Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 95/21/EC 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'
Date: 1997-12-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU waters, harbour installation, maritime safety, prevention of pollution, safety standard

C 73/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive
amending Directive 95/21/EC 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’

(98/C 73/18)

On 11 September 1997 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 was instructed to prepare the Committee’s
work on the subject; it set up a study group and appointed Mr Whitworth as rapporteur.

At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997), the Economic and Social
Committee appointed Mr Whitworth as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion
by 93 votes for and 5 abstentions.

1. The Commission proposal

Directive 95/21/EC (1) lays down mandatory
1.1.
requirements for Member States to observe in the
inspection of ships entering their ports as well as the
standards which such ships are required to meet. It is
the key directive in the EU’s efforts to date to eliminate
substandard ships from European waters.

ships and oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers,
bulk carriers and cargo high-speed craft over 500 grt
on 1 July 1998.

c) The adaptation of the body of the directive to
incorporate future amendments to the international
instruments covered by the directive may in future
be undertaken through the Committee procedure
contained in Article 19 which at present covers only
the adaptation of the annexes for this purpose.

1.2.
In its opinion on the Commission’s original
proposal for such a directive (2), the Economic and Social
Committee fully endorsed its objectives and made a
substantial number of detailed comments designed to
make its provisions more effective.

2. General comments

1.3.
The directive entered into force on 27 July 1995.
The Commission now proposes that it should be
amended in three respects.

a) The scope of the port state control requirements
should be expanded to embrace the protocols and
amendments to the listed international conventions
which have been adopted since July 1995.

b) A procedure should be adopted for Member States
to apply in the absence of documentation evidencing
compliance with the International Ship Management
(ISM) code which enters into force for passenger

(1) 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 L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1).

(2) ESC Opinion: OJ C 393 , 31.12.1994, p. 50.

2.1.
The Committee readily endorses the proposals
in a) and c) above. They are designed to ensure that the
port state control requirements are kept fully up to date
and consistent with new international safety require-
ments without the delay in future occasioned by the
necessity to process an amending directive.

Proposal b) requires more detailed consideration.
2.2.
The ISM code requires shipping companies to develop
and apply high quality standards for the management
and operation of their ships. This involves the develop-
ment of written policies as well as operating and
emergency procedures and the precise definition of areas
of responsibility both ashore and afloat. Governments
are obliged to satisfy themselves that the requirements
of the code are met by those shipping companies which
conduct business in their territories and by those ships
which operate under their flag and to evidence this
respectively by the issue of a document of compliance
on the part of the company and a safety management
certificate for each individual ship. Such documents are
among those which Member States are required to check
by Article 6(1) of the directive.

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/65

2.3.
The ISM code enters into force on 1 July l998
for passenger ships, oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas
carriers, bulk carriers and cargo high-speed craft over
500 grt. Council Regulation 3051/95 (1) provided for its
earlier mandatory enforcement from 1 July 1996 for all
roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries operating to and from
Community ports regardless of flag. This proposal was
unreservedly supported by the Economic and Social
Committee in its opinion (2).
the
Committee recognized that a vast amount of work
would need to be done if companies were to devise
and institute the required procedures and have these
monitored and approved by the relevant authority in
advance of the deadline.

In that opinion,

Experience has shown this warning to be justified.
2.4.
There is now widespread concern that despite, in many
cases, the best efforts of their owners and operators, a
significant number of the 12 000 ships affected will not
have obtained documentation evidencing their com-
pliance by the July 1998 date.

2.5.
Against this background the Commission is now
proposing, in an addition to Article 9 of the directive,
to make detention mandatory from 1 July 1998 in the
absence of such documentation but at the same time to
permit Member States, in the absence of any further
deficiencies, to lift the detention order and allow the
ship to leave the port with the very clear proviso that it
shall be refused access to all other Community ports
until such time as it has obtained and is able to produce
the required documentation.

2.6.
Thus this amendment to the directive on the one
hand makes detention mandatory for non-compliance
with the code but on the other permits Member States,
at their discretion, to allow ships which do not comply
on their first call at a Community port after 1 July 1998
to be released from detention and to continue their
voyages, but only to ports outside the Community. It
should be noted that the amendment would preclude a
ship registered in a Member State from returning to its
home port in order to acquire the documentation. In
particular it could not avail itself of the ‘force majeure’
provisions of Article 11(6) of the directive for this
purpose.

