Common Position (EC) No 15/2001 of 26 February 2001 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community with a view to adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council 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 (port State control) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2001-02-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: harbour installation, international standard, maritime transport, prevention of pollution, transport safety, working conditions

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/15

COMMON POSITION (EC) No 15/2001

adopted by the Council on 26 February 2001

with a view to adopting Directive 2001/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of ...
amending Council 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 (port State control)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/C 101/02)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(4)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, and in particular Article 80(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee (2),

Having regard to the opinion of
Regions (3),

the Committee of

the

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 251 of the Treaty (4),

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Council Directive 95/21/EC (5) establishes a system of
port State control of shipping in the European Com-
munity based on uniform inspection and detention
procedures.

It is necessary to take account of the changes that have
been made to the International Maritime Organis-
ation (IMO) conventions, protocols, codes and reso-
lutions and of developments in the framework of the
Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

It is understood that nothing in this Directive has the
effect of transferring to port States the responsibilities of
flag States including those of the recognised organisa-
tions acting on behalf of the flag States.

(1) OJ C 212 E, 25.7.2000, p. 102.
(2) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 22.
(3) OJ C 22, 24.1.2001, p. 19.
(4) Opinion of the European Parliament of 30 November 2000 (not
yet published in the Official Journal), Council Common Position
of 26 February 2001 and decision of the European Parliament
of ... (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(5) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Com-
mission Directive 1999/97/EC (OJ L 331, 23.12.1999, p. 67).

Some ships pose a manifest risk to maritime safety and
the marine environment because of their poor condition,
flag and history; among which in particular, ships flying
the flag of a State described as ‘very high risk’ or ‘high
risk’ in the blacklist as published in the annual report of
the MOU. They should therefore be refused access to
Community ports, unless it can be demonstrated that
they can be operated safely in Community waters.
Guidelines must be established setting out the pro-
cedures applicable in the event of the imposition of such
an access ban and of the lifting of the ban. In the
interests of transparency, the list of ships refused access
to Community ports should be made public.

(5)

Ships with a high target factor present a particularly
serious accident or pollution risk, justifying the need to
inspect them frequently at Community ports of call.

(6)

The categories of ships listed in Annex V to Directive
95/21/EC also present a major accident or pollution
hazard when they reach a certain age. The broad
discretionary power of the inspection authority as to
whether to select such ships for expanded inspection
prevents the achievement of uniform practices within
is therefore necessary to make
the Community.
inspection of these ships mandatory. In particular, given
the risks of major pollution caused by oil tankers and in
view of the fact that the great majority of deficiencies
leading to detention concern ships older than 15 years,
the expanded inspection regime should be applied to oil
tankers from the age of 15 years.

It

(7)

The content of the expanded inspections for which
guidelines have been laid down may vary considerably
at the discretion of the inspection authority. In order to
achieve uniform practices within the Community, these

C 101/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

guidelines should therefore be made mandatory. How-
ever, there should be provision for making an exception
when the conduct of an inspection of such ships, in
particular in view of the state of the ships’ cargo tanks
or of operational constraints relating to loading or
unloading activities,
is impossible or would involve
excessive risks for the safety of the ship, its crew, the
inspector or the safety of the port area.

the inspector on completion of an inspection, a more
detailed inspection or an expanded inspection should
state which parts of the ship have already been inspected;
the inspector at the following port of call will thus be
able, where appropriate,
to decide to refrain from
inspecting a part of the ship if no deficiency was detected
during the previous inspection.

(8) Member States should be entitled to organise the
mandatory inspections efficiently so as to achieve the
highest value added from a strengthened inspection
regime, taking into account the various operational
conditions and making use of cooperation between
ports and Member States, while adhering to the overall
quantitative inspection targets.

(9)

As the recruitment and training of qualified inspectors
requires some time,
the Member States should be
allowed to build up their inspection service gradually;
the port of Rotterdam,
given the characteristics of
particularly the volume of traffic calling there, provision
should be made for the possibility of extending slightly
the period for recruiting and training inspectors for this
port.

(10) Structural defects in a ship are likely to increase the risk
of an accident at sea. In the case of a ship carrying a
bulk cargo of oil, such accidents can have disastrous
consequences for the environment. The inspection auth-
ority should carry out a visual examination of the
accessible parts of the ship in order to detect any serious
corrosion and take whatever follow-up action may
be necessary,
in particular vis-à-vis the classification
societies responsible for the structural quality of ships.

(11) Expanded inspection based on mandatory verification of
certain aspects of the ship takes a considerable amount
of time and organisation. The task of preparing the
inspection should be facilitated, which in turn will
improve its effectiveness. To this end, the master or
operator of any ship entering a Community port should
notify certain information of an operational nature.

