Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Report assessing the implementation of the Directive on enhancing port security
Date: 2009-01-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common ports policy, harbour installation, port administration, public safety, terrorism

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.1.2009 
COM(2009) 2 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Report assessing the implementation of the Directive on enhancing port security 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

6. 

7. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Relevance of the Directive ........................................................................................... 4 

Method and scope of the evaluation............................................................................. 5 

Implementation of the Directive .................................................................................. 5 

Transposition into national law.................................................................................... 5 

Compliance of national measures adopted in order to transpose the Directive ........... 6 

Key issues..................................................................................................................... 6 

Perimeter of each port .................................................................................................. 7 

Information resulting from the port security assessment ............................................. 7 

Monitoring of port security plans and their implementation ....................................... 8 

Recognised security organisation................................................................................. 8 

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 9 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 9 

Annexes:................................................................................................................................... 11 

Annex I: Table indicating the Directive’s transposition status in the Member States (as of 
15/10/2008) .............................................................................................................................. 12 

Annex II: Table indicating the number of ports falling within the scope of the Directive, 
broken down by Member State ................................................................................................ 13

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Report assessing the implementation of the Directive on enhancing port security 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The main objective of Directive 2005/65/EC1 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  26 October  2005  on  enhancing  port  security  (‘the  Directive’  or  ‘the  Directive  on  port 
security’)  is  to  complement  the  measures  adopted  in  2004  by  means  of  Regulation  (EC) 
No 725/20042 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing 
ship and port facility security (‘the Regulation’). 

The  main  objective  of  the  Regulation  was  to  implement  Community  measures  aimed  at 
enhancing  ship  and  port  facility  security  in  the  face  of  the  threats  posed  by  intentional 
unlawful acts. The Regulation is intended to provide a basis for harmonised interpretation and 
implementation and Community monitoring of special measures to enhance maritime security 
adopted by the Diplomatic Conference of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 
2002.  The  Regulation  takes  into  account  amendments  to  the  1974  International  Convention 
for  the  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea  (the  SOLAS  Convention)  and  the  establishment  of  an 
International  Ship  and  Port  Facility  Security  Code  (ISPS  Code).  The  maritime  security 
measures  imposed  by  the  Regulation  are  only  some  of  the  measures  necessary  in  order  to 
achieve  an  adequate  level  of  security  across  all  of  the  various  transport  chains  linked  to 
maritime transport. The Regulation is limited in scope to security measures onboard vessels 
and the immediate ship/port interface. These obligations under the ISPS Code are those which 
Member  States  have  signed  up  to  as  a  priority,  before  accepting  the  implementation  of 
additional obligations as part of the adoption of the Directive. 

The Directive completes the mechanism provided for under the Regulation by establishing a 
security system for all port areas, in order to ensure a high and comparable level of security 
for  all  European  ports.  The  aim  of  the  Directive  is  to  improve  security  in  port  areas  not 
covered under the Regulation and to ensure that the enhancement of port security will support 
the  security  measures  taken  under  the  Regulation,  without  creating  additional  obligations  in 
areas  already  governed  by  the  Regulation.  In  order  to  obtain  the  maximum  protection  for 
maritime and port activities, port security measures are to be taken covering all ports within a 
perimeter  specifically  defined  on  a  case-by-case  basis  by  the  Member  State  concerned, 
thereby ensuring that security measures taken in accordance with the Regulation benefit from 
enhanced security in areas of port activity. These measures should apply to all ports in which 
one or more port facilities governed by the Regulation are situated. 

1 

2 

Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing 
port security, OJ L 310, 25.11.2005, p. 28. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  725/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  31  March  2004  on 
enhancing ship and port facility security, OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Therefore, the combination of the Regulation on enhancing ship and port facility security, on 
the one hand, and the Directive on port security on the other, provides a regulatory framework 
for  the  protection  of  the  maritime  link  in  the  transport  logistics  chain  against  the  risk  of  an 
attack and threats of this type. This framework, which goes beyond international obligations, 
is  designed  to  ensure  the  best  level  of  preventive  security  possible  for  maritime  transport, 
whilst ensuring that the ability to promote and pursue world trade can continue. 

