95/21 - - - I
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/21/EC
of 19 June 1995
concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using 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 No L 157, 7. 7. 1995, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
Council Directive 98/25/EC of 27 April 1998 L 133 19 7. 5. 1998
Commission Directive 98/42/EC of 19 June 1998 L 184 40 27. 6. 1998
C1 Corrigendum, OJ No L 291, 14. 11. 1996, p. 42 (95/21)
95/21 - - - I
ICOUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/21/EC
of 19 June 1995
concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using 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)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the T reaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity, 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 T reaty (3),
Whereas the Community is seriously concerned about ship-
ping 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 implement the
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 proposals concerning criteria
for the inspection of ships, including the harmonization of
detention rules, and including the possibility of publication
of the results 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 of substandard ships from
Community waters, by strictly applying international Con-
ventions, codes and resolutions;
(1) OJ No C 107, 15. 4. 1994, p. 14 and OJ No C 347, 8. 12.
1944, p. 15.
(2) OJ No 393, 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 posi-tion of 14 March 1995 (OJ No C 93, 13. 4. 1995, p. 25)and European Parliament Decision of 18 May 1995 (notyet published in the Official Journal) (SIC! OJ No C 151,19. 6. 1995, p. 227).
(
4) OJ No C 271, 7. 10. 1993, p. 1.
95/21 - - - I
IIWhereas monitoring the compliance of ships with the in-
ternational standards for safety, pollution prevention and
shipboard living and working conditions should rest pri-
marily with the flag State; whereas, however, there is a
serious failure on the part of an increasing number of flag
States to implement and enforce international standards;
whereas henceforth the monitoring of compliance with the
international standards for safety, pollution prevention and
shipboard living and working conditions has also to be en-
sured by the port State;
Whereas a harmonized approach to the effective enforce-
ment of these international standards by the Member
States in respect of ships sailing in the waters under their
jurisdiction and using their ports will avoid distortions of
competition;
Whereas a framework in Community law for harmonizing
inspection procedures is fundamental to ensuring the ho-mogeneous application of the principles of shipping safety
and prevention of pollution which lie at the heart of Com-
munity transport and environment policies;
Whereas pollution of the seas is by nature a trans-bound-
ary phenomenon; whereas, in accordance with the principle
of subsidiarity, the development of the means of taking
preventive action in this field as regards the seas adjacent
to the Member States is best done at Community level,
since Member States cannot take adequate and effective
action in isolation;
Whereas the adoption of a Council Directive is the ap-
propriate procedure for laying down the legal framework
and the harmonized rules and criteria for port State con-
trol;
Whereas advantage should be taken of the experience
gained during the operation of the Paris Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on Port State 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
i t sp o r t si nag i v e ny e a ri np r a c t i c em e a n st h a tal a r g e
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 inspec-
tions, including criteria for the detention of ships, must be
harmonized to ensure consistent effectiveness in all ports,
which would also drastically reduce the selective use ofcertain ports of destination to avoid the net of proper con-
trol;
95/21 - - - I
IIIWhereas 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 to be
subject to an expanded inspection;
Whereas non-compliance with the provisions of the rel-
evant Conventions must be rectified; whereas ships which
are required to take corrective action must, where the defi-
ciencies 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 auth-orize the ship to proceed to an appropriate repair yard,
provided that the conditions for the transfer are complied
with; whereas non-complying ships would continue to pose
a threat to safety, health or the environment and to enjoy
commercial advantages by not being upgraded in accord-
ance with the relevant provisions of the Conventions and
should therefore be refused access to all ports in the Com-
munity;
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 cir-
cumstances the ship should only be permitted access to a
specific port if all precautions are taken to ensure it safe
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 necessity for the inspec-
tors to take completely impartial decisions, inspections
must be carried out only by inspectors who are duly auth-
orized public service employees or other such persons, and
highly knowledgeable and experienced;
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 an effective follow-up with regard to
ships with deficiencies which have been permitted to pro-ceed and for the exchange of information about ships in
port;
95/21 - - - I
IVWhereas the information system called Sirenac E estab-
lished under the MOU provides a large amount of the
additional information needed for the application of this
Directive;
Whereas publication of information concerning ships which
do not comply with international standards on safety,
health and protection of the marine environment, may be
an effective deterrent discouraging shippers to use such
ships, and an incentive to their owners to take corrective
action without being compelled to do so;
Whereas all costs of inspecting ships which warrant deten-
tion should be borne by the owner or the operator;
Whereas for the purposes of implementing this Directive
u s es h o u l db em a d eo ft h eC o m m i t t e es e tu pp u r s u a n tt o
Article 12 of Council Directive 93/75/EEC of 13 Sep-
tember 1993 concerning minimum requirements for vessels
bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dan-gerous or polluting goods (
1) in order to assist the Com-
mission with the task of adapting Member States’ inspec-
tion obligations on the basis of experience gained, taking
into account developments in the MOU, and also adopting
the Annexes as necessary in the light of amendments to
the Conventions, Protocols, codes and resolutions of rel-
evant international bodies and to the MOU,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
(1) OJ No L 247, 5. 10. 1993, p. 19.
