Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on market access to port services"
Date: 2001-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: harbour installation, market access, provision of services, trans-European network, transport network, transport policy

C 48/122

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on market access to port services’

(2002/C 48/27)

On 13 March 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, drew up its opinion on 6 November 2001. The
rapporteur was Mr Retureau.

At its 386th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2001) the Committee adopted the following
opinion by 62 votes to 8 with 10 abstentions.

1. General presentation of the Commission document

definition of relevant projects of common interest relating to
seaports. Its criteria were:

In the Commission’s view, maritime transport and port
1.1.
activities are likely to increase in scale, particularly as one of
the alternatives to the problems raised by road transport.

The Commission therefore believes that three categ-

1.2.
ories of issue should be resolved:

— the inclusion of seaports in the trans-European transport

network (TEN-T);

— seaports must be open to all commercial operators;

— volume of traffic: three million tonnes of goods or
500 000 international passengers per year, with certain
exceptions for the Greek islands;

— strategic

importance
between land links of the TEN-T.

ensuring territorial

continuity

— the systematic approach to regulating access to the

market in port services;

1.2.1.3.
At present the institutions are seeking agreement
on this and, according to the Commission, seem to be
approaching a solution.

— public financing of seaports and port infrastructures.

1.2.1.

S e a p o r t s
a n d
t r a n s p o r t n e t w o r k ( T E N - T )

t h e

t r a n s - E u r o p e a n

European Parliament

1.2.1.1.
and Council Decision
No. 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines
for the development of the trans-European transport network
(TEN-T) (1) provides a broad framework for the establishment
infrastructure network. This
of an integrated, multimodal
decision acknowledges that seaports have an important place
in such a network, but agreement has not yet been reached on
the choice of ports, their inclusion in the network, or the
criteria on the type and volume of traffic.

1.2.1.2.
The Commission takes the view that there is no
justification for continuing to exclude seaports from the
transport system, and it proposed that some
intermodal
300 seaports be selected, using objective criteria, for inclusion
it also endeavoured to improve the
in the outline plans;

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

1.2.2. A c c e s s t o t h e p o r t s e r v i c e s m a r k e t

1.2.2.1.
Although the level of market openness varies from
one Member State to another, even between different ports
within the same Member State, all the Member States have
chosen gradually to open up this sector to competition, in
accordance with the competition rules of the Treaty and with
the principles of free movement of workers and freedom to
provide services.

1.2.2.2.
However, a number of aspects peculiar to ports
should not be forgotten: it can happen that ports provide only
limited space; they also have a well-defined role to play
in Community customs procedures;
they have a special
responsibility for maritime and on-shore safety and for
protecting the environment. These considerations may justify
restrictions on access to the market for the provision of certain
port services. Nonetheless, a reasoned justification must be
given for any restriction. What is more, the diversity of
Community ports calls for a differentiated approach. It has
been rightly pointed out that since no two ports are identical,
many decisions on the level of openness of the port services
market will be influenced by the characteristics of the port
concerned.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/123

1.2.2.3.
Up to now the Commission has dealt with prob-
lems in applying the Treaty rules on a case-by-case basis.
However, consultations have, in its view, shown that the idea
of establishing a regulatory framework at Community level is
gaining ground. It would be a matter of establishing more
systematic rules on access to the port services market in ports
which have international traffic, while taking proper account
of the requirements of maritime safety and environmental
protection, and, where appropriate, of public service obli-
gations and the diversity of the ports concerned. These rules
would form a framework for national measures which help to
eliminate restrictions still in force in the port services market,
while ensuring, on grounds of subsidiarity, that the local,
regional and national characteristics of the ports are adequately
respected.

1.2.2.4.
main objections are as follows:

This approach is not unanimously supported. The

— as the barriers to access to the cargo-handling market
have mostly been removed, it would not be necessary
to establish a new regulatory framework; but,
in the
the situation
Commission’s view,
throughout the Community, and in any case would not
take account of the problem of procedural rules for
granting authorisations;

this would not fit

— the port pilots and towage operators oppose the competi-
tive regulatory framework envisaged; they wish to main-
tain the current structures on the grounds that they have
made it possible to ensure high safety standards. For the
Commission, this role does not in itself amount to a
sufficient reason for excluding a priori these services from
the scope of the Treaty rules or from a new regulatory
framework at Community level.