In  order  to  monitor  the  application  by  Member  States  of  the  Regulation  and  to  verify  the 
effectiveness of national maritime security measures, procedures and structures, in 2005 the 
Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 884/20053, laying down procedures for conducting 
Commission inspections in the field of maritime security. On 9 April 2008, the Commission 
adopted  Regulation  (EC)  No 324/20084  laying  down  revised  procedures  for  conducting 
Commission inspections in the field of maritime security, which also laid down ‘procedures 
for the monitoring by the Commission of the implementation of Directive 2005/65/EC jointly 
with  the  inspections  at  the  level  of  Member  States  and  port  facilities  in  respect  of  ports…’. 
This Regulation, repealing Regulation (EC) No 884/2005, came into force on 1 May 2008. 

Article 19 of the Directive provides that 

‘By  15 December  2008  and  every  five  years  thereafter,  the  Commission  shall  submit  an 
evaluation report to the European Parliament and the Council based, among other things, on 
the  information  obtained  pursuant  to  Article  13  [Implementation  and  conformity  checking]. 
In the report, the Commission shall analyse compliance with this Directive by Member States 
and  the  effectiveness  of  the  measures  taken.  If  necessary,  it  shall  present  additional 
measures.’ 

This  report  assesses  the  implementation  status  of  the  Directive  and  the  effectiveness  of  the 
measures taken. 

2. 

RELEVANCE OF THE DIRECTIVE 

It should be noted that the Directive applies to all ports located in the territory of a Member 
State in which one or more port facilities, covered by a port facility security plan approved in 
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 725/2004, is or are located.  

Approximately  750  ports  in  the  European  Union  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive  (see 
Annex II). However, the geographical distribution of these ports is very unequal, with 590, or 
80%,  of  them  situated  in  only  seven  Member  States  (the  United  Kingdom,  Italy,  Greece, 
Denmark, Spain, Germany and France5). Together with those in Belgium and the Netherlands, 
the  ports  in  these  seven  countries  provide  points  of  entry  for  goods  imported  into  the 
European Union for the benefit of all Member States6. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  884/2005  of  10 June  2005  laying  down  procedures  for  conducting 
Commission inspections in the field of maritime security, OJ L 148, 11.6.2005, p. 25. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  324/2008  of  9  April  2008  laying  down  revised  procedures  for 
conducting Commission inspections in the field of maritime security, OJ L 98, 10.4.2008, p. 5. 
See Annex II. The Member States are listed in declining order of the number of ports falling within the 
scope of the Directive. 
Import activities in the ports of the seven Member States account for 66% of all imports entering the 
EU-27 area by sea in 2006 (source: Eurostat). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  seminar  was  organised  at  the  European  Commission’s  initiative  in  September  2006  to 
enable  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  exchange  information  on  the  methods 
envisaged  for  transposing  and  implementing  the  Directive.  These  informal  exchanges  also 
allowed those responsible for maritime security from the Member States to enhance relations 
of  mutual  trust,  to  participate  in  wider  reflection  on  difficult  questions  concerning  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive7,  and  to  begin  exchanging  information  on  the  mechanisms 
and  practices  used,  thus  helping  to  increase  security  standards  in  areas  within  the 
responsibility  of  the  port  authorities,  especially  areas  adjacent  to  port  facilities  or  giving 
access to them. 

3. 

METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION 

In order to prepare this report, in the early summer of 2008 the Commission asked Member 
States  to  complete  a  questionnaire8  on  the  transposition  and  application  of  the  Directive. 
Twenty of the 22 Member States who were meant to transpose the Directive have completed 
this questionnaire.  

