REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report assessing the implementation and the impact of the measures taken according to the Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: harbour installation, national implementing measure, pollution from ships, port administration, roadworthiness tests, safety standard, ship's flag

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.11.2012  
COM(2012) 660 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Report assessing the implementation and the impact of the measures taken according to 
the Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Report assessing the implementation and the impact of the measures taken according to 
the Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

One of the most important elements of maritime safety is Port State Control (PSC) which may 
be  defined  as  the  inspection  of  foreign  ships  in  other  national  ports  for  the  purpose  of 
verifying that the competency of the master and officers on board, the condition of a ship and 
its equipment comply with the requirements of international Conventions and that the vessel 
is manned and operated in compliance with applicable international law. 

The  EU  regime  on  PSC  is  based  on  Directive  2009/16/EC1,  which  re-casted  and  reinforced 
the previous legislation in this field introduced in 1995. The EU regime is based on the pre-
existing structure of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (PMoU). 
All  EU  coastal  Member  States  as  well  as  Canada,  Russia,  Croatia,  Iceland  and  Norway  are 
members of the PMoU. The Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) 
work closely with the PMoU.  

Direcive  2009/16/EC  introduced  a  new  inspection  regime  (NIR)  for  PSC  from  1  January 
2011.  In  addition  to  the  actions  taken  by  the  Member  States,  the  Directive  has  been 
implemented at EU level through the establishment of a system for reporting of results of PSC 
inspections  (the  THETIS  database).  The  THETIS  system  has  been  developed  by  the 
Commission in close cooperation with EMSA, EMSA operates the THETIS system on behalf 
of the Commission. 

Directive 2009/16/EC provides for several new requirements in the field of PSC as well as for 
common criteria and harmonised procedures for control of ships and aims at the inspection of 
all ships, depending on their risk profile, with ships posing a higher risk being inspected more 
often.  

Article 35  provides that the  Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the 
Council  by  30  June  2012,  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  in  particular  on  the 
fulfilment  of  the  overall  Community  inspection  commitment  and  the  commitment  by  each 
Member State (Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8). Article 35 also requires the Commission to report on 
the  number  of  PSC  inspectors  in  each  Member  State,  the  number  of  inspections  carried  out 
and whether it is considered necessary by the Commision to propose an amending Directive 
or further legislation in this area. 

1 

Directive  2009/16/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2009  on  port  State 
control (Recast) (OJ L 136, 28.05.2009, p 57) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

METHOD OF EVALUATION  

The  implementation  of  the  Directive  by  Member  States  consists  of  legal,  operational  and 
technical elements:  

• 

• 

• 

Legal implementation is achieved through formal transposition of the Directive and 
enforcement of the ensuing national legislation.  

Operational implementation is achieved by ensuring that all ships calling at ports and 
anchorages  within  the  EU  are  regularly  inspected  and  by  following  the  procedures 
and requirements of the Directive.  

Technical implementation involves establishing and operating the THETIS database 
and  the  necessary  computer  infrastructure  for  recording  ship  call  information2 
required by Article 24 of the Directive.  

To draft this report, the Commission requested Member States to provide information on the 
transposition and implementation of the Directive. In addition, the Commission tasked EMSA 
to carry out a series of inspections in Member States to assist it in assessing implementation 
of the Directive.  

3. 

CHANGES INTRODUCED BY DIRECTIVE 2009/16/EC 

Directive 2009/16/EC introduced the following key changes into the EU PSC regime:  

3.1. 

Full inspection coverage 

Directive 2009/16/EC provides that all qualifying vessels visiting EU ports are inspected, this 
departs from the previous requirement (under Directive 95/21/EC as amended) which required 
that  national  PSC  authorities  inspect  25%  of  the  individual  ships  visiting  their  ports.  Under 
the  NIR  targeting  is  done  via  an  elaborate  scheme  of  individual  Ship  Risk  Profiles  (SRPs). 
Each ship is designated “high risk”, “low risk” or “standard risk”.  

The frequency of inspection depends on the SRP: 

• 

• 

• 

“high risk” ships becoming due for periodic inspections every 5-6 months,  

“standard risk” ships every 10-12 months and  

"low risk” ships every 24-36 months.  