1.2.2.5.
Finally, the main difficulty would lie in reconciling
the requirements of maritime safety and environmental protec-
tion — and where appropriate public service obligations —
with a regulatory framework compatible with competitive
operation.

1.2.2.6.
In view of the complexity of the Member States’
port regimes and of the diversity of ports with regard to size,
status and function, and in view of maritime safety and
environmental protection requirements, a directive is regarded
as the most appropriate legal instrument, leaving the responsi-
bility for implementing the provisions to the Member States.

1.2.2.7.
According to the Commission, ‘port services’ are
defined as services of a commercial nature that are provided,
for payment, to port users, this payment not being normally
included in the charges collected for being allowed to call at or
operate in a port.

1.2.2.8.
The quality, efficiency and price-performance ratio
of port services have become decisive factors in competition
between Community ports.

Historically port services have been provided
1.2.2.9.
within a framework of exclusive rights and/or legal or de facto
monopolies of a public or private nature. However, this
situation is evolving and important changes are taking place,
particularly in cargo handling, with new operators starting up
— but not in a uniform way; these changes are not necessarily
accompanied by clear and reliable procedural rules defining
the rights and obligations of present and future service
providers, as well as those of the national authorities respon-
sible for supervising and/or selecting service providers.

The changes have not been of the same scale as
1.2.2.10.
regards other types of port services; barriers to access and
private or public monopolies are still prevalent, particularly in
port pilotage and — to a lesser extent — in towing and
mooring.

The port administrations are apparently aware
1.2.2.11.
that
in
this situation would result, among other things,
the supply of these services representing in some cases an
abnormally high cost factor for port users and thus becoming
an important element in competition between ports.

Nonetheless,

the Commission recognises that
1.2.2.12.
certain restrictions can be justified by the specific situations
and obligations of the ports.

1.2.3.

P u b l i c f i n a n c e s a n d s e a p o r t s

1.2.3.1.
After an extremely thorough and detailed analysis
of everything which it regards as state aid in the port sector,
the Commission stresses the need to separate port services
activities from other activities in the accounts of the port
authorities, in accordance with the rules of private, general
and analytical accounting. An ‘inventory’ of public financing
and charging practices drawn up by the Commission is found
in Annex 2 to the Communication. These practices do not
appear to be transparent and the procedures for selecting
service providers do not in general appear to be fair or open,
or at the very least appear to be inadequate.

C 48/124

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

1.2.3.2.
It is said that none of the three accounting systems
used in different ports is transparent, in the sense that none
distinguishes commercial activities from the activities of public
management of the port and its infrastructure, nor do they
indicate (especially for municipal ports) the capital flows linked
with specific activities. Criticism is directed at the public bodies
for implementing rules of public accounting, and public
financial law instead of commercial and financial accounting
of a private type. The Commission therefore wishes to
supplement the ‘transparency’ Directive (2000/52/EC) with a
legal obligation on seaports to keep separate general and/or
analytical accounts for ‘commercial’ and ‘public’ activities.

1.2.3.3.
As regards state aid, the Commission does not wish
to draw up general guidelines on the state aid which could be
authorised for ports, as exist for other sectors, and does not
think it is in a position to provide the desirable clarification on
the matter, mainly because there is little case law with
regard to ports; it will continue to carry out case-by-case
examinations, applying the general rules of the Treaty ‘where
the facts and specificities of each case alone determine the
outcome’.

2. Reasons for and main provisions of the draft directive

2.1. Reasons

The justification for such a directive is that the
2.1.1.
market for port services is not at present covered by any
specific regulatory framework, and the need to ensure their
efficiency in the context of the liberalisation of sea transport
which has occurred over the last ten years. Certain restrictions
in access to the port services market have effects on the quality
and cost of these services. Specific rules are therefore needed,
in the interests of all, to eliminate the restrictions and establish
a more systematic approach in combating state aid.

2.1.2.
These measures should lead to competition within
and between ports taking place on an equal footing. Although,
in the Commission’s view, the openness of this market has
increased and continues to improve, the rules governing it
are not yet sufficiently clear or generalised. Moreover, the
Commission is presenting its proposal as following on directly
from the conclusions of the European Council in Lisbon which
invited the institutions and the Member States to ‘speed up
liberalisation in areas such as ... transport’.