The  Commission  also  began  procedures  for  monitoring  the  application  of  Directive 
2005/65/EC  during  the  inspections  carried  out  in  the  field  of  port  security.  Since  summer 
2008, with regard to ports, the procedures for monitoring the application of the Directive have 
been  carried  out  jointly,  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  324/2008,  by  the 
Commission  at  the  same  time  as  national-level  and  port  inspections.  In  mid-October  2008, 
four inspections were carried out, i.e. the application of the Directive was monitored in four 
different Member States. 

Given,  on  the  one  hand,  the  short  life  so  far  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 324/2008  laying  down 
revised  procedures  for  conducting  Commission  inspections  in  the  field  of  maritime  security 
and, on the other, the delay with which several Member States both transposed the Directive 
and  implemented  its  provisions  in  practical  terms,  it  would  be  premature  to  draw  any  final 
conclusions  as  regards  its  impact.  This  report  therefore  focuses  on  implementation-related 
questions and short-term results.  

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

4.1. 

Transposition into national law 

Adopted on 26 October 2005, the Directive was transposed only slowly into national law in 
the Member States during 2007 and 2008. The majority of the 22 Member States9 required to 
transpose the provisions of the Directive into national law only did so after the deadline for 
implementation (15 June 2007) had passed. Only six of them provided notification of national 
measures  before  this  transposition  deadline,  quickly  followed  by  six  other  Member  States. 
The  average  delay  in  transposition  was  six  months10.  Ten  infringement  procedures  were 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Such as, for example, delimiting a port’s outer limits for security purposes, security of the waters within 
the port, monitoring port approaches or inter-service coordination within Member States.  
Document MARSEC 2316 (distributed at the ‘Maritime Safety’ committee meeting on 27 June 2008). 
As of 20 October 2008, Latvia and Malta had not yet returned their completed questionnaire. 
Since  the  Directive  concerns  seaports,  the  obligations  do  not  apply  to  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic, 
Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia (recital no 18). 
The dates on which transposition measures were notified are listed in the table in Annex I. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
started by the Commission in the absence of notification of national transposition measures, 
which  resulted  in  10  letters  of  formal  notice  being  sent  on  1 August  2007,  followed  by  six 
reasoned  opinions  between  November  2007  and  February  2008.  On  1 January  2008,  seven 
Member States had still not adopted or transmitted to the Commission their national measures 
transposing  the  Directive.  Finally,  on  18  September  2008,  the  Commission  decided  to  take 
action  before  the  European  Court  of  Justice,  in  the  absence  of  notification  of  national 
transposition measures within the required deadline, against the last two Member States who 
had not yet met the deadline11.  

It should be noted that these delays in preparing and adopting national transposition measures 
in a variety of Member States have had a knock-on effect, in that the relevant authorities were 
not able to implement the Directive until the national measures had been finally approved and 
adopted.  

4.2. 

Compliance of national measures adopted in order to transpose the Directive 

The  delayed  adoption  of  national  legislative  texts  implementing  the  Directive  in  Member 
States  has  meant  that  the  Commission  departments  have  not  yet  been  able  to  complete  a 
detailed  examination  of  the  compliance  of  the  notified  measures  with  the  relevant  Directive 
provisions.  Although  an  initial  analysis  shows  that,  on  the  whole,  the  Member  States  have 
adequately  transposed  the  Directive  into  national  legislation,  the  local  application  of  the 
relevant  Directive  provisions  has  all  too  often  not  yet  occurred,  as  revealed  by  the  first 
inspection  visits12  performed  by  the  Commission  in  order  to  monitor  the  application  of  the 
Directive in ports. 

Once  all  national  texts  have  been  sent  to  the  Commission  (i.e.  by  the  end  of  2008  or  early 
2009),  the  Commission  will  conduct  a  more  detailed  examination  of  national  transposition 
measures  and  subsequent  provisions  made  by  Member  States  in  order  to  make  a  global 
assessment  (i.e.  covering  all  relevant  Member  States)  of  whether  the  national  measures 
comply with the relevant provisions of the Directive. 