When a particular ship becomes eligible for inspection (for example in the case of a standard 
risk  ship,  10  months  after  the  last  inspection)  in  accordance  with  the  frequencies  set  out 
above, the ship is designated a Priority II status and may be inspected. When the time frame 
based  on  the  SRP  expires  (in  the  case  of  a  standard  risk  ship,  12  months  after  the  last 
inspection), it becomes a Priority I ship and must be inspected.  

2 

Article  24(2)  of  Directive  2009/16/EC  provides  that  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  port  call 
information  is  transferred  within  a  reasonable  time  to  the  THETIS  database  by  means  of  the 
Community maritime information exchange system ‘SafeSeaNet’ referred to in Article 3(s) of Directive 
2002/59/EC in order to allow the PSC authority to select ships for inspection.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The SRP is established taking into account 7 criteria, these are (i) ship type, (ii) age of ship, 
(iii) flag (Black, Grey or White list as defined by the PMoU) (iv) recognised organisation, (v) 
company performance, (vi) number of deficiencies recorded in each inspection involving the 
ship in the previous 36 months and (vii) the number of detentions in the previous 36 months.  

Three types of inspection, “initial”, “more detailed” or “expanded” can be carried out. As a 
rule, high risk ships undergo  an expanded  inspection while  standard risk  and  low risk ships 
undergo an initial or more detailed inspection. 

3.2. 

Flag State performance 

One of the criteria for determining the SRP of a vessel is the performance of the Flag State. 
Commission Regulation (EU) 801/20103 of 13 September 2010 implements Article 10(3) of 
Directive  2009/16/EC  as  regards  the  flag  State  criteria.  Under  this  system,  flag  States  are 
classified into black, grey or white lists, on the basis of the total inspections and detentions of 
ships  flying  their  flag  and  operating  in  the  PMoU  region  over  a  three  year  period.  The 
classification is updated yearly. 

3.3. 

Company performance  

The company performance parameter (which was not taken into account under the previous 
inspection  regime)  is  based  on  the  number  of  inspections,  detentions  and  deficiencies 
recorded  against  ships  belonging  to  the  same  company  (responsible  for  the  International 
Safety  Management  (ISM)  of  the  ship).  Companies  may  be  ranked:  “High”,  “Medium”, 
“Low” and “Very low”. Commission Regulation (EU) 802/20104 of 13 September 2010 was 
adopted  in  order  to  set  out  the  criteria  by  which  company  performance  is  determined.  The 
operational effectiveness of this Regulation is currently under assessment. 

3.4. 

Information  on  actual  times  of  arrival  and  departure  of  ships  calling  at  their 
ports and anchorages 

The  Directive  provides  that  the  THETIS  database  receives  ship  call  information  from  the 
SafeSeaNet  system  allowing  for  the  planning  and  programming  of  PSC  inspections.  This 
feature  was  not  provided  by  the  previous  inspection  database  (SIRENAC).  SafeSeaNet  was 
established5  as  a  centralised  European  platform  for  maritime  data  exchange  enabling  EU 
Member  States,  Norway,  and  Iceland,  to  provide  and  receive  information  on  ships,  ship 
movements, and hazardous cargoes.  

The  importance  of  this  feature  for  the  new  PSC  regime  is  critical  as  planning  for  and 
compliance with their inspection commitment by Member States is based on immediate and 
complete knowledge of the SRP information of ships calling at their ports.  

3.5. 

Inspections at anchorages 

A further new element introduced by Directive 2009/16/EC is that ships may be inspected at 
an  anchorage  where  a  “ship/port  interface”  takes  place.  This  requires  additional  inspection 
arrangements and resources. 

3 
4 
5 

OJ L 241 of 14.09.2010, p.1 
OJ L 241 of 14.09.2010, p.4 
By Directive 2002/59/EC of 27.06.2002, as amended 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.6. 