(12) The growing importance of port State control in the
battle against substandard practices is resulting in an
overall increase in inspectors’ tasks. A particular effort
should therefore be made to avoid redundant inspections
and to improve the information available to inspectors
on the content of inspections performed in previous
ports. Consequently, the inspection report produced by

(13) Essential technological progress has been made in the
field of on-board equipment, which enables voyage data
to be recorded (by means of voyage data recorder —
VDR system or ‘black boxes’) in order to facilitate post-
accident investigations. In view of the importance of
such equipment for maritime safety and in parallel with
the efforts being made on this subject within the IMO, it
should be made mandatory after a period of up to five
years after the entry into force of this Directive for cargo
ships built before 1 July 2002 calling at Community
its absence or failure
ports and, when compulsory,
should warrant detention.

(14) The administration of the flag State of a ship inspected
or the classification society concerned should be infor-
med of the result of inspection in order to ensure more
effective monitoring of the development and, where
appropriate, the deterioration in the state of the ship in
order to take the necessary remedial action while there
is still time.

(15) Accidental pollution by oil is likely to cause considerable
damage to the environment and the economy of the
region concerned. It is therefore necessary to verify
whether oil tankers calling at European Community
ports have appropriate cover for such risks.

(16) The transparency of

It

is necessary in this context

information relating to ships
inspected and detained is a key element of any policy
designed to deter the use of ships that fall short of the
to
safety standards.
include the identity of the ship’s charterer in the list of
information published. The public should also be given
fuller and clearer information on the inspections and
detentions carried out in Community ports. This con-
cerns in particular information on the more extensive
inspections performed on board ships, both by the port
State authorities and by the classification societies, and
an explanation of the measures taken by the port
State authorities or the classification societies concerned
following a detention order under the Directive.

(17)

It is essential to monitor the application of the Directive
in order to avoid the risk of varying levels of safety and

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/17

distortion of competition between ports and regions of
the European Community. The Commission should
therefore have more detailed information, particularly
on the movements of ships in ports, in order to be able
to carry out a detailed examination of the conditions
under which the Directive is being applied. Such infor-
mation should be provided to the Commission suf-
ficiently frequently to enable it to intervene more rapidly
whenever anomalies are found in the application of the
Directive.

(18) The measures necessary for the implementation of
Directive 95/21/EC should be adopted in accordance
with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999
laying down the procedures
the exercise of
implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1),

for

— the International Convention on Tonnage

Measurement of Ships, 1969 (ITC 69),

— the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards)

Convention, 1976 (ILO No 147),

— the International Convention on Civil Liability
for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (CLC 92),

together with the Protocols and amendments to
these Conventions and related codes of mandatory
status, in force on ... (*).

2.

“MOU” means the Memorandum of Understanding
on port State control, signed in Paris on 26 Janua-
ry 1982, as it stands on ... (*)’

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

3. Article 4 shall be replaced by the following:

Article 1

‘Article 4

Directive 95/21/EC is hereby amended as follows:

Inspection body

1.

the title shall be replaced by the following:

‘Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port
State control of shipping’;

2. Article 2(1) and (2) shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.

“Conventions” means:

— the International Convention on Load Lines,

1966 (LL 66),

— the International Convention for the Safety of

Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74),

— the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the 1978
Protocol relating thereto (Marpol 73/78),

— the International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978 (STCW 78),

— the Convention on the International Regu-
lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
(Colreg 72),

Member States shall maintain appropriate national mari-
time administrations with the requisite number of staff,
in particular qualified inspectors, hereinafter called “com-
petent authorities”, 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 Directive.’

4. Article 5(1), (2) and (3) shall be replaced by the following:

‘1. The total number of inspections of the ships referred
to in paragraph 2 and Article 7 to be carried out annually
by the competent authority of each Member State shall
correspond to at least 25 % of the average annual number
of individual ships which entered its ports, calculated on
the basis of the three most recent calendar years for
which statistics are available.

2.

(a)

The competent authority shall, subject to the
provisions of Article 7a, ensure that an inspec-
tion in accordance with Article 6 is carried out
on any ship not subject
to an expanded
inspection with a target factor greater than 50
in the Sirenac information system, provided
that a period of at least one month has elapsed
since the last inspection carried out in a port
in the MOU region.

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(*) Date of adoption of this Directive.

C 101/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

(b)

In selecting other ships for inspection, the
competent authorities shall determine the order
of priority as follows:

(b) Any ship not complying with subparagraph (a)
shall be subject to an expanded inspection at
the port of destination.

— the first ships to be selected for inspection
shall be those listed in Annex I, Part I,
irrespective of their target factor,

— the ships listed in Annex I, Part II shall be
selected in decreasing order, depending
on the order of priority resulting from the
factor ranges as
value of
referred to in the Sirenac information
system.

their target

3. Member States shall refrain from inspecting ships
which have been inspected by any Member State
within the previous six months, provided that:

— the ship is not listed in Annex I,

— no deficiencies have been reported,

following a

previous inspection,

— no clear grounds exist for carrying out an inspection,

— the ship is not covered by paragraph 2(a).’;

5. Article 7 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 7

4. Member States shall, subject to Article 7a, ensure
that an expanded inspection is carried out on a ship to
which paragraph 3 applies and which has a target factor
of seven or more at its first port visited after a period of
12 months since the last expanded inspection.

