No C 159/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 6. 81 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the enforcement, in respect of 
shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and 
pollution prevention 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 192 of 30 July 1980, page 8. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 11 July 1980 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 84 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
186th plenary session held in Brussels on 25 and 26 March 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 84 (2) thereof, 
Having regard to the requests made by the Council 
on 11 July 1980 for opinions on the proposal for a 
Council Directive concerning the enforcement, in 
respect of shipping using Community ports, of 
international standards for shipping safety and 
pollution prevention (l) and the proposal for a 
Council Decision establishing a Community 
information system for preventing and combatting 
hydrocarbon pollution of the sea (2), 
Having regard to the decision taken by the 
Committee Chairman on 21 August 1980, instructing 
the Section for Transport and Communications to 
draw up an opinion and a report on the proposal for 
a Directive (Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure), 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section 
at its 135th meeting, held on 14 January 1981, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
Rapporteur, Mr Bonety, 
(•) OJ No C 192, 30. 7. 1980, p. 8. 
(2) OJ No C 200, 6. 8. 1980, p. 2. Having regard to the discussions at its 186th plenary 
session, held on 25 and 26 March 1981 (meeting of 
25 March 1981), 
Whereas action to prevent and combat pollution of 
the sea by oil in particular must be at Community 
level if it is to be effective; 
Whereas effective enforcement by the Member States 
of the international standards on the safety of sea 
transport and the prevention of pollution in respect 
of vessels using their ports is an important element of 
such preventive action and also obviates distortions 
of competition; 
Whereas the identification of substandard vessels, 
their inspection and the remedying of their defects 
are elementary preventive measures to be taken into 
account along with all the other aspects of the 
problem, namely shipbuilding techniques, sea traffic 
rules, monitoring of the application of these rules, 
etc.; 
Whereas in order to comply with the proposed 
Directive the Member States will have to increase the 
supervisory and inspection resources of their 
administrations; 
Whereas the proposed Directive can show people 
hard hit by shipping accidents and the resultant 
marine and coastal pollution that the Community is 
29. 6. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/15 
aware of its responsibilities and of the need for 
coordinated action at Community level, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 68 votes to 1, with 30 abstentions: 
1. The Committee approves the aims and basic 
principle of the proposal for a Directive, subject to 
the comments and suggestions below designed to 
enhance the effectiveness of the measures proposed 
by the Commission. 
2. General comments 
2.1. In its own initiative opinion of April 1979 on 
Community shipping policy (flags of convenience), 
the Committee called for the introduction of a 
Community technical inspection system to supervise 
the safety of ships and sea traffic. 
2.2. The proposal for a Directive is a move in this 
direction. Although international standards are still 
to be drawn up within the framework of the Inter-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization 
(IMCO), they are to be inforced at Community level 
by supplementing inspection by the flag States by 
inspection by the port States in accordance with rules 
that are identical for all the Member States. 
2.3. The Committee hopes that the Directive will be 
applied in a sufficiently systematic and coordinated 
manner to prevent 'ports of convenience' (which 
would call into question the very principle of the 
Directive) from coming into being in addition to the 
flags of convenience criticized by the Committee in 
the abovementioned opinion. 
2.4. The Committee considers it highly desirable 
that all the Member States and the applicant 
countries should make haste to ratify all the 
international instruments referred to in the proposal 
for a Directive. 
2.5. The Committee would further observe that the 
1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life 
at Sea does not cover vessels of under 500 tonnes. 
The Committee strongly urges the Commission to 
draw up a safety code to be applicable to such vessels 
throughout the Community. 3. Specific comments 
3.1. Sphere of application of the Directive 
(Article 2) 
3.1.1. The Committee thinks that the prevention 
aimed at by the draft Directive will be all the more 
effective if inspection by the port States is 
systematic. 
3.1.2. It must be clear that all vessels entering 
Community ports, whatever their flag and regardless 
of whether their country of origin has signed or 
ratified the international conventions and protocols 
on safety standards or not, will be liable to checks by 
the port authorities on the application of these 
standards. 
3.1.3. In order to preclude any subsequent wrong 
interpretations, the Committee would like the term 
'relevant Conventions' to be made clearer, 
particularly as regards the exceptions provided for in 
certain international instruments. 
3.2. Ships' declarations (Article 4) 
3.2.1. The Committee considers that Article 4 is 
liable to lead to rules that differ from one Member 
State to another. 
3.2.2. This criticism is based on the fact that the 
Member States are to be allowed to decide: 
— that the declaration will be made at appropriate 
intervals, where a vessel frequently visits the same 
port of a Member State; 
— that the declaration will be made only once, 
where the vessel visits more than one port in the 
course of a single voyage. 
3.2.3. The Committee would accordingly ask that it 
be specified that the sole declaration is to be made in 
the first port of call where a vessel visits more than 
one port in the same Member State. 
3.2.4. The Committee would suggest that a 
supplementary declaration should be required in the 
event of changes in the crew or damage in a 
Community port or in Community waters. 
3.2.5. With a view to strengthening the resolve to 
achieve systematic inspection in all the Member 
States, the Committee would propose that paragraph 
3 of Article 4 be reworded to read as follows: 
'In the interests of shipping safety and pollution 
prevention, the documents referred to in 
paragraph 1 of this Article shall be examined by 
the appropriate authorities on board the ship'. 
No C 159/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 6. 81 
3.3. Requirement for a vessel to be put in order 
where the international standards have not 
been observed (Article 7) 
3.3.1. Attention is drawn to the social problems 
confronting the crew in cases where a vessel is 
detained or where authorization to leave port is given 
to a vessel not conforming to the international 
standards in order to enable it to proceed to a port 
with a repair yard capable of performing the 
necessary work. 