Refusal of access 

Under Directive 2009/16/EC the refusal of access (banning) rule for multiple detentions has 
been widened to include grey listed flag States and all ship types. The NIR provides that if a 
"black listed" flagged ship has been detained more than twice in the preceding 36 months, it 
will  be  banned.  In  the  case  of  a  "grey  listed"  flagged  ship,  more  than  two  detentions  in  the 
previous  24  months  will  also  lead  to  banning.  Under  the  new  PSC  arrangements,  minimum 
banning terms are introduced: 3 months for the first ban, 12 months for a second ban and 24 
months for a third ban. The third ban can only be lifted if certain conditions are complied with 
and a re-inspection is carried out during the ban period of 24 months. Any detention following 
the third ban leads to the ship being permanently banned from any port within the EU. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

4.1. 

Legal implementation - Transposition into national legislation 

Directive 2009/16/EC came into force on 17 June 2009; Member States had to transpose the 
Directive into their national legislation by 1 January 2011.  

Non-coastal  Member  States  were  not  obliged  to  transpose  the  Directive.  Only  Slovakia 
implemented  the  Directive6,  four  Member  States  (Hungary,  Luxemburg,  Austria  and  Czech 
Republic) formally declared that they would not transpose it. 

Among  the  23  Member  States,  only  about  half  notified  all  their  transposition  measures 
roughly on time - i.e. within 3 months of the transposition deadline. The result was that the 
NIR  could  not  produce  its  full  effects  from    1  January  2011.  The  Commission  opened 
infringement procedures against all Member States not having complied with the transposition 
deadline and full transposition is now almost achieved. 

The Commission services are currently analysing the measures notified for compliance with 
EU law. In addition, EMSA has begun to carry out further visits to Member States to verify 
implementation (some 5 visits a year). 

4.2. 

Transpostion measures, EU legislation 

In addition to the Commission Regulations7 adopted in respect of the flag State performance 
and  company  performance  criteria  of  the  Ship  Risk  Profile,  Commission  Regulation  (EU) 
428/20108 of 20 May 2010 implementing Article 14 of Directive 2009/16/EC on the items to 
be verified during the course of an expanded inspection was also adopted.  

4.3. 

Operational implementation 

The NIR aims at eliminating substandard shipping by increasing the frequency of inspection 
of  sub-standard  ships,  while  reducing  the  frequency  of  inspection  of  quality  ships.  This 
requires  an  information  support  system  (THETIS)  that  not  only  collects  and  disseminates 

6 

7 
8 

Although Slovakia has transposed the Directive, since it does not have any maritime ports there is no 
implementation  information.  This  report  therefore  refers  to  implementation  by  the  22  coastal  EU 
Member States and/or (where appropriate) to the 27 PMoU States. 
Regulations (EU) 801/2010 and 802/2010  
OJ L125 of 21.05.2010, p.2 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PSC-related data but also includes a capability to calculate the criteria necessary to guide PSC 
targeting in Member States from such data. The SafeSeaNet system provides THETIS with all 
ship arrival and departure information in all EU ports and anchorages. 

4.4. 

Technical implementation 

Prior to 1 January 2011, EMSA organised an awareness campaign to increase familiarity with 
the new reporting obligations within Member States and with industry.  

A  technical  interface  between  the  two  systems  (THETIS  and  SafeSeaNet),  allowing  for  the 
recording of ship call information in THETIS, was in place by November 2010. THETIS was 
fully  operational  on  15  December  2010.  Prior  to  this  date,  EMSA  provided  training  to 
THETIS users.  

Following  the  start  of  THETIS  operations  (1  January  2011),  a  helpdesk  was  set  up  and  is 
providing  support  and  technical  assistance  to  THETIS  users  ever  since.  In  2011,  a  total  of 
2331 requests were received with an average “time to close” of 1.3 hours. 

