, all costs relating to the inspections inany normal accounting period shall be covered by the shipowner or theoperator or by his representative in the port State.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 10
▼M3
▼B
▼B
2. All costs relating to inspections carried out by the competent
authority of a Member State under the provisions of Article 11 (4) shallbe charged to the owner or operator of the ship.
3. The detention shall not be lifted until full payment has been made
or a sufficient guarantee has been given for the reimbursement of thecosts.
Article 17
Data to monitor implementation
1. Member States shall supply the following information to the
Commission and the MOU Secretariat:
— number of inspectors working on their behalf on port State
inspection in accordance with this Directive. For authorities where
inspectors perform port-State inspections on a part-time basis only,
the total must be converted into a number of full-time employedinspectors,
— number of individual ships entering their ports in a representative
calendar year within the previous five-year period.
2. The information listed in paragraph 1 shall be forwarded within
three months following the entry into force of this Directive and
thereafter by 1 October once every three calendar years.
Article 18
Regulatory Committee
The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee set up pursuant to
Article 12 of Directive 93/75/EEC in accordance with the procedure laid
down in that Article.
Article 19
Amendment procedure
This Directive may be amended in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 18, in order to:
(a) adapt the inspection and publication obligations of Member States
mentioned in Article 5 (except the figure of 25 % referred to inparagraph 1 thereof), and in Articles 6, 7 and 15 on the basis of theexperience gained from implementation of this Directive and takinginto account developments in the MOU;
(b) adapt the Annexes in order to take into account amendments which
have entered into force to the Conventions, Protocols, codes andresolutions of relevant international organizations and to the MOU.
(c) adapt the dates in Article 2 in order to take into account amendments
which have entered into force to the international Conventions and
tothe MOU referred toin the said Article with the exceptio n o f
Protocols to such Conventions.
Article 20
Implementation
1. Member States shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to implement this Directive not later than 30 June
1996 and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
2. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a
reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference onthe occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such areference shall be laid down by Member States.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 11
▼M1
▼B
▼B
3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of
the provisions of national law which they have adopted in the fieldgoverned by this Directive.
Article 21
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its
publication.
Article 22
This Directive is addressed tothe Member States.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 12
▼M2
ANNEX I
SHIPS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PRIORITY INSPECTION
(as referred toin Article 5(2))
I. Overriding factors
Regardless of the value of the target factor, the following ships shall be
considered as an overriding priority for inspection.
1. Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as having
deficiencies which may prejudice their safe navigation (pursuant to
Directive 93/75/EEC and Article 13 of this Directive).
2. Ships which have failed to comply with the obligations laid down in
Directive 93/75/EEC.
3. Ships which have been the subject of a report or notification by another
Member State.
4. Ships which have been the subject of a report or complaint by the master, a
crew member, or any person or organization 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; the identity of the person
lodging the report or complaint must not be revealed to the master or the
shipowner of the ship concerned.
5. Ships which have been:
— involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their way to the port,
— accused of an alleged violation of the provisions on discharge of
harmful substances or effluents,
— manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner whereby routing measures,
adopted by the IMO, or safe navigation practices and procedures have
not been followed, or
— otherwise operated in such a manner as to pose a danger to persons,
property or the environment.
6. Ships which have been suspended ►M3or withdrawn ◄from their class
for safety reasons in the course of the preceding six months.
II. Overall targeting factor
The following ships shall be considered as priority for inspection.
1. Ships visiting a port of a Member State for the first time or after an
absence of 12 months or more. In applying these criteria Member States
shall also take into account those inspections which have been carried out
by members of the MOU. In the absence of appropriate data for this
purpose, Member States shall rely upon the available Sirenac data and
inspect those ships which have not been registered in the Sirenac
following the entry into force of that database on 1 January 1993.
2. Ships not inspected by any Member State within the previous six months.3. Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship's construction and
equipment, issued in accordance with the conventions, and the
classification certificates, have been issued by an organisation which is
not recognised under the terms of Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22
November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and
survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime
administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20).
4. Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the three-year rolling average
table of above-average detentions and delays published in the annual
report of the MOU.
5. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a Member State on
certain conditions, such as:
(a) deficiencies tobe rectified befo re departure;
(b) deficiencies tobe rectified at the next po rt;
(c) deficiencies tobe rectified within 14 days;
(d) deficiencies for which other conditions have been specified.If ship-related action has been taken and all deficiencies have been
rectified, this is taken intoacco unt.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 13
▼M3
▼M3
6. Ships for which deficiencies have been recorded during a previous
inspection, according to the number of deficiencies.
7. Ships which have been detained in a previous port.
8. Ships flying the flag of a country which has not ratified all relevant
international conventions referred to in Article 2 of this Directive.
9. Ships flying the flag of a country with a deficiency ratio above average.
10. Ships with class deficiency above average.
11. Ships which are in a category for which expanded inspection has been
decided (pursuant toArticle 7 o f this Directive).
12. Other ships above 13 years old.
In determining the orderof priority forthe inspection of the shipslisted above,
the competent authority shall take into account the order indicated by the
overall target factor displayed on the Sirenac information system, according to
Annex I, Section 1 of the Paris MOU. A higher target factor is indicative of a
higher priority. The target factor is the sum of the applicable target factor
values as defined withim the framework of the MOU. Items 5, 6 and 7 shall
only apply to inspections carried out in the last 12 months. The overall target
factor shall not be less than the sum of the values established for the items 3,
4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
If within three months from the introduction in the framework of the MOU of
new target factor values, the Commission is of the view that these values are
inappropriate, it may decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 19 of Directive 95/21/EC that these values shall not apply for the
purposes of this Directive.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 14
▼B
ANNEX II
LIST OF CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS
(referred toin Article 6 (1))
1. International Tonnage Certificate (1969)
2. — Passenger Ship Safety Certificate,
— Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate,— CargoShip Safety Equipment Certificate,
— CargoShip Safety Radio telegraphy Certificate,
— Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelephony Certificate;
— CargoShip Safety RadioCertificate,
— Exemption certificate, including, where appropriate, the list of cargoes,— CargoShip Safety Certificate.
3. International Certificate of Fitness for Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk;
— Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk.
4. International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals
in Bulk;
— Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk.
5. International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate.6. International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious
Liquid Substances in Bulk.
7. International Load Line Certificate (1966);
— International Load Line Exemption Certificate.
8. Oil record book, parts I and II.9. Cargo record book.
10. Minimum Safe Manning Document;
— Certificates of Competency.
11. Medical certificates, (see ILO Convention No 73 concerning Medical
Examination of Seafarers).
12. Stability information.
13. Copy of the Document of Compliance and the Safety Management
Certificate issued, in accordance with the International Management Code
for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (SOLAS,
Chapter IX).
14. Certificates as tothe ship's hull strength and machinery installatio ns issued
by the classification society in question (only to be required if the ship
maintains its class with a classification society).
15. Document of compliance with the special requirements for ships carrying
dangerous goods.
16. High speed craft safety certificate and permit too perate high speed craft.17. Dangerous goods special list or manifest, or detailed stowage plan.18. Ship's log book with respect to the records of tests and drills and the log for
records of inspection and maintenance of lifesaving appliances and
arrangements.
19. Special purpose ship safety certificate.20. Mobile offshore drilling unit safety certificate.21. For oil tankers, the record of oil discharge monitoring and control system for
the last ballast voyage.
22. The muster list, fire control plan, and for passenger ships, a damage control
plan.
23. Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan.24. Survey report files (in case of bulk carriers and oil tankers).25. Reports of previous port State control inspections.26. For ro-ro passenger ships, information on the A/A-maximum ratio.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 15
▼M3
▼B
▼M2
▼B
▼M2
▼M2
27. Document of authorization for the carriage of grain.
28. Cargosecuring manual.
29. Garbage management plan and garbage record book.
30. Decision support system for masters of passenger ships.31. SAR cooperation plan for passenger ships trading on fixed routes.