In cases where the Member States are unable to increase
their capacity in time to carry out all the additional
inspections required, particularly because of problems
connected with the recruitment and training of inspec-
tors, they shall be allowed until 1 January 2003 to build
up their inspection service gradually. This period may be
extended by six months for the port of Rotterdam. The
Commission shall notify the Member States and the
European Parliament of any such extension.

Expanded inspection shall be carried out in accord-

5.
ance with the procedures in Annex V, Section C.

6. Where there is a risk that an amendment or draft
amendment to the MOU may weaken the scope of the
obligation for expanded inspection under this Article, the
Commission shall submit without delay to the Committee
established by Article 18, draft measures with a view to
reintroducing target factor values complying with the
objectives of this Directive.’;

Mandatory expanded inspection of certain ships

6.

the following Article 7a shall be inserted:

1. A ship in one of the categories in Annex V, Section
A, is liable to an expanded inspection after a period of 12
months since the last expanded inspection carried out in
a port of a State signatory of the MOU.

‘Article 7a

2.
If such a ship is selected for inspection in accordance
with Article 5(2)(b), an expanded inspection shall be
carried out. However an inspection in accordance with
Article 6 may be carried out in the period between two
expanded inspections.

3.

(a)

The operator or master of a ship to which
paragraph 1 applies shall communicate all the
information listed in Annex V, Section B, to
the competent authority of the Member State
of each port visited after a period of 12 months
since the last expanded inspection. This infor-
mation shall be provided at least three days
before the expected time of arrival in the port
or before leaving the previous port if the
voyage
than
expected to take
is
three days.

fewer

Procedure in case certain ships cannot be inspected

factor of more than 50 as

1.
In cases where, for operational reasons, a Member
State is unable to carry out an inspection of a ship with a
target
referred to in
Article 5(2)(a) or a mandatory expanded inspection as
referred to in Article 7(4), the Member State shall, without
delay, inform the Sirenac system that such inspection did
not take place.

Such cases shall be notified, at intervals of six
2.
months, to the Commission together with the reasons for
not inspecting the ships concerned.

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/19

3. During any calendar year, such non-inspections
shall not exceed 5 % of the average annual number of
individual ships eligible for the inspections referred to in
paragraph 1 calling at the ports of the Member State,
calculated on the basis of the three most recent calendar
years for which statistics are available.

4.
Ships referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to
an inspection, as provided for in Article 5(2)(a) or
a mandatory expanded inspection as referred to in
Article 7(4), as appropriate, in the next port of call in the
Community.

5. Within five years of the implementation of this
Directive the figure of 5 % referred to in paragraph 3
shall be amended on the basis of an assessment by the
Commission, if it is considered appropriate, in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 19.’;

7.

the following Article 7b shall be inserted:

2.
For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States
shall comply with the procedures laid down in Annex XI,
Section B.

3.
The Commission shall publish every six months the
information relating to ships that have been refused
access to Community ports in application of this Article.’;

8. Article 8 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 8

Report of inspection to the master

On completion of an inspection, a more detailed inspec-
tion or an expanded inspection, the inspector shall draw
up a report in accordance with Annex IX. A copy of the
inspection report shall be provided to the ship’s master.’;

‘Article 7b

Access refusal measures concerning certain ships

9.

in Article 9:

1. A Member State shall ensure that a ship in one of
the categories of Annex XI, Section A, is refused access to
its ports,
situations described in
Article 11(6), if the ship:

in the

except

either

— flies the flag of a State appearing in the blacklist as
published in the annual report of the MOU, and

— has been detained more than twice in the course of
the preceding 24 months in a port of a State
signatory of the MOU,

or

— flies the flag of a State described as “very high risk”
or “high risk” in the blacklist as published in the
annual report of the MOU, and

— has been detained more than once in the course of
the preceding 36 months in a port of a State
signatory of the MOU.

The refusal of access shall become applicable immediately
the ship has been authorised to leave the port where it
has been the subject of a second or third detention as
appropriate.

(a)

paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.
The competent authority shall be satisfied
that any deficiencies confirmed or revealed by the
inspection referred to in Articles 5(2) and 7 are or
will be rectified in accordance with the conventions.’;

(b) paragraph 5 shall be replaced as follows:

‘5.
In the event that the inspections referred to in
the
Articles 5(2) and 7 give rise to detention,
competent authority shall immediately inform, in
writing and including the report of inspection, the
administration of the State whose flag the ship is
entitled to fly (hereinafter called “flag adminis-
tration”) or, when this is not possible, the Consul or,
in his absence, the nearest diplomatic representative
of that State, of all the circumstances in which
intervention was deemed necessary.
In addition,
nominated surveyors or recognised organisations
responsible for the issue of class certificates or
certificates issued on behalf of the flag State in
accordance with the international conventions shall
also be notified where relevant.’;

10. Article 10(1) shall be replaced by the following:

‘1. The owner or the operator of a ship or his representa-
tive in the Member State shall have a right of appeal

C 101/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

against a detention decision or refusal of access taken by
the competent authority. An appeal shall not cause the
detention or refusal of access to be suspended.’;

Article 18

11. Article 14(2) shall be replaced by the following:

‘2. Member States shall maintain provisions for the
exchange of information and cooperation between their
competent 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 information system set up
in St Malo, France.