In 2009, the working programme for the performance of maritime security inspections carried 
out by the Commission will systematically include a section for verifying that the procedures 
for monitoring the application of the Directive have been correctly applied. 

5. 

KEY ISSUES 

Following the tragic events of 11 September 2001 in New York and Washington, 11 March 
2004 in Madrid and 7 July 2005 in London, the Directive on port security provides a response 
to the concerns raised on the need to enhance security for all modes of transport, particularly 
by enhancing the legal framework and improving mechanisms for prevention.  

In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, the Directive stipulates that the Member States 
should themselves establish each port’s boundaries and leaves them free to decide whether to 
apply them to adjacent areas. Member States should also ensure that port security assessments 
and port security plans are properly drawn up. The idea of the co-legislators was to make use 

11 
12 

Estonia and the United Kingdom. 
The four ports inspected in four different Member States (in September and October 2008) had not yet 
commenced preliminary work to assess the drafting and adoption of security plans. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  the  same  security  structures  and  bodies  as  in  the  Regulation,  so  as  to  create  a  security 
regime that could be used for the whole maritime transport logistics chain, to include ships, 
terminals and port areas. This approach was meant to allow a simplification of procedures as 
well as provide synergy among the security authorities in the Member States. 

This section discusses the main issues identified in the evaluation exercise.  

5.1. 

Perimeter of each port 

Ports  vary  enormously  in  terms  of  their  status,  ownership,  size,  function  and  geographical 
characteristics. It is difficult to establish a typology, particularly since most ports can be used 
for all kinds of activities (commercial, industrial, etc) within the port area. Port structures vary 
from  ‘historical’  ports  that  towns  have  developed  around  and  ‘modern’  ports,  created  from 
scratch, directly linked to the hinterland and other forms of communication and transport. The 
geographical  diversity  of  certain  port  areas,  its  integration  into  the  urban  fabric  or  with 
industrial  and  commercial  estates  often  makes  it  difficult  to  define  the  perimeter  of  a  port 
from a security point of view. 

This difficulty in determining the boundaries of a port area, which falls within the scope of the 
Directive,  is  reflected  in  the  variety  of  approaches  adopted  in  the  Member  States.  Port 
authorities have been consulted and involved in the establishment of port area boundaries. In 
some  Member  States,  such  boundaries  have  been  defined  on  the  basis  of  existing  remits  of 
certain authorities or port facilities, whereas in others, the perimeter has been limited to those 
activities  with  a  direct  maritime  link.  This  means  that  the  scope  of  the  Directive  does  not 
include, in particular, leisure craft and facilities, residential areas or commercial and industrial 
plant.  

Generally speaking, given the principle that ports under the Directive are those in which one 
or more port facilities are situated and which form the subject of a security plan for the port 
installation  approved  under  Regulation  (EC)  No 725/2004,  the  perimeter  of  a  port  area  has 
often  been  established  by  the  Member  States  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  according  to  local 
conditions. The setting up of a security system throughout a port area has to take into account 
the  unavoidable  structural  and  historical  co-existence  of  commercial  activities,  fishing  and 
leisure  craft.  Although  terrorist  attacks  in  ports  can  cause  major  disruption  to  transport 
systems, cause bodily injury in ports or to residents of such areas, the measures taken under 
port security plans, notably for the first of the three security levels, would make it possible for 
the  necessary  trade  operations  and  movement  of  persons  in  the  ports  to  occur  in  a  flexible 
manner. 

5.2. 