32. List of operational limitations for passenger ships.
33. Bulk carrier booklet.34. Loading and unloading plan for bulk carners.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 16
▼M3
▼M2
ANNEX III
EXAMPLES OF ‘CLEAR GROUNDS’ FOR A MORE DETAILED
INSPECTION
(as referred toin Article 6(3))
1. Ships identified in Annex I, Part I and Part II, paragraphs II-3, II-4, II-5b, II-
5c, II-8 and II-11.
2. The oil record book has not been properly kept.
3. During examination of the certificates and other documentation, (see Article
6(1)(a) and (2)), inaccuracies have been revealed.
4. Indications that the crew members are unable to comply with the
requirements of Article 8 of Council Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November
1994 on the minimum level of training of seafarers(1).
5. Evidence of cargo and other operations not being conducted safely, or in
accordance with IMO guidelines, e.g. the content of oxygen in the inert-gas
main supply tothe cargotanks is abo ve the prescribed maximum level.
6. Failure of the master on an oil tanker to produce the record of the oil
discharge monitoring and control system for the last ballast voyage.
7. Absence of an up-to-date muster list, or crew members not aware of their
duties in the event of fire or an order to abandon the ship.
8. The emission of false distress alerts not followed by proper cancellation
procedures.
9. The absence of principal equipment or arrangements required by the
conventions.
10. Excessively unsanitary conditions on board the ship.11. Evidence from the inspector's general impression and observations that
serious hull or structural deterioration or deficiencies exist that may place at
risk the structural, watertight or weathertight integrity of the ship.
12. Information or evidence that the master or crew is not familiar with essential
shipboard operations relating to the safety of ships or the prevention of
pollution, or that such operations have not been carried out.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 17
(1) OJ L 319, 12. 12. 1994, p. 28.
▼M2
ANNEX IV
PROCEDURES FOR THE CONTROL OF SHIPS
(as referred toin Article 6(4))
1. Principles of safe manning (IMO Resolution A.481(XII) and Annexes which
are contents of Minimum Safe Manning Document (Annex 1) and Guidelines
for the Application of Principles of Safe Manning (Annex 2).
2. The provisions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.
3. International Labour Organisation (ILO) publication ‘Inspection of Labour
Conditions on Board Ship: Guidelines for procedures’.
4. Annex I, ‘Port State Control Procedures’ to the Paris MOU.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 18
▼B
ANNEX V
A.CATEGORIES OF SHIPS SUBJECT TO EXPANDED INSPECTION
(as referred toin Article 7 (1))
1. Oil tankers, five years or less from the date of phasing out in accordance with
Marpol 73/78, Annex I, Regulation 13G, i.e.
— a crude oil tanker of 20000 tonnes deadweight and above or a product
carrier of 30000 tonnes deadweight and above, not meeting the
requirements of a new oil tanker as defined in Regulation 1 (26) of
Annex I toMarpo l 73/78, will be subject toexpanded inspectio n 20 years
after its date of delivery as indicated on the Supplement, Form B, to the
IOPP Certificate, or 25 years after that date, if the ship's wing tanks or
double-bottom spaces not used for the carriage of oil meet the
requirements of Regulation 13G (4) of that Annex, unless it has been
reconstructed to comply with Regulation 13F of the same Annex,
— an oil tanker as mentioned above meeting the requirements of a new oil
tanker as defined in Regulation 1 (26) of Annex I to Marpol 73/78 will be
subject to expanded inspection 25 years after its date of delivery as
indicated on the Supplement, Form B, to the IOPP Certificate, unless it
complies with or has been reconstructed to comply with Regulation 13F of
that Annex.
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. Passenger ships.
4. Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age, as determined on the
basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.