During  the  first  trimester  of  2011,  most  Member  States  completed  their  national 
implementation  of  port  call  systems.  In  order  to  assess  the  completeness  of  the  ship  call 
information recorded in THETIS in 2011, EMSA carried out a ship call comparison exercise 
comparing  the  number  of  calls  recorded  in  THETIS,  in  SafeSeaNet  and  in  Lloyd’s  List 
Intelligence (a commercial service provider). The following findings were noted:  

• 

• 

• 

Most  Member  States  completed  their  national  implementation  of  the  THETIS  – 
SafeSeaNet  interface  during  the  first  trimester  of  2011.  Therefore  from  April  2011 
onwards, a more consistent performance on transfer of information to THETIS from 
SafeSeaNet was noted for most Member States; 

Finland completed the national implementation of the THETIS-SafeSeaNet interface 
in mid-June 2011; 

By the end of 2011, the UK had not yet completed its national implementation of the 
THETIS–SafeSeaNet interface. Consequently, UK ship call information in THETIS 
for  2011  is  limited  only  to  entries  that  were  inserted  manually and  does  not  reflect 
the real situation. 

5. 

KEY ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE 

This report analyses and evaluates the following issues in more depth. 

5.1. 

The overall EU inspection commitment 

According  to  Article  5  of  Directive  2009/16/EC,  each  Member  State  shall  comply  with  its 
annual inspection commitment by: 

(a) 

(b) 

inspecting all Priority I ships calling at its ports and anchorages; and  

carrying  out  a  number  of  inspections  (Priority  I  and  Priority  II)  every  year, 
corresponding at least to its share of the total number of inspections to be carried out 
annually within the EU and the PMoU region. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The number of inspections to be carried out by national authorities (the fair share) is arrived at 
in accordance with an interim mechanism established by the PMoU. From 1 January 2014 this 
information  will  be  based  entirely  on  the  information  in  the  THETIS  database.  Table  1  in 
Annex sets out the inspection share of each PMoU State for 2011. 

On the basis of the information in the THETIS database the Commission can conclude that on 
an overall basis the inspection commitment has been met. 

5.2.  Member  State’s  compliance  with  the  annual  inspection  commitment  and 

analysis of the implementation of Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2009/16/EC 

While  Article  5  of  Directive  2009/16/EC  sets  out  the  inspection  commitment,  Articles  6,  7 
and 8 provide for modalities of compliance for Member States. 

5.2.1 

Inspection commitment and missed Priority I inspections (Article 6) 

Article 6 of the Directive contains provisions applicable to Member States which fail 
to carry out the inspections required by Article 5(2)(a) (the inspection of all Priority I 
ships  calling  at  its  ports  and  anchorages).  A  Member  State  in  this  situation  will 
comply with its commitment so long as such missed inspections do not exceed:  

(a)  5% of the total number of inspections of Priority I High Risk Ships (HRS) and 

(b)  10% for other Priority I ships calling at ports and anchorages.  

In 2011, 129 (out of 22) EU Member States10 were in this situation. Table 2 sets out 
the  commitment  and  the  number  of  inspections  carried  out  by  Member  States  to 
which Article 6 applies.  

As a preliminary observation the Commission notes that while the overall inspection 
commitment  has  been  achieved,  a  number  of  implementation  problems  appear  to 
exist  in  some  Member  States  which  need  to  be  addressed.  The  number  of  missed 
Priority I inspections in some Member States gives rise to particular concern.  

5.2.2 

The  Total  number  of  Priority  I  calls  exceeds  the  Member  State's  inspection  share 
(Article 7.1) 

Article  7(1)  of  the  Directive  relates  to  so  called  “over-burdened”  Member  States, 
where  the  number  of  Priority  I  calls  exceeds  the  inspection  share.  In  2011,  511  EU 
Member States were in this situation. In this case the Article provides that a Member 
State is regarded as complying with its commitment if:  

(a) 

(b) 

the  number  of  Priority  I  inspections  carried  out  by  that  Member  State 
corresponds at least to the inspection share, and;  

the Member State does not miss more than 30 % of the total number of Priority 
I ships calling at its ports and anchorages.  

9 

10 
11 

Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Germany,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom.  
It also applies to Croatia, Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation 
France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 3 sets out the commitment and the number of inspections carried out by these 
"over-burdened"  Member  States.  In  this  regard  the  Commission  notes  again  the 
number of missed Priority I inspections. 