Information resulting from the port security assessment 

The security assessment has not yet been finalised for all ports, primarily due to the lack of a 
national  regulatory  basis.  The  assessment  should  enable  the  assets  and  infrastructure  to  be 
identified that need protection against the threats and risks of intentional illegal action facing 
port activities. Once the infrastructure’s potential exposure has been established, the following 
phase consists of designing and putting in place appropriate measures that will enable risks to 
be countered, for each of the three identified risk levels (normal, increasing, high), notably by 
using  technical  equipment  appropriate  to  the  specific  nature  of  the  ports  in  question.  The 
assessment  should  be  completed  by  defining  the  perimeter  of  each  port  and  proposing 
effective measures  set out in a port security plan, which should be  implemented in  order to 
combat the threats and risks identified.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
In  several  Member  States,  this  assessment  is  subject  to  the  opinion  of  a  local  port  security 
committee,  chaired  by  the  port  security  authority.  This  local  port  committee  is  generally 
formed of local representatives from the administrations working at the port and involved in 
security (the civil police, coastguard, maritime affairs, customs, armed police, etc.). It is often 
after  receiving  this  local  committee’s  opinion  that  the  relevant  authority  approves  the 
assessment  and  port  security  plan.  The  importance  of  all  parties  responsible  for  security 
working together has once again been shown to be an essential condition to carrying out these 
assessments and to implementing plans. 

The  Directive  also  provides  that  Member  States  should  designate  a  port  security  officer  in 
each port. These officers, appointed by the relevant authority, act as correspondents on port 
security issues. Member States felt that training in security matters was necessary before such 
officers were appointed. Although the Directive does not make any provision in this regard, it 
would generally appear that the knowledge of port security officers is monitored and that they 
are issued with a certificate of competence.  

5.3.  Monitoring of port security plans and their implementation 

In  accordance  with  Article  13  of  the  Directive,  the  Member  States  are  required  to  monitor 
and,  on  that  basis,  regularly  and  as  appropriate  supervise  port  security  plans  and  the 
implementation thereof.  

Generally speaking, Member States have delegated this task to central administrations, which 
implement or request the implementation of audits and inspections (scheduled or random) in 
ports,  in  order  to  ensure  that  plans  comply  with  regulations,  that  security  measures 
implemented  meet  the  requirements  of  the  plan  and  that  all  necessary  measures  have  been 
taken and implemented.  

The  national  authorities  also  generally  provide  significant  support  to  ports  and  the  relevant 
authorities in the form of advice and assistance, particularly as regards drawing up plans and 
at local security committee meetings. 

5.4. 

Recognised security organisation 

Recognised security organisations (RSOs) meeting the conditions provided for in Annex IV to 
the  Directive  may  be  consulted  and  used  for  the  purposes  of  carrying  out  assessments  and 
preparing  plans.  However,  a  recognised  security  organisation  which  has  conducted  a  port 
security assessment or review of such an assessment for a port may not draw up or review the 
port security plan for the same port. 

The possibility of using RSOs varies between Member States. Although some take the view 
that  RSOs  meeting  the  conditions  under  the  Directive  can  carry  out  port  assessments  and 
prepare  port  security  plans,  a  larger  number  of  them  consider  ports  and  port  facilities  to  be 
critical national infrastructures and that the delegation of regulatory responsibility is therefore 
impossible.  This  is  particularly  true  for  those  Member  States  with  sufficient  administrative 
capacity  to  meet  these  obligations  competently,  efficiently  and  entirely  independently.  The 
issue  of  using  RSOs  is  a  very  complex  one  and  we  do  not  currently  have  the  necessary 
experience, as regards ports, to draw proper conclusions as regards the cost and reliability of 
the quality of the service provided. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
6. 

SUMMARY 

Although the Directive was adopted upon first reading with a large majority at the European 
Parliament  and  unanimously  at  the  Council,  and  despite  the  period  for  transposition  into 
national  law  being  extended  from  the  initial  12  month  period  in  the  Commission’s  initial 
proposal  to  18  months,  most  of  the  Member  States  involved  only  transposed  the  Directive 
after this period had passed, some with a significant delay that could only be reduced by the 
opening of infringement proceedings. 