3.4. Inspection resources 
3.4.1. The Committee would stress that if the 
Directive is to be applied correctly the resources of 
the Member State administrations responsible for 
supervision and inspection will have to be 
increased. 
3.5. Penalties (Article 9) 
3.5.1. The Committee considers that Article 9, as at 
present worded, is liable to lead to great divergences 
between the Member States as regards the level of the 
penalties imposed on ships that do not conform to 
the international standards. 
3.5.2. In its view, Community harmonization would 
be highly desirable, if only to prevent the emergence 
of 'ports of refuge' in the Community. 
3.5.3. Furthermore, habitual offenders should be 
more heavily penalized. 
3.6. Use of classification societies (Article 10) 
3.6.1. The Committee is opposed to paragraph 2 of 
Article 10, which allows the classification societies to 
be entrusted with the following activities under 
agreements with the Member States: 
— undertaking port State enforcement work as 
agents of the Member State concerned; 
— acting on behalf of the Member State as flag State 
in order to release government inspectors for port 
State enforcement work. 
3.6.2. The present wording of paragraph 2 of 
Article 10 should be amended to take account of the 
following points: 
— direct responsibility of the Member States for the 
implementation of the Directive on their 
territory; — adoption by the Member States of the measures 
necessary to ensure as systematic as possible 
checks on the correct observance of international 
safety standards by vessels entering their ports, 
whatever their flag and regardless of whether 
their country of origin has signed or ratified the 
international conventions or not; 
— since the responsibility for these checks lies with 
the public authorities, the Commission should 
make sure that the Member States take the 
necessary steps in accordance with the 
administrative rules and practices in force in their 
territory; 
— the Member State should adopt measures to make 
it possible, by means of systematic checks during 
the loading and unloading of tankers, to detect 
any structural defects liable to lead to oil spills in 
ports. 
3.6.3. It would also seem important (for a follow-up 
to the Directive) for the Member States to inform the 
Commission each year of all measures taken to 
implement the Directive. Furthermore, the 
Community's responsibility should be made clear 
with a view to stepping up the fight against marine 
pollution and intensifying supervision of the 
application of international safety standards. 
3.6.4. The Commission, for its part, should inform 
the European Parliament and the Economic and 
Social Committee of the conclusions it has drawn as 
to the effectiveness of the measures adopted and the 
progress made in improving ship safety standards 
and in the prevention of pollution. 
3.7. Social problems 
3.7.1. Confining itself to the social problems 
connected with ship safety, the Committee takes the 
view that a Community instrument with minimum 
rules should be drawn up for the application of 
Article 2 (a) (i) of ILO Convention No 147 
concerning 'safety standards, including standards of 
competency, hours of work and manning ...'. 
3.7.2. The information report to the European 
Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee 
referred to above should have a social section dealing 
with matters of safety on board ship. 
29. 6. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/17 
3.8. Application of the Directive to the new 
Member State 
3.8.1. The Committee has grave doubts as to 
whether the Directive can be implemented in the new 
Member State. 
3.8.2. The list of infringements of IMCO standards 
per country demonstrates the need for the 
Commission and the Council of Ministers to make 
sure that the country in question is really willing to 
submit to Community rules in this important area. the number of crew members, their training and 
their duties (in particular the number of crew 
members with AB certificates and certificates in 
the use of lifeboats); 
the number of men who have taken fire-
prevention and fire-fighting courses; 
the personal and collective life-saving 
equipment; 
the state of the engines, auxiliary equipment and 
electrical installations. 
3.9. Comments on Annexes 1 and 2 
3.9.1. The declaration referred to in Article 4 (I) 
(Annex I) 
The Committee suggests that the following points be 
added to the list: 
— the date of the last actual launching of the 
lifeboats; 
— the date of the last real fire drill, and appraisals of 
performance; 3.10. The list of "clear grounds' 
(Annex 2) 
The Committee also suggests that subparagraph (a) 
of Annex 2 be amended to read as follows: 
4(a) a report or complaint by the master, the pilot, 
an insurance company or any other person or 
any professional body or trade union with a 
legitimate interest in the safe operation of the 
ship, the prevention of pollution by the ship or 
the health of its crew'. 
Done at Brussels, 25 March 1981. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
1. The following amendment was rejected in the course of the debate: 
'Page 4. 
After 3.1.3 insert a new point 3.1.4 reading as follows: 
The Committee thinks that attention should also be paid to the situation arising with the two 
international conventions for the safety of life at sea (SOLAS Conventions) of 1960 and 
1974. 
SOLAS 1960 is still to be considered an existing international instrument and has more 
participating States than SOLAS 1974. 
Vessels that meet the requirements of SOLAS 1960 cannot be regarded as substandard 
ships. 
No C 159/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 6. 81 
It does not seem reasonable or advisable to require full application, without any transitional 
period, of SOLAS 1974 instead of SOLAS 1960, after the former has entered into force. 
Provision should be made for this state of affairs. 
Reasons 
See above.' 
Voting 
For: 34, against: 60, abstentions: 7. 
2. The following amendment was rejected in the course of the debate: 
- 'Page 6, point 3.6.1. 
Delete. 
Reasons 
The classification societies' activities in monitoring the application of safety regulations in the 
construction and operation of ships on behalf of the competent authorities have proved quite 
satisfactory. 
Moreover point 3.6.3 ensures that uniform application throughout the Community can be 
achieved.' 
Voting 
For: 35, against: 58, abstentions: 3. 
3. The following passages in the Section Opinion were replaced by an amendment accepted 
during the debate: 
Page 7, point 3.6.2. 
"The Section thinks ... the following criteria' 
First indent: 'verification of the' 
Second indent: 'verification of the' 
Voting 
For: 43, against: 50, abstentions: 6.