3. Specific comments

3.1.
The Economic and Social Committee re-affirms
its support for the ISM code as a major and important
instrument for improving standards of maritime safety

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 of 8.12.1995 on the
safety management of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries
(ro-ro ferries) (OJ L 320, 30.12.1995, p. 14).

(2) ESC Opinion: OJ C 236, 11.9.1995, p. 42.

worldwide. It believes that the code should be stringently
enforced in Community ports and thus welcomes the
Commission’s proposal to make detention of a vessel
mandatory in the absence of a recognized document of
compliance and safety management certificate.

3.2.
At the same time the Committee recognizes that
significant practical problems need to be overcome as
the code initially enters into force. The process of
monitoring and approving the on-board procedures
which a national authority or a classification society
must undertake before issuing a document of compliance
and safety management certificate is a lengthy one and
can be subject to bureaucratic delays. Detention in a
Community port for the absence of these documents is
likely to be for a much longer period than that required
to rectify a physical defect on board the ship. The
detention of all such ships immediately following the
1 July 1998 deadline would be likely to lead to serious
congestion in many Community ports and even in some
cases prejudice their ability to handle their trade.

Accordingly the Committee accepts the Com-
3.3.
mission’s proposal summarized in point 2.5 above but
emphasizes that the mechanism for refusing the ship’s
access to all other Community ports until such time as
it has obtained a valid Document of Compliance and
safety management certificate must be fully effective.
Apart from this single proviso there should be no further
derogations of any sort and the provisions of the
proposed new Article 9(a) should be strictly complied
with.

3.4. One particular point should be mentioned. The
provisional Guidelines for controlling the implemen-
tation of the ISM code issued by the Paris MOU
Authority make reference to the possibility of the
provision of ‘acceptable information regarding the ISM
implementation process’ being recognized as a valid
alternative to the production of a document of com-
pliance and safety management certificate. The Com-
mittee considers that this potential derogation should
be approached with extreme caution. It is of the utmost
importance that the port state control provisions should
be applied in a uniform manner throughout the Com-
munity so that owners are not tempted to send ships
which do not totally comply with the requirements to
ports where they perceive that a more lax inspection
regime is applied.

As a more general point the Committee believes
3.5.
that confirmation that a ship carries this and the other
necessary documentation required under the port state
control procedures might be facilitated by the adoption
of a pre-notification procedure and suggests that this
might be the subject of further study by the Commission
with a view to its possible development within the IMO.

C 73/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

3.6.
The Committee notes that, subsequent to the
drawing-up of the draft directive and indeed only two
weeks prior to the adoption of this opinion, the Assembly
of the IMO adopted on 27 November 1997 a further

Resolution on the implementation of the ISM Code.
The Committee expects that the Commission will take
the terms of this resolution into account in furthering
the implementation of the directive.

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions promoting road safety in the EU — the programme for 1997-2001’

(98/C 73/19)

On 16 April 1997 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Ghigonis.

At its 350th plenary session of 10 and 11 December 1997 (meeting of 10 December 1997) the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 79 votes to one, with five
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Commission launched a first action pro-
gramme on road safety (1) in 1993. Significant progress
has been achieved, due in large part to the role of the
Commission and the European Parliament as road safety
champions. Nevertheless, the situation remains far from
satisfactory, as illustrated by the 45 000 people killed
and 1,6 million injured each year.

1.2.
In its present communication the Commission
therefore proposes an additional strategy to accelerate
improvement in road safety. This three-pronged strat-
egy, based on the principle that the high cost of accidents
(roughly ECU 1 million per fatality) should be fully
taken into account in the safety policies of Member
States, comprises the following elements:

— gathering and dissemination of information and best
practice, notably through the setting-up of an EU
road safety information system;

— accident avoidance measures; for example curbing
of alcohol and drug/medicine use by drivers, and the
application of telematics;

— tools to reduce the consequences of accidents when
they occur,
including the development of safety
rating programmes and submission of proposals for
various technical measures.

The key elements of the 1997-2001 programme

1.3.
are:

— a Commission recommendation to fully take into
account the very high costs of road accidents in a
more widespread application of cost-benefit assess-
ments for road safety measures;

— an integrated EU information system including
information on accident statistics, exposure data,
implementation of road safety measures, research,
best practice and the application of existing legis-
lation;

(1) Communication from the Commission for a first action

programme on road safety (COM(93) 246 final).

— measures to combat fatigue and the use of alcohol,

medicines and drugs while driving;