95/21 - - - I
1Article 1
Purpose
The purpose of this Directive is to help drastically to re-
duce substandard shipping in the waters under the jurisdic-
tion of Member States by:
— increasing compliance with international and relevant
Community legislation on maritime safety, protection
of the marine environment and 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, taking proper account of the commit-
ments made by the maritime authorities of the
Member States under the Paris Memorandum of Un-
derstanding on Port State Control (MOU).
Article 2
Definitions
For the purpose of this Directive including its Annexes:
1. ‘ Conventions ’m e a n s :
— 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 (Marpol 73/78),
— the International Convention on Standards of
T raining, Certification and Watchkeeping for Sea-
farers, 1978 (STEW 78),
— the Convention on the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (Colreg 72),
— the International Convention on T onnage Measure-
ment of Ships, 1969 and
— the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Con-
vention, 1976 (ILO No 147),
together with the Protocols and amendments to these
Conventions and related codes of mandatory status, in
force on 1 July 1998.
2. ‘ MOU ’ means the Memorandum of Understanding on
Port State Control, signed in Paris on 26 January 1982,
as it stands on 14 January 1998.
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.95/21
98/25
98/25
95/21 - - - I
24. ‘ Off-shore installation ’ means a fixed or floating plat-
form 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 inspec-
tions, 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 living and working
conditions of the crew.
7. ‘ More detailed inspection ’ means an inspection where
the ship, its equipment and crew as a whole or, as ap-
propriate, parts thereof are subjected, in the circum-
stances specified in Article 6 (3), to an in-depth in-
spection 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 ren-
der the continued operation hazardous.
Article 3
Scope
1. This Directive applies to any 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 interven-
tion available to a Member State under the relevant in-
ternational Conventions.
2. In case of ships of a gross tonnage below 500,
Member States shall apply those requirements of a rel-
evant Convention which are applicable and shall, to the
extent that a Convention does not apply, take such action
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 Annex 1 to the MOU.95/21
95/21 - - - I
33. 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 such ship and its crew is
no more 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 mari-
time administrations, hereinafter called ‘competent author-
ities’, 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 Direc-
tive.
Article 5
Inspection commitments
1. The competent authority of each Member Sate shall
carry out an annual total number of inspections correspon-
ding to at least 25% of the number of individual ships
which entered its ports during a representative calendar
year.
2. In selecting ships for inspection the competent auth-
ority shall give overriding priority to the ships referred to
in Annex I, Part I. In determining the order of priority for
inspection of the other ships listed in Annex I, the compet-
ent authority shall use the ship’s overall target factor re-
ferred to in Annex I, Part II.
3. Member States shall refrain from inspecting shipswhich have been inspected by any Member State within
the previous six months, provided that:
— the ship is not listed in Annex I, and
— no deficiencies have been reported, following a previ-
ous 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.95/21
98/42
95/21
95/21 - - - I
45. The Member States and the Commission shall cooper-
ate in seeking to develop priorities and practices which will
enable ships likely to be defective to be targeted more ef-
fectively.
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 inspec-
tor 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, in-
cluding the engine room and accommodation and in-
cluding hygienic conditions.
2. The inspector may examine all relevant certificates
and documents, other than those listed in Annex II, which
are required to be carried 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 thecondition of a ship or of its equipment or crew does not
substantially meet the relevant requirements of a Conven-
tion, a more detailed inspection shall be carried out, in-
cluding further checking of compliance with on-board op-
erational requirements.
‘Clear grounds’ exist when the inspector finds evidence
which in his professional judgement warrants a more de-
tailed 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 con-
trol of ships specified in Annex IV shall also be observed.