2.2. Main provisions of the draft directive

2.2.1.
can be summed up as follows:

The common rules applicable to the selected ports

— no commercial port service should be excluded from the
Community framework (a list is annexed to the draft);

— the Member States have the opportunity to draw up a
transparent, well-proportioned and non-discriminatory
system of prior authorisation on the basis of qualifi-
cations, safety and other criteria, including public service
criteria; a legal appeal procedure is to be set up for
the selection procedures; the rules on adjudicating and
awarding public contracts apply, as do those on mutual
recognition of vocational qualifications, provided that
such a criterion is chosen for giving the authorisation;

— no limit is set for the number of authorisations to be
granted, apart from the limits of space and maritime
safety — the only ones which could restrict the number
of service providers (which would be subject to checks);
the principle is that of unlimited access; in the freight-
handling sector, at least two service providers must be
authorised in general terms; the port manager cannot
impose a limitation if he is himself a service provider, nor
can he manage the selection procedure which must in
that case be managed by an independent body set up for
that purpose;

— self-handling must be allowed as widely as possible
subject to the same rules (security, qualification, etc.) as
those applying to service providers;

— the managing body of the port must not receive any
special treatment in relation to any other service provider;
it must separate its port services accounts from the
accounts of its other activities; an external audit of these
accounts is set up, and the auditor’s report must include
information on financial flows between the managing
body’s different activities;

— the relevant authority designated by the Member States
must provide adequate training to any operator when
local knowledge is essential
to any potential service
provider;

— a time limit must be imposed on the activities of any
service provider, but a distinction is possible between
those who have made substantial investments and those
who have made no or only insignificant investments;

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/125

— the transitional measures provide for a fairly rapid review
(‘within a reasonable timeframe’) of the validity of the
existing authorisations which were granted under earlier
rules different from those laid down in the directive; the
duration of the transition period will vary according to
the level and type of investment made by the current
authorised service providers;

— the directive and its implementation by the Member
States must not compromise safety in ports, particularly
maritime safety, nor the application of environmental
protection rules;

— the institutional structures, rules on training and qualifi-
cations of staff and rules on equipment, safety and
environmental protection are left to subsidiarity, without
prejudice to existing Community law in these fields.
Ownership arrangements are respected (in line with
Article 295 of the Treaty);

— only services provided within the port area are covered

by the directive;

— the application of social

legislation is provided for

(Article 15);

— the Member States will have to provide periodic reports
to the Commission, which will use them to prepare a
summary report and possibly proposals for revising the
directive.

3. General comments

It

3.1.
Seaports play a major role in the European Union’s
internal and external trade. The bulk of external trade and a
significant proportion of internal trade pass through their
infrastructure.
to integrate them
is therefore essential
fully in the multimodal transport network, since ports can
contribute positively to the sustainable development of trans-
port in Europe, particularly through the desirable development
of maritime cabotage. The development of cabotage between
Community ports would require in particular a significant
easing of administrative formalities and constraints. Indeed,
even more so than price, the bureaucratic procedures which
have to be followed when calling in at a port constitute major
obstacles to the development of short haul maritime transport.

The ports also participate in economic and social
3.2.
cohesion and in public transport service, connecting in
particular with islands and peripheral areas; in environmental
protection and in combating maritime disasters and pollution;
they play a part in general regional development, both directly
and through the services and industries which are established
in and around ports (in some cases it is an industry which

creates the port). This contribution to employment — through
diversified, skilled jobs — and to social and territorial cohesion
cannot be detached from their functions, as emphasised in the
Committee’s opinion on the Green Paper (1).

3.3.
Seaports are also sensitive places where the external
frontiers of the Union take tangible form and where sovereign
activities must take place to ensure the security of the Union
(inspections by the state of the port, customs checks and the
fight against organised crime) and to implement other policies
(taxation, immigration policy, etc.). These various functions,
which by their nature are non-commercial, nonetheless have
an important direct commercial impact, particularly in terms
of the time they can involve during which a ship is immobilised
at the quayside, or when the state delegates certain functions
to the port authority without compensation.

3.4.
All these functions are linked economically to the
general operation of the ports. Their management and the
safety and effectiveness of their operation call for an overall,
integrated approach which ensures that the various tasks are
performed by the relevant authorities and operators in the
minimum of time and with the maximum of safety and
efficiency; this would meet the demands of users and help to
limit the costs involved in deep sea shipping calling at ports;
this demand is particularly high for internal and European
cabotage.

The Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastruc-
3.5.
ture had been presented as a contribution to improving the
effectiveness and quality of port services; however, the draft
directive deals essentially with competition questions. While
supporting, as it did at the time of the Green Paper (1), the
principles of fair competition, transparency and freedom to
provide services, the Committee also thinks that legislation
must seek to strengthen the economic capacity of ports
without increasing their administrative burdens.

The elimination of state aid or similar forms of aid is
3.6.
the Commission’s central concern; the port sector is described
as heavily dependent on state aid or on other public authorities,
with a lack of transparency in its accounts to the extent that
they do not clearly show these forms of aid.

(1) OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 92.

C 48/126

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

3.7.
The Committee is convinced that the ‘transparency’
directive (Directive 2000/52/EC (1)), subject to an extension of
its scope to cover all ports in the TEN, and the Treaty Articles
relating to competition and to public aids and subsidies, as
well as the relevant Court of Justice case law, would be enough
to give the Commission considerable, sufficient and effective
means of intervention on a case-by-case basis if violations of
these rules were found in a given port, whatever its ownership
arrangements. The very detailed analyses made by the Com-
mission of every imaginable form of state aid in the general
presentation of its draft confirm this. If there is a conflict of
interpretation, it is for the Court of Justice in Luxembourg to
decide, and it will be possible subsequently to base action on a
body of case law which would provide a more consistent
interpretation of
the rules on state aids or competition,
applying to all ports.

depending on the port, sometimes involving the dropping of
certain official customs or immigration checks and inspections,
putting undue burdens on the port authority, with the risk of
facilitating delinquent activities. These factors can constitute a
serious threat to public order and certain common policies.
The Commission should take them seriously, especially when
the latter aspect is involved.

As regards competition, it should also be noted that
3.11.
in accordance with the proportionality principle it is the
comparison of any restrictions practised in the Member States
which would be likely to reveal any cases of discrimination. It
is clear that the diversity of port situations makes such a
comparison difficult. A text of general scope would therefore
have limited significance in this respect.

Ports are places of temporary storage, on public land
3.8.
managed by the port authority and on adjacent private land
(unless the port itself is private), but above all of transit between
different transport modes, and a more global approach to
the services linked with transport would perhaps have been
preferable to an approach which picks out ports carrying out
a certain level of activities, but which are a link in a chain
which should be considered as a whole. The Committee points
out that the White Paper on transport deals with sea shipping
and with the efficiency and development of ports; it will give
its views in the near future on the Commission’s proposed
policy.

3.9. While normal, fair competition must in the Com-
mittee’s view be guaranteed between ports, while respecting
standards of safety for people and goods and the requirements
of general interest and public obligations, any distortions of
competition do not result solely — as the Commission appears
to think — from aids or subsidies which are thought to be
inappropriate. For example, access arrangements at the port,
particularly by road, rail and river: distortions between ports
can arise from significant distortions in the funding of these
different modes of access.

3.12.
Examination of the written and oral contributions
received from operators and port users, particularly at the
hearing held at the ESC on 18 July 2001 with a number of
reservations
their
expressed, with differences of emphasis, on various points of
the Commission proposal, did not come only from piloting,
towing and mooring associations, as the Commission claimed:

representatives, has

shown that

the

— The piloting, towing and mooring associations in fact

expressed fairly strong opposition to the draft directive.

— The port organisations themselves, while confirming
their attachment to the principles of competition and
transparency enshrined in the Treaty establishing the
European Community, express reservations concerning
the form and the content, particularly with regard to the
picking out of ports of a certain size in the transport
chain as a whole, and the imposition of certain rigid rules,
instead of allowing the relevant port authority greater
scope for management according to the particular cir-
cumstances of the port concerned, subject to possible
monitoring by the Commission and, if appropriate, the
Court of Justice.

Other major factors in distortion of competition are:
3.10.
the inspection of ships, depending on whether the Paris
memorandum of understanding is respected or not (targeting
coefficient for inspection of 25 % of ships entering the port),
with consequences for maritime safety; different treatment

— The trade unions in the port handling sector take the
view that the draft directive would impose an artificial
system of competition which would not take account of
existing collective and other agreements, and would cause
serious social problems; in their view, handling should be
excluded from the directive.

(1) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.

— The shipowners’ and shippers’ representatives, as cus-
in principle support the Com-
tomers of the ports,
mission’s proposals, which they expect will in particular
reduce their port costs and increase efficiency.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/127

3.13.
The Committee agrees with the Commission’s state-
ment that competition and transparency have made consider-
able progress in recent years according to the diversity of
situations — which should lead one to allow in all cases a
decisive role for subsidiarity, subject to the monitoring men-
tioned above — and to revise accordingly the set of draft rules.

