Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships'
Date: 1996-05-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: carriage of passengers, harmonisation of standards, maritime safety, safety standard, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 51996AC0693 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AC0693

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships'  


Official Journal C 212 , 22/07/1996 P. 0021 





Opinion of the  Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on safety rules and  standards for passenger ships`(96/C 212/05)On 22  March 1996, the Council decided to  consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article  84(2) of the Treaty establishing the  European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's  work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 13  May 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Chagas. At its 336th Plenary Session (meeting of 29  May 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted  the following Opinion by 104 votes to one, with two abstentions. 1. Introduction1.1. Some international conventions on passenger ship safety, such as the  SOLAS Convention () and the International Convention on Load Lines, exclude from their scope of  application passenger ships operating on domestic voyages. This gap in international safety  regulations has led to varying levels of safety legislation in the Member States and subsequently  varying levels of application. 1.2. Council Regulation No  3577/92 (maritime cabotage) () demonstrated the need to close this gap  in order to guarantee fair competition between operators. In its Communication on a common policy  on safe seas of 24  February 1993 (), the Commission announced the adoption of common safety  requirements for passenger ships. In addition, a Council Resolution of 8  June 1993 () called on  the Commission to propose measures to guarantee safety at sea for passenger ships in Community  waters. 2. The Commission proposal2.1. The aim of the present proposal is to guarantee a uniform level  of safety for human life and goods on passenger ships when they are on domestic voyages, and to  provide a level playing field based on convergent standards which avoid distortions of competition  in the Community. 2.2. In order to achieve these objectives, and on the basis of the SOLAS Convention and the  International Convention on Load Lines, the Commission considers the following provisions to be  necessary: a) a first set of provisions to divide passenger ships into different classes according to the sea  area in which they operate; b) a second set of provisions to lay down the general safety requirements to be applied to the  different classes of passenger ships; c) a third set of provisions for the additional safety requirements, equivalents and exemptions.  Clearly, all Member States have neither the same configuration of coastlines nor the same  geographical and climatic conditions, and neither have all passenger ships the same constructional  and design characteristics. Therefore these provisions endeavour to offset insufficient or  excessive requirements by introducing additional requirements or exemptions; d) A fourth set of provisions covering inspections and the granting of certificates which will  enable authorized organizations to carry out inspections and testify that ships are in a seaworthy  condition. 2.3. Finally, the Directive lays down procedures for negotiating within the IMO framework the  harmonization of the international safety standards applicable to passenger ships engaged on  international voyages and the granting of exemptions to such ships when engaged on short  international voyages or on international voyages in sheltered areas. 3. General comments3.1. In line with previous Opinions and especially its Opinion on the  communication on a common policy for safe seas (), the Committee welcomes the proposal for a  Directive and, above all, the plan to harmonize the application of safety rules and standards for  passenger ships on domestic voyages, thereby avoiding distortions of competition in this area. 3.2. The Committee notes that the requirements laid down in Annex I differ according to class of  ship and whether the ships have already been built or have yet to be built. This is the most  appropriate approach, since it allows the requirements to be adapted to specific operating  conditions, thereby reducing the possible additional burden of structural or equipment changes. 3.3. The Committee has already endorsed the Commission's view that the Community's maritime  transport policy must 'secure competitive transport services and ensure that such services take  place at a minimal level of risk for crews, passengers, cargo and vessels, for the marine  environment and coastal activities` (see footnote  3, p.  21). 3.4. It is necessary to ensure that standards are properly observed. European cooperation within  the framework of the Paris memorandum takes on a special significance in this context. The  Committee would recall its Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on Port State Control in  Community ports () - an area in which a great deal remains to be done. 3.5. In line with earlier Opinions the Committee maintains that the Commission should not replace  the Member States on the IMO. 3.5.1. However, this should not stop it coordinating the Member States' participation in this  organization. Hence the Committee agrees that efforts must be made at Community level to harmonize  the application of the SOLAS Convention rules to passenger ships on international voyages and to  the mandatory application, within the framework of the IMO, of the principles laid down in MSC  Circular 606 (). 4. Specific comments4.1. Article  2(m)To improve clarity, the words 'such State` in the English  version should be replaced by 'that Member State` [the wording used in Article  2(n)]. 4.2. Article  3It should be made clear in Article  3(2) that passenger vessels used in inland  shipping are also excluded from the scope of the proposed Directive. 4.3. Article  44.3.1. The Committee points out that the criteria used by Member States to classify  passenger ships vary, and that harmonization is necessary. 4.3.2. Since 'significant wave height` is one of the criteria for defining the classes of passenger  ship, swift action is needed to establish a reference framework. 4.4. Article  64.4.1. The Committee notes that it is possible for the Administration of the flag  State to lay down rules which are equivalent to those of the Convention, for specific operational  conditions. Mindful of the fact that a large number of flag States are incapable of carrying out  appropriate safety checks on vessels registered or operating under their flag, the Committee would  stress the importance of applying paragraph 3 d) and the provisions on Port State Control (see  point 3.4 above). 4.4.2. If conformity with the GMDSS () is to be mandatory, the dates laid down for entry into force  will have to be adjusted accordingly. 4.5. Article  7The Committee would stress that this Article must not hamper the laying down of  provisions which guarantee a higher level of safety. 4.6. Article  11The term 'declaration of compliance` (DOC) used in this article must not be  confused with the 'document of compliance` (DOC) used in the ISM Code. 4.7. Article  12In accordance with point 3.5, the Committee considers that the Commission should  retain its coordinating role with regard to Member States' positions, albeit with the power to make  proposals and give a lead. 4.8. Annex I4.8.1. Chapter II-1, Part B,1It should be specified here that the provisions of the  Code on Intact Stability only apply to ships of over 24 metres. 4.8.2. Chapter II-1, Part B,8The Committee draws attention to the need to harmonize terminology,  notably the terms 'regulations`, 'rules` and 'standards`. 4.8.3. Chapter II-1, Part B,13The Committee draws attention to the need to clarify whether all the  subdivisions of point 7 apply to existing Class B ships. 4.8.4. Chapter II-2, Part B, 16The deadline for compliance (1  October 1997) will need to be  amended in accordance with the date of publication of the proposed Directive. Done at Brussels, 29  May 1996. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() Safety of  Life at Sea Convention.  () OJ No L 364, 12. 12. 1992, p. 7.  () ESC Opinion 1170/93 in OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 47.  () OJ No L 271, 7. 10.1 993, p. 1.  () ESC Opinion in OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 47.  () ESC Opinion in OJ No C 393, 31. 12. 1994, p. 50.  () Port State Concurrence on SOLAS Exemptions.  () Global Maritime Distress and Safety System.