Article 7
Expanded inspection of certain ships
1. Where there are clear grounds for a detailed inspec-
tion of a ship belonging to the categories listed in
Annex V , Member States shall ensure that an expanded in-
spection is carried out.
2. Annex V , section B, contains non-mandatory guide-
lines for expanded inspection.95/21
95/21 - - - I
53. The ships referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject
to an expanded inspection by any of the competent author-
ities of the Member States only once during a period of 12
months. However, these ships may be subject to the in-
spection 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 ex-
panded inspection of each ship shall be carried out by the
competent authority of that Member State. When a pass-
enger ship operates such a schedule between ports in
Member States, one of the States between which the ship
is operating shall undertake the expanded inspection.
Article 8
Report of inspection to the master
1. On completion of an inspection, a more detailed in-
spection, or an expanded inspection, the master of the ship
shall be provided by the inspector 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 by the
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 document to be given to the master in accord-
ance 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 re-
ferred to in Articles 6 and 7 are 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 auth-
ority of the port State where the ship is being inspected
shall ensure that the ship is detained, or the operation in
t h ec o u r s eo fw h i c ht h ed e f i c i e n c i e sh a v eb e e nr e v e a l e di s
stopped. The detention order or stoppage of an operation
shall 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 and health of passen-
gers or crew, or risk to other ships, or without there being
an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environ-
ment.
3. When exercising his professional judgment as to
whether or not a ship should be detained, the inspector
shall apply the criteria set out in Annex VI.95/21
95/21 - - - I
64. In exceptional circumstances, where the overall condi-
tion of a ship is obviously substandard, the competent
authority may suspend the inspection of that ship until the
responsible parties have taken the steps necessary to en-
sure that it complies with the relevant requirements of the
Conventions.
5. In the event that the inspections referred to in Ar-
ticles 6 and 7 give rise to detention, the competent author-
ity shall immediately inform, in writing, the administration
of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly (herei-
nafter called ‘flag administration’) or the Consul or, in his
absence, the nearest diplomatic representative of the State,
of all the circumstances in which intervention was deemed
necessary. In addition, nominated surveyors or recognized
organizations responsible for the issue of the ship’s certifi-
cates shall also be notified where relevant.
6. The provisions of this Directive shall be without
prejudice to the additional requirements of the Conven-
tions concerning notification and reporting procedures re-
lated to port State control.
7. When exercising port State control under this Direc-
tive, all possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship
being unduly detained or delayed. If a ship is unduly de-
tained 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 lie with 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 certifi-
cate issued in accordance with the International manage-
ment code for the safe operation of ships and for pollution
prevention (ISM Code) are missing on board a vessel to
which, within the Community, the ISM Code is applicable
at the date of the inspection, the competent authority shall
ensure that the vessel is detained.
2. Notwithstanding the absence of the documentation re-
ferred 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 conges-
tion. Whenever such a decision is taken, the competent
authority shall immediately inform the competent author-
ities of the other Member States thereof.95/21
98/25
95/21 - - - I
73. Member States shall take the measures necessary to
ensure that all ships authorised to leave a port in a
Member State under the circumstances referred to in para-
graph 2 shall be refused access to all ports in the Com-
munity, except in the situations referred to in Article
11(6), until the owner or operator of the vessel has dem-
onstrated, to the satisfaction of the competent authority of
the Member State in which detention was ordered, that the
ship has valid certificates issued in accordance with the
ISM Code. Where deficiencies as referred to in Article
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 represen-
tative in the Member State shall have a right of appeal
against a detention decision taken by the competent auth-
ority. An appeal shall not cause the detention to be sus-
pended.
2. Member States shall establish and maintain appropri-
ate procedures for this purpose in accordance with theirnational 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 to in Article 9 (2) can-
not be rectified in the port of inspection, the competent
authority of that Member State may allow the ship con-
cerned to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard
available, as chosen by the master and the authorities con-
cerned, 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 en-
sure 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.
2. In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1, the
competent authority of the Member State in the port of
inspection shall notify the competent authority of the State
where the repair yard is situated, the parties mentioned in
Article 9 (5) and any other authority as appropriate of all
the conditions for the voyage.98/25
95/21
95/21 - - - I
83. The notification of the parties referred to in para-
graph 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 ac-
tion taken.