For the purposes of carrying out the inspections referred
to in Articles 5(2) and 7, inspectors shall consult the
public and private databases relating to ship inspection
accessible through the Equasis information system.’;

12. Article 15(2) shall be replaced by the following:

‘2.
The information listed in Annex VIII, Parts I and
II, and the information on changes, suspensions and
withdrawals of class referred to in Article 15(3) of
Directive 94/57/EC, shall be available in the Sirenac
system. It shall be made public through the Equasis
information system, as soon as possible after the inspec-
tion has been completed or the detention has been lifted.’;

13.

in Article 15 the following paragraph shall be added:

Regulatory committee

The Commission shall be assisted by the committee

1.
set up pursuant to Article 12 of Directive 93/75/EEC.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5
and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having
regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision
1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.

3.

The committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.’;

16.

in Article 19, the introductory phrase and subpara-
graph (a) shall be replaced by the following:

‘This Directive may, without broadening its scope, be
amended in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 18(2), in order to:

(a)

adapt the obligations referred to in Article 5, except
the figure of 25 % referred to in paragraph 1 thereof,
in Articles 6, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 15 and 17, and in the
Annexes to which these Articles refer, on the basis
of the experience gained from the implementation
of this Directive and taking into account develop-
ments in the MOU;’;

‘5.

The provisions of this Article do not affect national
legislation on liability.’;

17.

the following Article 19a shall be inserted:

14.

in Article 16 the following paragraph 2a shall be inserted:

‘2a.
In the case of detention of a vessel for deficiencies
or lack of valid certificates as laid down in Article 9 and
Annex VI, all costs relating to the detention in port shall
be borne by the owner or operator of the ship.’;

15. Articles 17 and 18 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 19a

Penalties

Member States shall lay down a system of penalties for
the breach of national provisions adopted pursuant to
this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to
ensure that those penalties are applied. The penalties thus
provided shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.’;

‘Article 17

18.

the following paragraph 4 shall be added to Article 20:

Data to monitor implementation

In addition, the Commission shall inform the Euro-
‘4.
pean Parliament and the Council on a regular basis of
progress in the implementation of the Directive within
the Member States.’;

Member States shall provide the Commission with the
information listed in Annex X at the intervals stated
therein in that Annex.

19. Annex I, Part II shall be replaced by the text in Annex I to

this Directive;

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/21

20.

in Annex II:

(d)

the following point shall be added to item 3.6:

(a)

item 10 shall be replaced by the following items:

‘10. Minimum safe manning document

10a.

Certificates issued in accordance with the
STCW Convention’;

(b)

the following item 35 shall be added:

‘35.

Certificate of insurance or any other financial
security in respect of civil liability for oil
pollution damage (International Convention
on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage,
1992).’;

21.

in Annex III, item 1, the words ‘II-8 and II-11’ shall be
replaced by the words ‘and II-8’;

22. Annex V shall be replaced by the text in Annex II to this

Directive;

23. Annex VI shall be amended as follows:

(a)

the following shall be added to item 2 (‘Application
of main criteria’):

‘5.

Survey report file missing or not in conformity
with Regulation 13G(3)(b) of the Marpol Con-
vention.’;

24. Annex VIII shall be replaced by the text in Annex III to

this Directive;

25. Annexes IX, X and XI shall be added, the texts of which

are in Annex IV to this Directive.

Article 2

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
Directive not later than ... (*). They shall forthwith inform the
Commission thereof.

2. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall
contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied
by such reference on the occasion of their official publication.
The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by
the Member States.

3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission
the text of the provisions of national law which they have
adopted in the field governed by this Directive.

‘14. provide the maximum of information in case

of accident.’

Article 3

(b)

in item 3.1 the words ‘The lack of valid certificates’
are replaced by the words ‘The lack of valid certifi-
cates and documents’;

This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication
in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

(c)

the following shall be added to item 3.2:

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

‘15.

Failure to carry out
the enhanced survey
programme in accordance with SOLAS 74,
Chapter XI, Regulation 2.

Done at ...

16. Absence or failure of a VDR, when its use is

compulsory.’

For the European Parliament

For the Council

The President

The President

(*) Eighteen months after the entry into force of this Directive.