However, the overall impression is that the main provisions of the Directive, which go beyond 
international obligations, have been incorporated into the national legislation and regulations 
of  the  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  there  are  still  some  organisational  and  functional 
difficulties  in  terms  of  practical  implementation  at  port  level.  Local  administrations  are  still 
not fully equipped to ensure the practical implementation of the Directive. 

The main difficulties encountered centre on the definition of a port perimeter. This is done on 
a  case-by-case  basis,  using  the  results  and  information  obtained  during  the  port  security 
assessment.  The  wide  variety  of  parties  involved  in  ports,  the  range  in  legal  status  of  port 
facilities  and  infrastructures,  the  overlapping  in  the  geographical  space  of  the  port  of  areas 
which are not directly involved in its commercial activity and the need for synergy in terms of 
an objective of security that is understood and accepted by all, are a wide range of factors that 
make the performance of port security assessments a long and difficult process. 

7. 

CONCLUSION 

Given that the Commission’s experience of the application of the Directive has been relatively 
recent, it is still too early to perform a final assessment of its impact.  

However,  following  the  difficult  task  of  implementing  the  provisions  designed  to  improve 
ship  security  and  that  of  associated  port  facilities,  which  Member  States  have  been  doing 
since  2004,  the  challenge  is  now  to  complete  security  provisions  for  port  areas  in  order  to 
ensure  high  and  comparable  security  in  all  European  ports.  The  work  carried  out  by  the 
Member States  in  order  to  complete  transposition  of the  Directive  down to  local level must 
continue,  not  only  in  order  to  complete  the  regulatory  framework  for  maritime  security  but 
above  all  to  enhance  security  in  maritime  and  port  activity  areas  and  to  ensure  maximum 
protection for these activities within the perimeter of all ports. It should always be borne in 
mind  that  the  security  of  the  whole  logistics  chain  will  always  be  the  same  as  that  of  its 
weakest link. 

On the basis of these conclusions, the Commission recalls that the security of ports and their 
approach areas is essential to security within maritime transport as a whole. It is in no-one’s 
interests to entrust or offload passengers or cargo in a port which is not ‘secure’. Conditions 
of  port  security  require  a  high  level  of  vigilance  on  the  part  of  Member  States  and  the 
preparation  of  all  those  involved  in  order  to  ensure  high  and  comparable  security  for  all 
European ports. For this reason, as regards security in maritime areas and ports, work should 
continue to permanently improve prevention, protection and response measures to counteract 
the new threats arising from terrorism, piracy or any other intentional illegal act. To this end, 
from  2009,  the  working  programme  for  the  performance  of  maritime  security  inspections 
carried out by the Commission will include a systematic component allowing verification that 
procedures for monitoring the application of the Directive have been correctly applied.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The  Commission  is  also  proposing  examining  the  constraints  facing  the  authorities 
responsible  for  the  implementation  of  security  measures.  This  study  should  enable  an 
objective typology of ports to be drawn up and to examine how best to include the interests of 
all  parties  involved  in  ports,  with  suggestions  for  putting  in  place  the  necessary  security 
measures  to  protect  against  illegal  acts  and  the  devastating  consequences  of  such  acts.  The 
research  should  necessarily  focus  on  interaction  between  the  various  areas  of  port  activity, 
whether  commercial,  industrial  or  residential  activity  or  other  water-based  activity  such  as 
fishing  or  leisure  craft  with  a  direct  or  indirect  impact  on  the  general  security  of  the  port. 
Depending on the characteristics identified for each type of port, research should be done into 
the  most  suitable  method  of  ensuring  the  necessary  balance  between  the  fundamental 
principles of freedom and the implementation of measures essential for taking vulnerabilities 
into account and for responding to threats, in order to ensure – depending on the assessment 
of  risk  level  –  the  best  level  of  protection  for  all  users  of  ports  and  maritime  transport,  for 
Europe’s economy and society in general. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
ANNEXES: 

Annex I: Table indicating the Directive’s transposition status in the Member States. 