B.NON-MANDATORY GUIDELINES FOR EXPANDED INSPECTION
OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF SHIPS
(as referred toin Article 7 (2))
To the extent applicable the following items may be considered as part of an
expanded inspection. Inspectors must be aware that it may jeopardize the safe
execution of certain onboard operations, e.g. cargo operation, if tests having a
direct effect thereon, are required to be carried out during such operations.
1. SHIPS IN GENERAL (categories in section A)
— Black-out and start of emergency generator,
— Inspection of emergency lighting,
— Operation of emergency fire-pump with two firehoses connected to the fire
mainline,
— Operation of bilge pumps,
— Closing of watertight doors,— Lowering of one seaside lifeboat to the water,— Test of remote emergency stop for e.g. boilers, ventilation and fuel pumps,
— Testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear,
— Inspection of emergency source of power to radio installations,— Inspection and, to the extent possible, test of engine-room separator.
2. OIL TANKERS
In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items may also be
considered as part of the expanded inspection for oil tankers:
— Fixed-deck foam system,
— Fire-fighting equipment in general,— Inspection of fire dampers to engine room, pump room and accommoda-
tion,
— Control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof,— Check of the Survey Report File (see IMO Resolution A.744(18)) to
identify possible suspect areas requiring inspection.
3. BULK CARRIERS
In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items may also be
considered as part of the expanded inspection for bulk carriers:
— Possible corrosion of deck machinery foundations,
— Possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers,1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 19
▼B
— Possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads,
— Access tocargoho lds,
— Check of the Survey Report File, (see IMO Resolution A.744(18)) to
identify possible suspect areas requiring inspection.
4. GAS AND CHEMICAL TANKERS
In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items can also be
considered as part of the expanded inspection for gas and chemical tankers:
— Cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating to temperature, pressure
and ullage,
— Oxygen analysing and explosimeter devices, including their calibration.
Availability of chemical detection equipment (bellows) with an appro-
priate number of suitable gas detection tubes for the specific cargo being
carried,
— Cabin escape sets giving suitable respiratory and eye protection, for every
person on board (if required by the products listed on the International
Certificate of Fitness or Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or Liquefied Gases in Bulk as applicable),
— Check that the product being carried is listed in the International
Certificate of Fitness or Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or Liquefied Gases in Bulk as applicable,
— The fixed fire-fighting installations on deck whether they be foam or dry
chemical or other as required by the product carried.
5. PASSENGER SHIPS
In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items may also be
considered as part of the expanded inspection for passenger ships.
— Testing of fire detection and alarm system,
— Testing of proper closing of fire doors,
— Test of public address system,— Fire drill where, as a minimum, all sets of fireman's outfits must be
demonstrated and part of the catering crew take part,
— Demonstration that key crew members are acquainted with the damage
control plan.
If deemed appropriate the inspection may be continued while the ship is on
passage to or from the port in the Member State, with the consent of the
shipmaster or the operator. Inspectors must not obstruct the operation of the
ship, nor must they induce situations that, in the master's judgment, could
endanger the safety of the passengers, the crew and the ship.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 20
▼B
ANNEX VI
CRITERIA FOR DETENTION OF A SHIP
(as referred toin Article 9 (3))
Introduction
Before determining whether deficiencies found during an inspection warrant
detention of the ship involved, the inspector must apply the criteria mentioned
below in sections 1 and 2.
Section 3 includes examples of deficiencies that may for themselves warrant
detention of the ship involved (see Article 9 (3)).
Where the ground for detention is the result of accidental damage suffered on the
ship's voyage to a port, no detention order shall be issued, provided that:
1. due account has been given to the requirements contained in Regulation I/
11(c) of SOLAS 74 regarding notification to the flag State administration, the
nominated surveyor or the recognised organisation responsible for issuing the
relevant certificate;
2. prior to entering a port, the master or shipowner has submitted to the port State
control authority details on the circumstances of the accident and the damage
suffered and information about the required notification of the flag State
administration;
3. appropriate remedial action, to the satisfaction of the Authority, is being taken
by the ship; and
4. the authority has ensured, having been notified of the completion of the
remedial action, that deficiencies which were clearly hazardous to safety,
health or the environment have been rectified.