‘port system’ is unsatisfactory and should be reformulated. The
definition of a ‘sea port’ should cover all ports to which ocean-
going vessels have access. Finally, the Committee would prefer
the text to be recast as part of a framework directive so as to
give full scope to subsidiarity and local initiatives — essential
for adapting the operation of ports both to the general needs
of the TEN-T and to the specific needs of customers and areas.

3.14.
Finally, the Committee would point out that, in its
opinion given when the Commission Green Paper on port
services was published, it issued its views and recommen-
dations favourable to the proposed approach; but it also
stressed the need to take into account the social, employment
and economic and social cohesion aspects, as well as the
environment — which do not receive in this piece of draft
legislation the attention which their importance merits.

3.15.
One of the aims of the draft directive, namely to
encourage the development of combined transport and thus
reduce the burden on other transport infrastructure, is entirely
desirable, but there is a need to streamline certain bureaucratic
procedures specific to maritime transport as compared with
the other modes of transport.

3.16.
The directive should avoid creating new obligations
for the responsible authorities of the ports concerned, which
would run the risk of burdening and complicating their
management; this would lead to a significant increase in their
operating costs, particularly for the smaller ports.

3.17.
In view of the aims to be achieved, it is essential to
ensure that the provisions on handling do not cast doubt on
collective and other agreements resulting from the social
dialogue, which guarantee the continuity of service and the
maintenance of social harmony (1).

Any draft legislation on ports must take due account
4.1.2.
of their role in sustainable transport, environmental protection,
employment, economic and social cohesion and regional
development. Questions also arise as to the thresholds for
inclusion of ports in the scope of this legislation: these are
based on tonnage or number of passengers, not on movements
of ships — which is also a significant criterion — and do not
take account of the varied nature of cargoes, requiring different
treatment and investment, and different numbers of handling
staff. As it stands, the proposal would in fact encourage large
ports at the expense of small and medium-sized ports, when
the latter are essential to decentralised intermodal transport
and to providing a real alternative to certain modes of transport
with a view to sustainable development in Europe.

4.1.3.
In any case, and even though the traffic data change
year by year, the list of ports concerned should be annexed to
the directive; in addition, the Committee suggests that the
thresholds envisaged for implementing the directive be raised,
so that small and medium-sized ports do not have their costs
and obligations substantially increased — something which
would put them in an even more difficult situation vis-à-vis
the large ports.

4. Specific comments

4.1.

Scope and definitions

4.2. Accounting and state aid, monitoring

The Committee notes that some of the Commission’s
4.1.1.
definitions need to be clarified or reformulated: the terms ‘port
user’ and ‘port facilities’ should be clarified, and the concept of

(1) In three judgments issued on 21 September 1999, the Court of
Justice of the EC allowed that collective agreements could derogate
from Community competition law, in Albany International BV,
in Brentjens’ Handelsonderneming BV,
C67/96 Rec.
C117/97 Rec.
I-6025, and in Maatschappig Drijvende BV,
C212/97 Rec. I-6121, by virtue of their nature and their subject.

I-5751,

4.2.1.
The Committee notes that the system of property
ownership is respected (in accordance with Treaty Article 295).
Like the port authorities, any service provider is obliged to
submit annually to the awarding authority true, detailed
accounts; these accounts should be subject to external audit,
so that checks can be made on the way in which it meets its
specifications and any public-interest service obligations it
may have. The latter concept should not be defined too
restrictively: essential services for any ship — all those with an
impact on maritime safety, such as pilotage in certain ports, or
on operational safety when handling dangerous cargoes

C 48/128

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

— and defined as essential by the legislation of the state
concerned — constitute public-interest services.

practice there will be a review in nearly all cases) is lacking in
precision; the maximum time-limit of 25 years would not
be appropriate when operators have made very substantial
investments which can be legally written off over a longer
period, which should then be taken into account.

4.3.

Procedures on tendering, transparency

4.3.1.
The Directive lays down the principle that adminis-
trative decisions and procedural measures must be adopted by
neutral bodies and not by authorities which are also the
private providers’ rivals. This is to be endorsed. However, the
administrative outlay involved in such procedures should be
kept as low as possible. Checks should therefore be carried
out to ascertain whether the proposed transparency in the
bookkeeping,
in conjunction with the rules for awarding
contracts by competitive tender and external checks, is not
sufficient to ensure the requisite independence of the authority
taking the decisions without new authorities having to be set
up merely for this purpose.