4. Member States shall take measures to ensure that
ships referred to in 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 require-
ments of the Conventions by not calling into the indi-
cated repair yard;
shall be refused access to any port within the Community,
until the owner or operator has provided evidence to the
satisfaction of the competent authority of the Member
State where the ship was found defective that the ship fullycomplies with all applicable requirements of the Conven-
tions.
5. In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4 (i),
the competent authority of the Member State where the
ship was found defective shall immediately alert the com-
petent authorities of all the other Member States.
In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4 (ii), the
competent authority of the Member State in which the re-
pair yard lies shall immediately alert the competent auth-
orities of all the other Member States.
Before denying entry, the Member State may request con-
sultations with the flag administration of the ship con-
cerned.
6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 4, access
to a specific port may be permitted by the relevant author-
ity of that port State in the event of force majeure or over-
riding 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 competent authority may be assisted by
any person with the required expertise.95/21
95/21 - - - I
93. 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.
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 carry out inspections.
Ac o m m o nm o d e lf o rs u c ha ni d e n t i t yc a r ds h a l lb ee s t a b -
lished in accordance with the procedure in Article 19.
Article 13
Reports from pilots and port authorities
1. Pilots of Member States, engaged in berthing or un-
berthing 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 ap-
propriate, whenever they learn in the course of their nor-
mal duties that there are deficiencies which may prejudicethe 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 deficiencies
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.
Article 14
Cooperation
1. Each Member State shall make provision for cooper-
ation between its competent authority, its port authorities
and other relevant authorities or commercial organizations
to ensure that its competent authority can obtain all rel-
evant information on ships calling at its ports.
2. Member States shall maintain provisions for the ex-
change of information and cooperation between their com-
petent authority and the competent authorities of all other
Member States and maintain the established operational
link between their competent authority, the Commission
and the Sirenac E information system set up in St Malo,
France.95/21
95/21 - - - I
103. 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 this Directive.
Article 15
Publication of detentions
Each competent authority shall as a minimum publish
quarterly information concerning ships detained during the
previous three-month period and which have been detained
more than once during the past 24 months. The informa-
tion published shall include the following:
—n a m e o f t h e s h i p ,
— name of the shipowner or the operator of the ship,
—I M O n u m b e r ,
—f l a g S t a t e ,
— the classification society, where relevant, and, if appli-
cable, any other Party which has issued certificates to
such ship in accordance with the Conventions on be-
half of the flag State,
— reason for detention,
— port and date of detention.
Article 16
Reimbursement of costs
1. Should the inspections referred to in Articles 6 and 7
confirm or reveal deficiencies in relation to the require-
ments of a Convention warranting the detention of a ship,all costs relating to the inspections in any normal account-
ing period shall be covered by the shipowner or the oper-
ator or by his representative in the port State.
2. All costs relating to inspections carried out by the
competent authority of a Member State under the provi-
sions of Article 11 (4) shall be 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 the costs.95/21
95/21 - - - I
11Article 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 inspec-
tions on a part-time basis only, the total must be con-
verted into a number of full-time employed inspectors,
— 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 for-
warded 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 accord-
ance 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 fig-
ure of 25 % referred to in paragraph 1 thereof), and in
Articles 6, 7 and 15 on the basis of the experience
gained from implementation of this Directive and tak-
ing into account developments in the MOU;
(b) adapt the Annexes in order to take into account
amendments which have entered into force to the Con-
ventions, Protocols, codes and resolutions of relevant
international organizations and to the MOU.
(c) adapt the dates in Article 2 in order to take into ac-
count amendments which have entered into force to
the international Conventions and to the MOU re-
ferred to in the said Article with the exception of Pro-
tocols to such Conventions.95/21
98/25
95/21 - - - I
12Article 20
Implementation
1. Member States shall adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to implement this Di-
rective not later than 30 June 1996 and shall forthwith in-
form the Commission thereof.
2. When Member States adopt these measures, they
shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be ac-
companied by such reference on the occasion of their offi-
cial publication. The methods of making such a reference
shall be laid down by Member States.
3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission
the text of the provisions of national law which they have
a d o p t e di nt h ef i e l dg o v e r n e db yt h i sD i r e c t i v e .
Article 21
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day fol-
lowing that of its publication.
Article 22
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.95/21
95/21 - - - I
13ANNEX I
SHIPS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PRIORITY INSPECTION
(as referred to in 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 opera-
tion of the ship, shipboard living and working conditions or the prevention ofpollution, 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 sub-
stances 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 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.