1.Main criteria
When exercising his professional judgement as to whether or not a ship
should be detained the inspector must apply the following criteria:
Timing:
Ships which are unsafe to proceed to sea must be detained upon the first
inspection irrespective of how much time the ship will stay in port.
Criterion:The ship is detained if its deficiencies are sufficiently serious to merit an
inspector returning to satisfy himself that they have been rectified before
the ship sails.
The need for the inspector to return to the ship is a measure of the
seriousness of the deficiencies. However, it does not impose such an
obligation for every case. It implies that the authority must verify one way
or another, preferably by a further visit, that the deficiencies have been
rectified before departure.
2.Application of main criteria
When deciding whether the deficiencies found in a ship are sufficiently
serious to merit detention the inspector must assess whether:
1. the ship has relevant, valid documentation;
2. the ship has the crew required in the Minimum Safe Manning
Document.
During inspection the inspector must further assess whether the ship and/or
crew is able to:
3. navigate safely throughout the forthcoming voyage;
4. safely handle, carry and monitor the condition of the cargo throughout
the forthcoming voyage;
5. operate the engine room safely throughout the forthcoming voyage;6. maintain proper propulsion and steering throughout the forthcoming
voyage;
7. fight fires effectively in any part of the ship if necessary during the
forthcoming voyage;1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 21
▼M2
▼B
▼B
8. abandon ship speedily and safely and effect rescue if necessary during
the forthcoming voyage;
9. prevent pollution of the environment throughout the forthcoming
voyage;
10. maintain adequate stability throughout the forthcoming voyage;
11. maintain adequate watertight integrity throughout the forthcoming
voyage;
12. communicate in distress situations if necessary during the forthcoming
voyage;
13. provide safe and healthy conditions on board throughout the
forthcoming voyage.
If the answer to any of these assessments is negative, taking into account all
deficiencies found, the ship must be strongly considered for detention. A
combination of deficiencies of a less serious nature may also warrant the
detention of the ship.
3. To assist the inspector in the use of these guidelines, there follows a list of
deficiencies, grouped under relevant conventions and/or codes, which are
considered of such a serious nature that they may warrant the detention of
the ship involved. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.
However, the detainable deficiencies in the area of STCW 78 listed under
item 3.8 below are the only grounds for detention under this Convention.
3.1. General
The lack of valid certificates as required by the relevant instruments.
However, ships flying the flag of States not party to a Convention (relevant
instrument) or not having implemented another relevant instrument, are not
entitled to carry the certificates provided for by the Convention or other
relevant instrument. Therefore, absence of the required certificates should
not by itself constitute reason to detain these ships; however, in applying
the ‘no more favourable treatment’ clause, substantial compliance with the
provisions is required before the ship sails.
3.2.Areas under the Solas Convention (References are given in brackets)
1. Failure of the proper operation of propulsion and other essential
machinery, as well as electrical installations.
2. Insufficient cleanliness of engine room, excess amount of oily-water
mixtures in bilges, insulation of piping including exhaust pipes in
engine room contaminated by oil, improper operation of bilge pumping
arrangements.
3. Failure of the proper operation of emergency generator, lighting,
batteries and switches.
4. Failure of the proper operation of the main and auxiliary steering gear.
5. Absence, insufficient capacity or serious deterioration of personal life-
saving appliances, survival craft and launching arrangements.
6. Absence, non-compliance or substantial deterioration of fire detection
system, fire alarms, firefighting equipment, fixed fire-extinguishing
installation, ventilation valves, fire dampers, quick-closing devices to
the extent that they cannot comply with their intended use.
7. Absence, substantial deterioration or failure of proper operation of the
cargo deck area fire protection on tankers.
8. Absence, non-compliance or serious deterioration of lights, shapes or
sound signals.
9. Absence or failure of the proper operation of the radio equipment for
distress and safety communication.
10. Absence or failure of the proper operation of navigation equipment,
taking the provisions of Solas Regulation V/12(o) into account.