Annex  II:  Table  indicating  the  number  of  ports  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive, 
broken down by Member State. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I: TABLE INDICATING THE DIRECTIVE’S TRANSPOSITION STATUS 
IN THE MEMBER STATES (AS OF 15/10/2008) 

Notification of all national measures transposing the Directive 

Deadline for transposition: 15 June 2007 (Art. 18) 

Member States 
(1) 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus (5) 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
United 
Kingdom 

Transposition of 
the Directive into 
national law (4) 

27/04/2007 
28/08/2007 
27/07/2007 
Incomplete 7/8 (2) 
10/07/2007 
- 
15/01/2008 
9/01/2008 
12/06/2007 
16/07/2007 
18/07/2007 
10/11/2007 
31/01/2007 
31/08/2006 
10/01/2008 
13/06/2007 
30/09/2008 
21/11/2006 
14/06/2007 
30/05/2007 
26/05/2007 
Partial (3) 

Date letter of 
formal notice 
was sent 

Infringement procedures opened 
Date reasoned 
opinion was 
sent 

Date of decision 
to refer to the 
Court of Justice

01/08/2007 
01/08/2007 
01/08/2007 

01/08/2007 
01/08/2007 
01/08/2007 

01/08/2007 

29/02/2008 

28/11/2007 

18/09/2008 

28/11/2007 

01/08/2007 

28/11/2007 

01/08/2007 

29/02/2008 

01/08/2007 

28/11/2007 

18/09/2008 

(1) Since the Directive relates to seaports, the obligations do not apply to Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
Luxembourg and Slovakia (recital no 18). 

(2) Given the federal nature of this Member State, the Directive falls within the remit of the Länder, which are 
responsible for transposing the Directive. Currently, seven of the eight Länder meant to transpose the Directive 
have  adopted  transposition  measures  which  have  been  notified  to  the  Commission.  On  14 October  2008,  the 
German authorities indicated that the outstanding measures would be adopted by December 2008 (i.e. in Lower 
Saxony).  

(3)  On  3 September 2008,  the  United  Kingdom authorities  notified  transposition measures  solely  in respect of 
Gibraltar; however, transposition measures in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are being prepared 
but have not yet been adopted definitively. 

(4)  The  notifications  provided  by  the  Member  States  are  stored  in  the  Commission  database  managed  by  the 
Secretariat-General.  

(5) As regards Cyprus, the national measures were notified at the same time as the letter of formal notice was 
sent and the infringement proceedings were immediately withdrawn. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II: TABLE INDICATING THE NUMBER OF PORTS FALLING WITHIN 
THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE, BROKEN DOWN BY MEMBER STATE 

Member 
State 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 

France 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Number of 
ports under 
the Directive 
(1) 

No of ports  
> 1 million 
tonnes or 
> 1 million 
passengers/year 

Member State

N/A (2) 
4 
17 
3 
N/A (2) 

62 
79 
14 
81  
78 
14 
47 

N/A (2) 

18 

- 
4 
2 
1 
- 

17 
16 
4 
9 
31 
14 
18 

- 

6 

Italy 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovak 
Republic 
United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL 

Number 
of ports 
under 
the 
Directive 
(1) 
90 
2 
N/A (2) 
6 
5 

20 
9 
17 
11 
27 
1 
N/A (2) 

153 

754 

No of ports  
> 1 million 
tonnes or 
> 1 million 
passengers/year 

28 
1 
- 
2 
2 

12 
4 
6 
8 
26 
1 
- 

51 

263 

(1) Figures taken from Member States’ notifications of the list of affected ports in accordance with the relevant 
provisions contained in Article 12 of the Directive. 

(2) Since the Directive relates to seaports, the obligations do not apply to Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
Luxembourg and Slovakia (recital no 18). 

EN 

13 

   EN