4.3.2.
In order to take account of port users’ interests, it
seems desirable to the ESC to encourage the setting up of a
committee of port partners and players, to emphasise the
existence of a port community which can guarantee trans-
parency. Meeting regularly, and broadened to include the
elected representatives of the municipalities where the port is
situated, such a port community would provide real added
value for users, managers, workers, enterprises, and local
people in terms of economic efficiency, cohesion and trans-
parency.

4.3.3.
The relevant authority designated by the Member
States would be obliged to provide adequate training for any
operator (i.e. all its staff) when local knowledge is essential to
any potential service provider: this constitutes a heavy burden
for which the mode of funding is unclear. Local knowledge
depends on the professionals working in the port itself, its
access points and the port territory as a whole (public and
private areas); it is difficult to imagine a firm or cooperative
responsible for pilotage,
inshore pilotage or towing being
obliged to train potential competitors. The port managers
themselves do not necessarily have the resources to provide
such training; at most they could be obliged to provide
information for potential candidates on the special
local
features of the port. Port familiarisation is very specific, and in
some cases can involve several years of training and experience.

The concept of a reasonable time-limit within which
4.3.4.
the validity of authorisations granted under an earlier, different,
system must be reviewed (unlimited — which means that in

4.4.

Self-handling

4.4.1.
Self-handling would pose the same problems of
safety and skills as arise for the port handling staff. Equipment
such as a crane requires highly skilled staff with lengthy
training; it is not feasible to authorise the ship-owner or cargo
owner to employ temporary external staff or the firm’s own
insufficiently skilled staff, because that would put pressure on
wages and existing regular jobs in the port; this would involve
higher risks of personal injury and of serious pollution or
accidents, which could result from careless handling of certain
types of cargo. The Member States and the port authorities
must retain the right to set strict rules and criteria in this area
in order to prevent any abuses and ensure the safety of people
and goods, as well as the skills and working conditions of the
handling staff which are essential to operational safety.

5. Conclusions

5.1.
To sum up, the Committee notes with interest that the
Commission proposal seeks to eliminate restrictions on access
to the port services market and to make existing monopolies
more competitive, but takes the view that the means proposed
give rise to reservations;
it also thinks that the proposal
involves some pointless bureaucratic aspects, which could
make management more cumbersome. Thus the obligation to
have at least two handling firms operating in most ports should
not be imposed mechanically. It fully supports extending the
obligation of transparency and separate accounts to all ports
in the Trans-European Network, but believes that this could be
done by amending the aforementioned Transparency Directive.

5.2. Moreover, the distinction made between ‘unlimited’
and ‘limited’ ports seems theoretical: each port has to contend
with specific constraints which require specific treatment. The
case of private ports open to commercial traffic also raises
special problems, particularly because of the nature and the
scale of such an investment, necessarily a very long-term one
in terms of returns.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/129

It is essential to give more thought to ways of taking
5.3.
into account
the interests of owners of goods, who are
essentially those who make the real choice of maritime
transport and between ports: this choice does not depend
solely on internal competition measures in the ports, but on
their organisation, their transport/storage logistics and the
facilities and interfaces available to them for that purpose, and
on other factors, such as the proximity of their customers,
cost-effectiveness ratios, administrative constraints etc.

5.4.
In the Committee’s view, therefore, the proposal on
port services ought to be placed by the Commission in the
context of the debate on the Transport White Paper. Ports
must be made part of a coherent overall approach, while
taking full account of their specific features, and bearing
in mind the important recent and current developments.
Improving the competitiveness of European ports requires an
approach which is broader than the current vision.

Brussels, 29 November 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

APPENDIX

To the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was considered and rejected.

Point 4.4.1

Delete second sentence (‘Equipment such as crane ... certain types of cargo’).

Reason

This paragraph on self-handling is much too negative and is also in stark contrast to the position adopted by the ESC
in its opinion on the Green Paper on sea ports: ‘As to cargo handling services, it is important that not only new
“traditional” operators but also shipowners, shippers/cargo owners and forwarders could enter the market (self-
handling).’ (point 4.2.3). At the 18 July hearing, ship-owner and shipper representatives stressed that self-handling
was crucial.

Result of voting

For: 34, against: 43, abstentions: 5.