11. Absence of corrected navigational charts, and/or all other relevant
nautical publications necessary for the intended voyage, taking into
account that electronic charts may be used as a substitute for the charts.
12. Absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargo pump rooms
(Solas Regulation II-2/59.3.1).
13. Serious deficiency in the operational requirements, as described in
Section 5.5 of Annex I to the MOU.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 22
▼M2
▼B
▼M2
▼M2
14. Number, composition or certification of crew not corresponding with
the safe manning document.
3.3.Areas under the IBC Code (References are given in brackets)
1. Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of Fitness or
missing cargo information (16.2).
2. Missing or damaged high-pressure safety devices (8.2.3).
3. Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not corresponding to code
requirements (10.2.3).
4. Sources of ignition in hazardous locations referred to in 10.2 (11.3.15).
5. Contraventions of special requirements (15).6. Exceeding of maximum allowable cargo quality per tank (16.1).7. Insufficient heat protection for sensitive products (16.6).
3.4.Areas under the IGC Code (References are given in brackets)
1. Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of Fitness or
missing cargo information (18.1).
2. Missing closing devices for accommodations or service spaces (3.2.6).3. Bulkhead not gastight (3.3.2).
4. Defective air locks (3.6).
5. Missing or defective quick-closing valves (5.6).6. Missing or defective safety valves (8.2).7. Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not corresponding to
code requirements (10.2.4).
8. Ventilators in cargo area not operable (12.1).9. Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable (13.4.1).
10. Gas detection plant and/or toxic gas detection plant defective (13.6).11. Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid inhibitor
certificate (17/19).
3.5.Areas under the Load Lines Convention
1. Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of plating and
associated stiffening in decks and hull affecting seaworthiness or
strength to take local loads, unless proper temporary repairs fora voyage
to a port for permanent repairs have been carried out.
2. A recognized case of insufficient stability.3. The absence of sufficient and reliable information, in an approved form,
which by rapid and simple means, enables the master toarrange fo r the
loading and ballasting of his ship in such a way that a safe margin of
stability is maintained at all stages and at varying conditions of the
voyage, and that the creation of any unacceptable stresses in the ship's
structure are avoided.
4. Absence, substantial deterioration or defective closing devices, hatch
closing arrangements and watertight doors.
5. Overloading.
6. Absence of draft mark or draft mark impossible to read.
3.6.Areas under the Marpol Convention, Annex I (References are given in
brackets)
1. Absence, serious deterioration or failure of proper operation of the oily-
water filtering equipment, the oil discharge monitoring and control
system or the 15 ppm alarm arrangements.
2. Remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficient for the
intended voyage.
3. Oil Record Book not available (20 (5)).
4. Unauthorized discharge bypass fitted.
3.7.Areas under the Marpol Convention, Annex II (References are given in
brackets)
1. Absence of the P& A Manual.
2. Cargo is not categorized (3 (4)).
3. No cargo record book available (9 (6)).1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 23
▼B
▼B
4. Transport of oil-like substances without satisfying the requirements or
without an appropriately amended certificate (14).
5. Unauthorized discharge bypass fitted.
3.8.Areas under the STCW Convention
1. Failure of seafarers to hold a certificate, to have an appropriate
certificate, to have a valid dispensation or to provide documentary proof
that an application for an endorsement has been submitted to the flag
State administration.
2. Failure to comply with the applicable safe manning requirements of the
flag state administration.
3. Failure of navigational or engineering watch arrangements to conform to
the requirements specified for the ship by the flag State administration.
4. Absence in a watch of a person qualified to operate equipment essential
to safe navigation, safety radio communications or the prevention of
marine pollution.
5. Failure to provide proof of professional proficiency for the duties
assigned to seafarers for the safety of the ship and the prevention of
pollution.
6. Inability to provide for the first watch at the commencement of a voyage
and for subsequent relieving watches persons who are sufficiently rested
and otherwise fit for duty.