C 101/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

ANNEX I

‘II. Overall targeting factor

The following ships shall be considered as priority for inspection.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Ships visiting a port of a Member State for the first time or after an absence of 12 months or more. In
applying these criteria Member States shall also take into account those inspections which have been
carried out by members of the MOU. In the absence of appropriate data for this purpose, Member States
shall rely upon the available Sirenac data and inspect those ships which have not been registered in the
Sirenac following the entry into force of that database on 1 January 1993.

Ships not inspected by any Member State within the previous six months.

Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship’s construction and equipment, issued in accordance with
the conventions, and the classification certificates, have been issued by organisations which are not
recognised under the terms of Council Directive 94/57/EC.

Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the blacklist as published in the annual report of the MOU.

Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a Member State on certain conditions, such as:

(a)

deficiencies to be rectified before departure;

(b)

deficiencies to be rectified at the next port of call;

(c)

deficiencies to be rectified within 14 days;

(d)

deficiencies for which other conditions have been specified.

If ship-related action has been taken and all deficiencies have been rectified, this is taken into account.

Ships for which deficiencies have been recorded during a previous inspection, according to the number
of deficiencies.

Ships which have been detained in a previous port.

Ships flying the flag of a country which has not ratified all relevant international conventions referred to
in Article 2 of this Directive.

9.

Ships classed with classification society with deficiency ratio above average.

10.

Ships of the categories referred to in Annex V, Section A.

11.

Ships above 13 years old.

In determining the order of priority for the inspection of the ships listed above, the competent authority shall
take into account the overall target factor displayed on the Sirenac information system, according to Annex I,
Section I, of the MOU. A higher target factor is indicative of a higher priority. The overall target factor is the
sum of the applicable target factor values as defined within the framework of the MOU. Items 5, 6 and 7 shall
only apply to inspections carried out in the last 12 months. The overall target factor shall not be less than the
sum of the values established for items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

However, for the purpose of Article 7(4), the overall target factor shall not take into account item 10.’

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/23

ANNEX II

‘ANNEX V

A.

CATEGORIES OF SHIPS SUBJECT TO EXPANDED INSPECTION (as referred to in Article 7(1))

1.

2.

3.

4.

Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years, as determined on the basis of the date of construction
indicated in the ship’s safety certificates.

Bulk carriers older than 12 years, as determined on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the
ship’s safety certificates.

Oil tankers with a gross tonnage of more than 3 000 gross tonnes and older than 15 years, as determined
on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship’s safety certificates.

Passenger ships older than 15 years other than the passenger ships referred to in Article 2(a) and (b) of
Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation
of regular ro-ro ferry and high speed passenger craft services (1).

B.

INFORMATION TO BE NOTIFIED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (as referred to in Article 7(2))

A.

name;

B.

flag;

C.

IMO identification number, if any;

D.

dead-weight tonnage;

E.

date of construction of the ship, as determined on the basis of the date indicated in the ship’s safety
certificates;

F.

for tankers:

configuration: single hull, single hull with SBT, double hull,
F(a)
F(b) condition of the cargo and ballast tanks: full, empty, inerted,
F(c) volume and nature of the cargo;

G.

probable time of arrival at the port of destination or pilot station, as required by the competent authority;

H.

planned duration of the call;

I.

J.

planned operations at the port of destination (loading, unloading, other);

planned statutory survey inspections and substantial maintenance and repair work to be carried out
whilst in the port of destination.

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 1.

C 101/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

C.

PROCEDURES RELATING TO EXPANDED INSPECTION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF SHIPS
(as referred to in Article 7(3))

Subject to their practical feasibility or any constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port, the
following items at least must be part of an expanded inspection. Inspectors must be aware that it may jeopardise
the safe execution of certain on-board operations, e.g. cargo handling, if tests having a direct effect thereon are
required to be carried out during such operations.

1.

SHIPS IN GENERAL (categories in Section A)

— Blackout and start of emergency generator

— Inspection of emergency lighting

— Operation of emergency fire pump with two fire hoses connected to the fire main line

— Operation of bilge pumps

— Closing of watertight doors

— Lowering of one lifeboat to the water

— Test of remote emergency stop for, e.g., boilers, ventilation and fuel pumps

— Testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear

— Inspection of emergency source of power to radio installations

— Inspection and, to the extent possible, test of engine room separator.

2.

GAS AND CHEMICAL TANKERS

In addition to the items listed under Section 1, the following items are to be considered as part of the
expanded inspection for gas and chemical tankers:

— Cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating to temperature, pressure and ullage,

— Oxygen analysing and explosimeter devices, including their calibration. Availability of chemical
detection equipment (bellows) with an 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.

3.

BULK CARRIERS

In addition to the items listed under Section 1, the following items are to be considered as part of the
expanded inspection for bulk carriers:

— Possible corrosion of deck machinery mountings,

— Possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers,

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/25

— Possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads,

— Access to cargo holds,

— Verification that the following documents are on board, review and confirmation that the flag State

or classification society has endorsed them:

1.
2.
3.
4.

reports of structural surveys;
condition evaluation reports;
thickness measurement reports;
descriptive document referred to by IMO Resolution A.744(18).

