WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/04 by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission. Malta's accession and maritime safety.
Date: 2004-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, Malta, accession to the European Union, international standard, maritime safety, roadworthiness tests, ship's flag

C 84 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/04

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Malta’s accession and maritime safety

The Maltese commercial fleet, the third largest in the world, includes a number of oil tankers. The ‘Erika’
was registered in Malta, for instance. On the eve of the country’s entry into the European Union, ships
flying the Maltese flag remain on the Paris Memorandum of Understanding blacklist.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the comprehensive monitoring report of 5 November 2003 on Malta’s
preparations for membership (1) acknowledges that Malta risks not meeting the membership requirements
that apply to the area of maritime transport in time for accession.

Is Malta’s maritime administration, for all its efforts, actually able to ensure that checks are carried out on
vessels that register with it and that Council Directive 94/57 is applied, when the vast majority of these
vessels belong to shipowners from third countries?

Likewise, is the Maltese maritime administration capable of verifying that the organisations to which it
entrusts inspection, survey and certification duties meet the approval requirements?

If Malta does not satisfactorily honour its duties with regard to inspections and safety, will the burden, and
substantial and disproportionate responsibilities, not pass to the port States of
the EU? Does the
Commission consider that these countries have the regulatory and financial means to deal with a situation
of this kind?

In view of the worryingly high detention rate in Community ports of Maltese-flagged vessels, how is the
Commission planning to proceed in the case of ships that have been repeatedly detained within a period of
a few months?

(1) SEC(2003) 1206 final.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that future EU Member States need to meet
Community maritime safety standards. The Commission reminded Malta, in the comprehensive monitoring
report of 5 November 2003 on Malta’s preparations for membership, that it had serious concerns,
particularly regarding flag State control, and that urgent improvement was needed. The Commission notes
that the problems have persisted, though it welcomes the progress made by Malta since the publication of
the monitoring report, particularly in aligning its legislation with Community acquis on maritime safety.
The Commission will continue to pay close attention to developments in this area.

The Commission will see to it that the Maltese authorities pursue their commitment to recruit properly
qualified personnel to meet flag State control requirements.

With regard to the application of Directive 94/57/EC (1), ship ownership is not the decisive factor as the
purpose of the Directive is to provide for a system of inspections and surveys in accordance with the
provisions in the relevant international conventions (cid:1) resulting in the issuing, or not, of the appropriate
certificates.

Following accession, the Maltese authorities will have no choice but to have these tasks carried out by
bodies approved at European level in accordance with the provisions of the Directive, and the construction
and maintenance standards applicable to the Maltese merchant fleet will have to meet the requirements of
one of those bodies. Accordingly, accession will help to improve the safety of the Maltese fleet, which will

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/177

benefit from the full application of the Community mechanisms ensuring a high level of performance from
classification societies. The Commission will ensure that the Maltese authorities, like every other delegating
State, meets its obligations to monitor the delegated bodies every two years.

The Commission (cid:1) while noting the clear and steady reduction in the rate of detention of Maltese ships in
recent years (cid:1) is particularly conscious of the fact that Malta is still on the Paris Memorandum of
Understanding blacklist.
the consequences for
Maltese-flagged ships which are detained will not change with Malta’s accession to the Union: ships flying
the Maltese flag which have been ‘detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months in a
port of a State signatory of the MOU’ will be refused access to ports in the Member States in accordance
with the provisions of Directive 2001/106/EC (2) amending the port State control Directive.

the Commission would emphasise that

In any event,

The Commission considers it most important that flag States meet their obligations and would remind the
Honourable Member that a legislative proposal on the implementation of international instruments by flag
States in the Community is being prepared as part of the new legislative package it will be proposing.

(1) Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey

organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(2) Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 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), OJ L 19, 22.1.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0225/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Food safety and developing countries

I found the Commission’s answer to my previous Written Question (E-3176/03) (1) disappointing and
unsatisfactory.

Can the Commission indicate whether the new food safety rules have made it easier or more difficult for
developing countries to sell their products on the EU market?

Has the Commission had any reaction from third countries? If so, what reaction?

Have any efforts been made to estimate the impact on developing countries? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission regrets that
the Honourable Member considers the answer to Written Question
E-3176/03 disappointing and unsatisfactory. The Commission tried to give as complete a picture as
possible of the consequences of the new legislation concerning food safety for trade with developing
countries. The Commission stated that the picture cannot be complete because the import and export
chapter of the General Food Law is not yet applicable, and the proposals for the hygiene package and for a
regulation on Food and Feed Control are still under discussion. The Commission’s position was that as a
result of the new legislation the production and control structures in exporting third countries might need
to be adapted and that it is expected that due to this adaptation, exportation could be more difficult for