3.9.Areas under the ILO Conventions
1. Insufficient food for voyage to next port.
2. Insufficient potable water for voyage to next port.
3. Excessively unsanitary conditions on board.
4. No heating in accommodation of a ship operating in areas where
temperatures may be excessively low.
5. Excessive garbage, blockage by equipment or cargo or otherwise unsafe
conditions in passageways/accommodations.
3.10.Areas which may not warrant a detention, but where e.g. cargo operations
have to be suspended.
Failure of the proper operation (or maintenance) of inert gas system, cargo-
related gear or machinery are considered sufficient grounds for stopping
cargo operation.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 24
▼M2
▼B
▼B
ANNEX VII
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR INSPECTORS
►C1(as referred toin Article 12 (1)) ◄
1. The inspector must be authorized to carry out port-State control by the
competent authority of the Member State.
2. Either:
— The inspector must have completed a minimum of one year's service as a
flag-State inspector dealing with surveys and certification in accordance
with the Conventions,
— and be in possession of:
(a) a certificate of competency as master, enabling that person to take
command of a ship of 1 600 GT or more (see STCW, Regulation II/2);
or
(b) a certificate of competency as chief engineer enabling him to take up
that task on board a ship whose main power plant has a power equal or
superior to 3 000 KW, (see STCW, Regulation III/2); or
(c) have passed an examination as a naval architect, mechanical engineer
or an engineer related to the maritime fields and worked in that
capacity for at least five years,
— The inspectors mentioned under (a) and (b) must have served for a period
of not less than five years at sea as officer in the deck- or engine-
department respectively.
Or:
The inspector must:— hold a relevant university degree or an equivalent training, and
— have been trained and qualified at a school for ship safety inspectors, and— have served at least twoyears as a flag-State inspecto r dealing with
surveys and certification in accordance with the Conventions.
3. Ability to communicate orally and in writing with seafarers in the language
most commonly spoken at sea.
4. Appropriate knowledge of the provisions of the international Conventions and
of the relevant procedures on port-State control.
5. Inspectors not fulfilling the above criteria are also accepted if they are
employed by the competent authority of a Member State for port-State control
at the date of adoption of this Directive.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 25
▼M3
ANNEX VIII
Publication of information related to detentions and inspections in ports of
Member States
(as referred toin Article 15)
I. The information published in accordance with Article 15(1) shall include the
following:
— name of the ship,
— IMO number,
— type of ship,— tonnage (gt),— year of build,— name and address of the shipowner or operator of the ship,— flag State,— the classification society, or classification societies, where relevant which
have issued tothis ship the class certificates, if any,
— the classification society, or classification societies, and/or any party
which have issued tothis ship certificates in acco rdance with the
conventions on behalf of the flag State, including the mention of the
certificates delivered,
— the number of detentions during the 24 previous months,— the country and port of detention,
— the date when the detention has been lifted,
— the duration of detention, in days,— the number of deficiencies found and the reasons for detention, in clear
and explicit terms,
— when the ship is subject toa refusal o f access toany po rt within the
Community, the reasons for such measure, in clear and explicit terms,
— indication on whether the classification society, or other private body that
carried out the relevant survey had a responsibility in relation with the
deficiencies which alone or in combination, led to detention,
— description of the measures taken in the case of a ship which has been
allowed to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard, or which has
been refused access to any port in the Community.
II. The information concerning ships inspected, made public in accordance with
Article 15(2) shall include the following:
— name of the ship,
— IMO number,— type of ship,— tonnage (gt),— year of build,— name and address of the shipowner or operator of the ship,— flag State,— the classification society, or classification societies, where relevant which
have issued tothis ship the class certificates, if any,
— the classification society, or classification societies, and/or any party
which have issued tothis ship certificates in acco rdance with the
conventions on behalf of the flag State, including the mention of the
certificates delivered,
— the country, port and date of inspection,
— the number of deficiencies, per category of deficiencies.1995L0021 — EN — 30.12.1999 — 002.001 — 26