4.

OIL TANKERS

In addition to the items listed under Section 1, the following items are to be considered as part of an
expanded inspection of oil tankers:

— Fixed deck foam system,

— Fire-fighting equipment in general,

— Inspection of fire dampers in engine room, pump room and accommodation,

— Control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof,

— Ballast tanks: at least one of the ballast tanks within the cargo area to be examined from tank
manhole/deck access in first instance and entered if inspector establishes clear ground for further
inspection,

— Verification that the following documents are on board, review and confirmation that the flag State

or classification society has endorsed them:

1.
2.
3.
4.

reports of structural surveys;
condition evaluation reports;
thickness measurement reports;
descriptive document referred to by IMO Resolution A.744(18).

5.

PASSENGER SHIPS NOT COVERED BY DIRECTIVE 1999/35/EC

In addition to the items listed under Section C, point 1, the following items may also be considered as
part of the expanded inspection for passenger ships:

— Testing of fire detection and alarm system,

— Testing of proper closing of fire doors,

— Test of public address system,

— Fire drill where, as a minimum, all sets of firemen’s outfits must be demonstrated and part of the

catering crew take part,

— Demonstration that key crew members are acquainted with the damage control plan.

If deemed appropriate, the inspection may be continued while the ship is in passage to or from the port
in the Member State, with the consent of the ship’s master or the operator. Inspectors must not obstruct
the operation of the ship, nor must they induce situations that, in the master’s judgement, could endanger
the safety of the passengers, the crew and the ship.’

C 101/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

ANNEX III

Annex VIII is replaced by the following:

‘ANNEX VIII

Publication of information related to detentions and inspections in ports of Member States (as referred to in Article 15)

I.

Information published in accordance with Article 15(1) must include the following:

— name of the ship,

— IMO number,

— type of ship,

— tonnage (gt),

— year of construction as determined on the basis of the date indicated in the ship’s safety certificates,

— name and address of the shipowner or operator of the ship,

— in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, the name and address of the charterer

responsible for the selection of the vessel and the type of charter,

— flag State,

— the classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have issued to this ship the

class certificates, if any,

— the classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which has/have issued to this
ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions on behalf of the flag State, stating the
certificates delivered,

— port and date of the last expanded inspection stating, where appropriate, whether a detention was

ordered,

— port and date of the last special survey and the name of the organisation which carried out the survey,

— number of detentions during the 24 previous months,

— country and port of detention,

— date when the detention was lifted,

— duration of detention, in days,

— number of deficiencies found and the reasons for detention, in clear and explicit terms,

— description of the measures taken by the competent authority and, where relevant, by the classification

society as a follow-up to detention,

— if the ship has been refused access to any port within the Community, the reasons for such measure in

clear and explicit terms,

— indication, where relevant, of whether the classification society or any other private body that carried out
the survey has a responsibility in relation to the deficiencies which, alone or in combination, led to
detention,

— description of the measures taken in the case of a ship which has been allowed to proceed to the nearest

appropriate repair yard, or which has been refused access to a Community port.

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/27

II.

Information concerning ships inspected made public in accordance with Article 15(2) must include the
following:

— name of the ship,

— IMO number,

— type of ship,

— tonnage (gt),

— year of construction,

— name and address of shipowner or operator of the ship,

— in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, the name and address of the charterer

responsible for the selection of the vessel and the type of charter,

— flag State,

— the classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have issued to this ship the

class certificates, if any,

— the classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which has/have issued to this
ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions on behalf of the flag State, stating the
certificates delivered,

— country, port and date of inspection,

— number and nature of deficiencies.’

C 101/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

ANNEX IV

The following Annexes IX, X and XI are added:

‘ANNEX IX

Inspection report drawn up in accordance with Article 8

The inspection report must contain at least the following items.

I.

General

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Competent authority that wrote the report

Date and place of inspection

Name of the ship inspected

Flag

Type of ship

IMO number

Call sign

Tonnage (gt)

Deadweight tonnage (where relevant)

10. Year of construction as determined on the basis of the date indicated in the ship’s safety certificates

11. The classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have issued to this ship the

class certificates, if any

12. The classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which has/have issued to this

ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions on behalf of the flag State

13. Name and address of the ship’s owner or the operator

14. Name and address of the charterer responsible for the selection of the vessel and type of charter in the

case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk

15.

Final date of writing the inspection report

16.

Indication that detailed information on an inspection or a detention may be subject to publication.

II.

Information relating to inspection

1.

2.

3.

4.