Target factor value
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 criteriaMember States shall also take into account those inspectionswhich have been carried out by members of the MOU. In theabsence of appropriate data for this purpose, Member Statesshall rely upon the available Sirenac data and inspect thoseships which have not been registered in the Sirenac followingthe entry into force of that database on 1 January 1993. +20
2. Ships not inspected by any Member State within the previous
six months. +1098
/42
95/21 - - - I
14Target factor value
3. Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship’s construction and
equipment, issued in accordance with the Conventions, and theclassification certificates, have been issued by an organizationwhich is not recognized under the terms of Council Directive94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standardsfor ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevantactivities of maritime administrations (
1). +5
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:
—0-3%a b o v ea v e r a g e +3
—3,1-6%a b o v ea v e r a g e +4
—more than 6 % above average + 5
5. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a Member
State on certain conditions:
(a) for each deficiency to be rectified before departure + 1
(b) for each deficiency to be rectified at the next port + 1(c) for every two deficiencies to be rectified within 14 days + 1(d) for every two deficiencies for which other conditions have
been specified +1
(e) if ship -related action has been taken and all deficiencies have
been rectified -2
6. Ships for which deficiencies have been recorded during a
previous inspection, according to the number of deficiencies:
—0 -15
—1-50
—6-10 + 5
—11-20 +10
—More than 20 deficiencies +15
7. Ships which have been detained in a previous port +158. Ships flying the flag of a country which has not ratified all
relevant international conventions referred to in Article 2 ofthis Directive +1
9. Ships flying the flag of a country with a deficiency ratio above
average +1
10. Ships with class deficiency above average + 111. Ships which are in a category for which expanded inspection has
been decided (pursuant to Article 7 of this Directive) +5
(1) OJ L 139, 12. 12. 1994, p. 20.98/42
95/21 - - - I
15Target factor value
12. Other ships:
—between 13 and 20 years old + 1
—between 21 and 24 years old + 2
—above 25 years old + 3
The target factor means the numerical value allocated to an individual ship in accor-
dance with the provisions of this Annex and displayed on the Sirenac information sys-
tem.
In determining the order of priority of the ships listed above, the competent authority
shall take into account the order indicated by the overall target factor. A higher target
factor is indicative of a higher priority. The target factor is the sum of the applicable
target factor values indicated above. Items 5, 6 and 7 shall only apply to inspectionscarried out in the last 12 months. The overall target factor shall not be less than the
sum of items 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.98
/42
95/21 - - - I
16ANNEX II
LIST OF CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS
(referred to in Article 6 (1))
1. International T onnage Certificate (1969)2. — Passenger Ship Safety Certificate,
— Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate,
— Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate,— Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelegraphy Certificate,
— Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelephony Certificate;
— Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate,— Exemption Certificate,
— Cargo Ship 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 Sub-
stances 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 Shipsand for Pollution Prevention (SOLAS, Chapter IX).
14. Certificates as to the ship’s hull strength and machinery installations issued by the clas-
sification society in question (only to be required if the ship maintains its class with aclassification society).
15. Document of compliance with the special requirements for ships carrying dangerous
goods.
16. High speed craft safety certificate and permit to operate 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.95/21
98/42
95/21
98/42
95/21 - - - I
1721. 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.27. Document of authorization for the carriage of grain.
28. Cargo securing manual.98
/42
95/21 - - - I
18ANNEX III
EXAMPLES OF ‘CLEAR GROUNDS’ FOR A MORE DETAILED INSPECTION
(as referred to in 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 Ar-
ticle 8 of Council Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November 1994 on the minimum level oftraining of seafarers (
2).
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 to thecargo tanks is above the prescribed maximum level.
6. Failure of the master on an oil tanker to produce the record of the oil discharge moni-
toring 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, water-
tight 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.