5.2.3 

The total number of Priority I and Priority II calls is less than the Member State’s 
inspection share (Article 7.2) 

Article  7(2)  relates  to  so-called  “under-burdened”  Member  States,  where  the  total 
number of Priority I and Priority II calls is less than the inspection share. In 2011, 512 
EU  Member  States  were  in  this  situation.  In  this  case  the  Member  State  shall  be 
regarded as complying with its commitment when:  

(a) 

it inspects all Priority I ships, and  

(b) 

it inspects at least 85% of Priority II ships.  

Table 4 sets out the commitment and the number of inspections carried out by these 
"under-burdened"  Member  States.  In  this  regard  the  Commission  notes  that  these 
Member States carried out the required commitment of Priority I inspections and that 
almost all undertook the required number of Priority II inspections. 

As regards the missed Priority I inspections identified above, the Commission/EMSA 
will  work  with  the  Member  States  concerned  to  analyse  the  reasons  for  these 
problems  taking  into  account  the  adaptation  to  the  NIR.  Each  Member  State  must 
carry out the number of inspections assigned to it, otherwise the principle of the fair 
share is jeopardised.  

5.2.4 

Postponement of inspections and exceptional circumstances (Article 8) 

Article 8(1) provides that Member States are allowed to postpone the performance of 
a Priority I inspection either to the next arrival of the ship in the same Member State 
(provided that the call is within 15 days and that the ship does not call at any other 
port in the EU) or to another EU port (provided that the call is within 15 days, and 
that the State where the next port is located has agreed to perform the inspection).  

In  2011,  190  such  requests  were  recorded  in  THETIS  by  18  Member  States.  153 
(80.5%)  of  these  requests  were  accepted  by  the  receiving  Member  States  and  the 
inspection completed.  

In  addition,  Article  8(2)  provides  for  exceptional  circumstances  where  a  missed 
Priority  I  inspections  can  be  justified.  These  circumstances  occur  when,  in  the 
judgement of the competent authority, the conduct of the inspection would create a 
risk  to  the  safety  of  inspectors,  the  ship,  the  crew,  the  port  and  the  marine 
environment, and when the ship call takes place only during night time.  

Of the 1614 justified missed  Priority I inspections recorded  in  THETIS in 2011  by 
PMoU Member States, 121 (7.5%) were attributed to risk, 582 (36%) were related to 
night  time  ship  calls,  799  (49.5%)  were  attributed  to  short  duration  calls  at  an 
anchorage and 112 (7.0%) to “technical incorrectness”. The “technical incorrectness” 

12 

Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
was introduced in the initial phase of THETIS operation for problems related to the 
phasing in of the system and/or other not established reasons. This option no longer 
exists.  

5.3. 

The number and type of Inspections carried out 

Table 5 provides a graphical representation of the trends on the types of inspections (Initial – 
More  detailed  –  Expanded)  in  the  PMoU  region  over  the  period  2009-2011.  The  higher 
number of expanded inspections suggests that more in depth controls are carried out under the 
NIR. 

5.4. 

The number of PSC Inspectors in each Member State 

Article  4  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  maintain  appropriate  competent 
authorities with the requisite number of qualified inspectors for the inspection of ships. Table 
6  shows  the  number  of  PSC  inspectors  in  each  Member  State.  The  figures  vary  between 
Member States as not all are full time equivalent posts. The Commission notes that in general, 
Member  States  maintain  an  appropriate  number  of  inspectors  to  carry  out  the  inspections 
required.  

5.5. 

Refusal of access 

During 2011, 18 refusal of access orders were imposed by EU Member States. Out of the 18, 
16 were imposed for multiple detentions, 1 for failure to call at indicated repair yards, and 1 
due to jumping detention.13 

5.6. 

Inspections at anchorages 

Directive 2009/16/EC provides that a ship may be inspected at an anchorage within the port 
jurisdiction.  Table  7  in  Annex  provides  information  regarding  the  implementation  of  this 
requirement in 2011. Of particular concern in certain States is a high level of missed Priority I 
inspections at anchorages. This issue will have to be clarified with Member States. 

5.7. 