Certificates issued in application of the relevant international conventions, authority or organisation that
issued the certificate(s) in question, including the date of issue and expiry

Parts or elements of the ship that were inspected (in the case of more detailed or expanded inspection)

Type of inspection (inspection, more detailed inspection, expanded inspection)

Nature of the deficiencies

5. Measures taken.

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/29

III. Additional information in the event of detention

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Date of detention order

Date of lifting the detention order

Nature of the deficiencies warranting the detention order (references to Conventions, if relevant)

Information on the last intermediate or annual survey

Indication, where relevant, of whether the classification society or any other private body that carried out
the survey has a responsibility in relation to the deficiencies which, alone or in combination, led to
detention

6. Measures taken.

ANNEX X

Data provided in the context of monitoring implementation in application of Article 17

1.

Every year Member States must provide the Commission with the following data for the preceding year by
1 April at the latest.

1.1. Number of inspectors acting on their behalf in the framework of port State control of shipping.

This information must be communicated to the Commission using the following model table:

Port/area

Number of full-time
inspectors

Number of part-time
inspectors (1)

Conversion to full time

Port X ...

Port Y ...

Total

(1) Where the inspections carried out in the context of port State control represent only part of the inspectors’ work, the

total number of inspectors must be converted to a number equivalent to full-time inspectors.

This information must be provided at national level and for each port of the Member State concerned. For the
purposes of this Annex, a port is taken to mean an individual port and the geographical area covered by an
inspector or team of inspectors, comprising several individual ports where appropriate. The same inspector
may work in more than one port/geographical area.

1.2. Total number of individual ships that entered their ports at national level.

2. Member States must either:

(a)

provide the Commission every six months with a list of movements of individual ships, other than regular
ferry services, that entered their ports, containing the IMO number of the ships and the date of arrival; or
alternatively

(b)

provide to Sirenac the IMO numbers and the date of arrival of the ships, other than regular ferry services,
that daily entered their ports.

Member States must provide the Commission with the list of regular ferry services referred to in points (a) and
(b), not later than six months following the implementation of this Directive, and thereafter each time changes
take place in such services.

C 101/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

ANNEX XI

A.

CATEGORIES OF SHIPS SUBJECT TO REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO COMMUNITY PORTS (as referred to
in Article 7b(1))

1.

2.

3.

4.

Gas and chemical tankers

Bulk carriers

Oil tankers

Passenger ships.

B.

PROCEDURES RELATING TO REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO COMMUNITY PORTS (as referred to in
Article 7b(2))

1.

If the conditions described in Article 7b are met, the competent authority of the port in which the ship is
detained for the second or third time, as appropriate, must inform the captain and the owner or the
operator of the ship in writing of the access refusal order served on the ship.

2.

3.

The competent authority must also inform the flag State administration, the classification society
concerned, the other Member States, the Commission, the Centre administratif des affaires maritimes and
the MOU Secretariat.

The access refusal order will take effect as soon as the ship has been authorised to leave the port after the
deficiencies leading to the detention have been remedied.

In order to have the access refusal order lifted, the owner or the operator must address a formal request
to the competent authority of the Member State that imposed the access refusal order. This request must
be accompanied by a certificate from the flag State administration showing that the ship fully conforms
to the applicable provisions of the international conventions. The request for the lifting of the access
refusal order must also be accompanied, where appropriate, by a certificate from the classification society
which has the ship in class showing that the ship conforms to the class standards stipulated by that
society.

The access refusal order may only be lifted following a re-inspection of the ship at an agreed port by
inspectors of the competent authority of the Member State that imposed the access refusal order and if
evidence is provided to the satisfaction of this Member State that the vessel fully complies with the
applicable requirements of the international conventions.

If the agreed port is located within the Community, the competent authority of the Member State of the
port of destination may, with the agreement of the competent authority of the Member State that imposed
the access refusal order, authorise the ship to proceed to the port of destination in question, for the sole
purpose of verifying that the ship meets the conditions specified in paragraph 2.

The re-inspection shall consist of an expanded inspection that must cover at least the relevant items of
Annex V, Section C.

All costs of this expanded inspection will be borne by the owner or the operator.

4.

If the results of the expanded inspection satisfy the Member State in accordance with paragraph 2, the
access refusal order must be lifted. The owner or the operator of the ship must be informed thereof in
writing.

The competent authority must also notify its decision in writing to the flag State administration, the
classification society concerned, the other Member States, the Commission, the Centre administratif des
affaires maritimes and the MOU Secretariat.

5.

Information relating to ships that have been refused access to Community ports must be made available
in the Sirenac system and published in conformity with the provisions of Article 15 and of Annex VIII.’

30.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 101/31

STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL’S REASONS

I.

INTRODUCTION

Within the framework of the codecision procedure (Article 251 EC) and further to the European
Parliament’s first reading, carried out on 30 November 2000 (1), on 20 December 2000 the Council
adopted, on the substance of the proposal, a Common Position on the proposal for a directive on
port State control (2). The Council adopted that Common Position, after its legal and linguistic
finalisation, on 26 February 2001.