(2) OJ L 319, 12. 12. 1994, p. 28.98/42
95/21 - - - I
19ANNEX IV
PROCEDURES FOR THE CONTROL OF SHIPS
(as referred to in Article 6(4))
1. Principles of safe manning (IMO Resolution A.481(XII) and Annexes which are con-
tents of Minimum Safe Manning Document (Annex 1) and Guidelines for the Applica-
tion 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.98
/42
95/21 - - - I
20ANNEX V
A. CATEGORIES OF SHIPS SUBJECT TO EXPANDED INSPECTION
(as referred to in 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 20 000 tonnes deadweight and above or a product carrier of
30 000 tonnes deadweight and above, not meeting the requirements of a new oiltanker as defined in Regulation 1 (26) of Annex I to Marpol 73/78, will be subject
to expanded inspection 20 years after its date of delivery as indicated on the Sup-
plement, Form B, to the IOPP Certificate, or 25 years after that date, if the ship’swing tanks or double-bottom spaces not used for the carriage of oil meet the re-
quirements 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 expand-
ed 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 to in Article 7 (2))
To the extent applicable the following items may be considered as part of an expanded in-
spection. Inspectors must be aware that it may jeopardize the safe execution of certain on-board 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 main-
line,
— 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.95
/21
95/21 - - - I
212. OIL TANKERS
In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items may also be consid-
ered 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 accommodation,
— Control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof,— Check of the Survey Report File (see IMO Resolution A.744(18)) to identify pos-
sible suspect areas requiring inspection.
3. BULK CARRIERS
In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items may also be consid-
ered as part of the expanded inspection for bulk carriers:
— Possible corrosion of deck machinery foundations,— Possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers,
— Possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads,
— Access to cargo holds,— Check of the Survey Report File, (see IMO Resolution A.744(18)) to identify pos-
sible suspect areas requiring inspection.
4. GAS AND CHEMICAL TANKERS
In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items can also be consid-
ered 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 appropriate 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 consid-
ered as part of the expanded inspection for passenger ships.
— T esting of fire detection and alarm system,— T esting 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.95
/21
95/21 - - - I
22If 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 opera-
tor. Inspectors must not obstruct the operation of the ship, nor must they induce situa-
tions that, in the master’s judgment, could endanger the safety of the passengers, thecrew and the ship.95
/21
95/21 - - - I
23ANNEX VI
CRITERIA FOR DETENTION OF A SHIP
(as referred to in Article 9 (3))
IntroductionBefore 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’svoyage 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 sur-
veyor 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 con-
trol 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 ac-
tion, 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 thedeficiencies 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 forth-
coming voyage;
5. operate the engine room safely throughout the forthcoming voyage;95
/21
98/42
95/21
95/21 - - - I
246. 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;
8. abandon ship speedily and safely and effect rescue if necessary during the forth-
coming 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 deficien-
cies found, the ship must be strongly considered for detention. A combination of defi-
ciencies of a less serious nature may also warrant the detention of the ship.
3. T o 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 seri-
ous nature that they may warrant the detention of the ship involved. This list is notintended to be exhaustive.
However, the detainable deficiencies in the area of STCW 78 listed under item 3.8below 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 pro-
vided for by the Convention or other relevant instrument. Therefore, absence of therequired certificates should not by itself constitute reason to detain these ships; howev-
er, 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 ap-
pliances, 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.95
/21
98/42
95/21
95/21 - - - I
258. 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 publica-
tions necessary for the intended voyage, taking into account that electronic chartsmay be used as a substitute for the charts.
12. Absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargo pump rooms (Solas Regula-
tion II-2/59.3.1).
13. Serious deficiency in the operational requirements, as described in Section 5.5 of
Annex I to the MOU.
14. Number, composition or certification of crew not corresponding with the safe man-
ning 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 require-
ments (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 require-
ments (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).95
/21
98/42
95/21
95/21 - - - I
263.5. Areas under the Load Lines Convention
1. Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of plating and associated stiff-
ening in decks and hull affecting seaworthiness or strength to take local loads,
unless proper temporary repairs for a voyage to a port for permanent repairs havebeen 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 to arrange for the loading and ballast-
ing 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 unac-ceptable stresses in the ship’s structure are avoided.
4. Absence, substantial deterioration or defective closing devices, hatch closing ar-
rangements 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)).
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 re-
quirements 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 sea-
farers 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.95/21
98/42
95/21 - - - I
273.9. 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.95
/21
95/21 - - - I
28ANNEX VII
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR INSPECTORS
(as referred to in 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 3000 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 leastfive 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 two years as a flag-State inspector dealing with surveys and
certification in accordance with the Conventions.
3. Ability to communicate orally and in writing with seafarers in the language most com-
monly 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.95
/21
C1, OJ No L291,
14. 11. 1996, p. 42