Problems/issues raised by Member States 

As part of its evaluation the Commission sent a questionnaire to Member States in which it 
invited  national  authorities  to  indicate  shortcomings  or  possible  improvements  in  the 
Directive. Several Member States availed of this possibility.  

The main points raised were:  

• 

The  Directive  allows  for  Priority  I  inspections  to  be  postponed  in  exceptional 
circumstances; this possibility does not exist for Priority II inspections which are not 
mandatory. However if a Member State is "under burdened" within the meaning of 
Article  7(2)  of  the  Directive  it  has  (in  effect)  to  treat  Priority  II  inspections  as 
mandatory.  Several  Member  States  request  that  the  possibility  of  postponing 
inspections be applied also to "mandatory" Priority II inspections.  

13 

Article 21(4) of the Directive 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Article 8(3)(b) allows an inspection at an anchorage to be missed if the visit of the 
ship is "too short". Member States requested that this possibility be extended to ports. 

Article  15  of  Directive  2002/59/EC  allows  Member  States  to  exempt  scheduled 
services performed between ports located on their territory from the requirement to 
notify dangerous or polluting goods carried on board, Member States suggested that 
this exemption should be extended to PSC. 

Member  States  indicated  that  the  requirements  of  Directives  2002/59/EC  and 
2009/20/EC  on  the  insurance  of  shipowners  for  maritime  claims  are  not  included 
within THETIS and that this should be taken into account. 

In  the  situation  where  the  priority  status  of  vessels  changes  while  it  is  in  the  port 
Member States proposed THETIS to warn the State concerned and the State should 
have a period of grace in order that this missed inspection not be counted against it. 

Annex  III  of  the  Directive  includes  a  list  of  information  to  be  provided  in  the 
notification  of  the  arrival  of  a  ship.  Member  States  proposed  that  requirement  (f) 
"date  of  last  expanded  inspection  in  the  Paris  MOU  region"  to  be  deleted  as  this 
information is already included in THETIS. 

The  Commission  is  currently  examining  the  problems  identified  during  implementation  as 
well  as  issues  highlighted  by  Member  States  and  whether  amendments  to  Directive 
2009/16/EC  are  required.  In  particular,  the  Commission  (with  EMSA)  will  look  at  whether 
these are statistical anomalies related to the first year of implementation or are inherent to the 
system and whether they will impact on the same Member States each year. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

6.1. 

The outcome of the implementing actions 

The  implementation  of  the  Directive  has  required  work  and  substantial  financial  resources 
from the Member  State  and at EU  level. As a result of this work, the Directive was largely 
implemented early in 2011. The general impression of the Commission is that the Directive is 
being substantially implemented. Any legal, technical and operational shortcomings identified 
will be addressed by the Commission in due course. 

6.2. 

Impact  on  maritime  safety,  efficiency  of  maritime  transport  and  pollution 
prevention 

The NIR establishes full inspection coverage on ships visiting EU ports and anchorages and a 
more risk-based system of targeting ships for inspection while real-time ship call information 
provides improved capabilities for decision making on the ships to be inspected.  

On  an  overall  basis  the  inspection  commitment  for  the  EU  Member  States  was  reached.  In 
2011  as  compared  with  previous  years  the  total  number  of  inspections  to  be  carried  out 
decreased.  As  a  result,  higher  quality  inspections  were  carried  out,  concentrated  on 
substandard  ships.  This  means  that  PSC  resources  are  concentrated  on  inspecting  poorer 
quality vessels and that the inspctions carried out are more in-depth.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
6.3. 

Future developments 

As  previouly  mentioned,  in  the  light  of  the  issues  identified  during  implementation  and 
communicated to the Commission by Member States the Commission is currently evaluating 
whether changes to the Directive are necessary.  

In the coming years it is expected that the EU PSC regime will adapt to future requirements 
which  may  arise  inter  alia  from  international  conventions  as  these  enter  into  force  and 
become relevant instruments for the purposes of Directive 2009/16/EC. 

The forthcoming entry into force of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006) and 
the  related  Directive  2009/13/EC14  will  have  to  be  supported  by  THETIS.  A  Commission 
proposal  to  modify  Directive  2009/16/EC  in  this  regard  is  currently  being  discussed  in  the 
European Parliament and the Council15.  