The context of this proposal is the Commission communication on ship safety following the loss of
the Erika together with another proposal on ship inspection and monitoring bodies, on which the
Council has adopted a Common Position as well, and a proposal for the accelerated-phasing in of
double-hull oil tankers, for which at this stage the Council prefers an international approach within
the framework of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

The purpose of this proposal is to make inspections mandatory in accordance with the system of
targeting vessels representing high risks established by the Paris Memorandum on port State control.
In the case of certain categories of ship stricter measures provide, in particular, for mandatory
expanded inspections and the refusal of access to Community ports.

When adopting its position the Council took account of the European Parliament’s opinion at first
reading, of the Economic and Social Committee’s opinion (3), and that of the Committee of the
Regions (4) and of the amended Commission proposal (5).

II. ANALYSIS OF THE COMMON POSITION

The approach adopted by the Council to this Commission proposal, submitted in the context of a
package of measures intended to make good certain shortcomings that might be considered to have
contributed to the loss of the tanker Erika in December 1999, is based on considerations similar to
those stressed by the Commission and Parliament, namely making the inspection of certain
potentially dangerous vessels mandatory rather than optional, strengthening the measures against
vessels that are manifestly below standard and ensuring better implementation of the provisions of
this Directive.

That approach requires the creation of a strengthened mandatory annual inspection system for
vessels that are highly likely to prove defective in order also to discourage their use in European
waters. The Council also considered the question of the applicability of such measures and felt it
was unrealistic to require a large increase in the number of vessels subject to stricter inspection if
that objective could not be achieved in practice. It considered it important for the stricter inspections
to target those vessels that were potentially most dangerous rather than simply the oldest. In view
of the high level of training and experience required of inspectors if such inspections were to be
truly effective, the most important question was not that of the recruitment of the additional
personnel but rather their training. Accordingly the short-term objective must be the maximisation
of the value of the inspections carried out by a necessarily limited number of qualified inspectors.

(1) Doc. 14077/00 CODEC 950 MAR 64, not yet published in the Official Journal.
(2) Commission proposal (OJ C 212 E, 25.7.2000, p. 102).
(3) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 22.
(4) OJ C 22, 24.1.2001, p. 19.
(5) Doc. 14722/00 MAR 84 CODEC 1053, COM(2000) 850 final, not yet published in the Official Journal.

C 101/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.2001

That approach also implied the exclusion of substandard vessels from Community ports. The
Council considered it appropriate to base the criteria for exclusion on the history of each individual
vessel and therefore on its condition.

increased transparency,

Finally, in order to improve the application of the Directive in force, the Council adopted principles
of
inspection practices and the exchange of
information, and the introduction of a system of inspections and penalties in the event of non-
compliance with the Directive.

the standardisation of

III.

PARLIAMENT’S AMENDMENTS

This Common Position as adopted by the Council represents considerable progress with respect to
the first agreed position it adopted; the Council has moved very much closer to the position
expressed by the European Parliament at first reading. The approach taken by the Council takes over
the essential features of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament. The aspects discussed
most may be summarised as follows.

— The state of vessels

Although it shared the concern for strictness regarding potentially dangerous vessels also
expressed by the Commission and Parliament, the Council considered it insufficient to ban
from Community ports all vessels flying certain flags without taking account of the actual state
of each individual vessel. It preferred to introduce a distinction between vessels flying the flags
of States on the blacklist of the Paris Memorandum and those flying the flags of States classified
as ‘high risk’ or ‘very high risk’ on that list making the prior condition relating to detention
stricter for the latter.

— The use of ‘black boxes’

The Council also endorsed the importance of the use of ‘black boxes’ in maritime safety and
the wisdom of making it mandatory for vessels using Community ports, in its conclusions of
20 December 2000 (1) the Council stressed the importance of doing so. Its intention is to
continue its efforts in the context of the IMO in order to make it mandatory at international
level in five years for all cargo ships built before 1 July 2002 to carry such equipment and
failing that to legislate to that effect at Community level. It should be noted that it is already
mandatory for passenger ships and has been approved for new cargo ships.

The Council explicitly stated the objective of making the use of such equipment mandatory for
all vessels in a recital and the absence or defectiveness of a ‘black box’ is laid down as a criterion
for the detention of vessels for which the use of such equipment is mandatory. The Council
was not able, however, to adopt the absence of a ‘black box’ as a criterion for the exclusion of
a vessel for which its use was not so far mandatory.

The other amendments proposed by the European Parliament, in which it was followed by the
Council, concern, inter alia, obligations specific to the Member States concerning their national
maritime inspection administrations, the costs of detaining vessels or the obligation on the
Commission to report to the European Parliament and to the Council.

The Council has made other amendments to the Commission proposal, intended to allay the
concern outlined in Section II of this document, in particular, those amendments concerning the
targeting of mandatory stricter inspections in order to identify individually each vessel to be
inspected and to make possible the most rational use of the human resources available.

(1) See Doc. 5181/01 MAR 3.