In  addition,  with  the  entry  into  force  of  the  IMO  Ballast  Water  Management  Convention 
(BWM  2004)  it  is  expected  that  enforcement  will be  carried  out  in  the  context  of  Directive 
2009/16/EC and THETIS. 

14 
15 

OJ L124 of 20.05.2009, p.30 
COM(2012)129 of 23.3.2012. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Tables referred to in the report*  

Annex 

Since the Directive refers to the PMoU region details relating to non-EU States are included 
in this tables as appropriate. 

Table 1 – PMoU Member States inspection commitments 

2011 Total 
ship calls in 
THETIS 

2011 THETIS 
Individual 
ships  

2011 Ratio  

2011 Commitment 
according Art5.2b 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Canada 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Russian 
Federation 

Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

United Kingdom 

23233 
2909 
913 
1927 
2410 
8387 
5096 
12727 
27654 
27503 
20314 
1935 
9528 
31810 
7149 
4080 
2607 
42686 
14391 
11034 
3683 
4087 

16728 

1417 
31865 
24680 

4266 

5255
1277
872
624
800
2053
1507
1170
5447
4941
3295
322
1139
5049
1965
1605
819
7235
1514
2380
1536
1703

3403

612
6234
2567

2231

6.30%
1.69%
3.48%
1.10%
1.20%
3.18%
1.77%
1.75%
7.04%
6.35%
3.18%
0.31%
1.45%
6.49%
2.32%
1.87%
1.80%
8.24%
3.08%
2.86%
3.10%
2.32%

3.34%

0.88%
10.58%
3.28%

11.04%

1168 
313 
645 
203 
223 
588 
328 
324 
1305 
1177 
590 
58 
268 
1203 
430 
347 
333 
1527 
570 
531 
574 
430 

618 

163 
1960 
608 

2046 

 Total 

345019 

67555

100% 

18530 

*(Source all tables EMSA) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 2 Commitment and inspections in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2009/16/EC 

2011 
Commitment 

Calls PI 

PI 
inspected 

Calls PII 

PII 
inspected 

PI+PII 
inspected 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Finland 

Germany 

Iceland 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Totals 

1168 

313 

223 

324 

1177 

58 

333 

1527 

570 

574 

430 

163 

608 

2046 

9514

521 

290 

207 

94 

559 

22 

194 

475 

273 

52 

78 

517 

19 

185 

1082 

310 

232 

527 

964 

55 

303 

1456 

1026 

1964 

374 

263 

374 

98 

166 

1634 

6252 

234 

239 

339 

97 

130 

765 

4429

811 

397 

467 

149 

650 

1773 

9684

496 

255 

73 

238 

887 

43 

45 

557 

360 

206 

437 

143 

226 

776 

4742

971 

528 

125 

316 

1404 

62 

230 

1583 

594 

445 

776 

240 

356 

1541 

9171 

Table 3 Commitment and inspections in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/16/EC 

2011 
Commitment

Calls PI 

PI 
inspected 

Calls PII

PII 
inspected

PI+PII 
inspected 

France 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Spain 

Totals 

1305 

1314 

590 

1469 

268 

562 

492

656

81

2300

2836

475

1203 

1464 

1084

3440

1960 

2513 

1216

3537

733

334

153

622

511

1225

990

234

1706

1727

5326 

7322 

3529

12588

2353

5882

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 4 Commitment and inspections in accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 2009/16/EC 

2011 
Commitment 

Calls PI 

PI 
inspected 

Calls PII

PII 
inspected 

PI+PII 
inspected 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Totals 

588 

328 

430 

347 

531 

196 

173

68 

71 

66 

65

66

62

156 

139

320

134

187

125

324

209

120

180

120

293

382 

185 

246 

182 

432 

2224 

557 

505

1090

713

1427 

Table 5 Overall trend of inspections and changes in the types of inspections in the PMoU region 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 – Number of PSC inspectors in each State  

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
Total 

Number of PSC 
inspectors  
9 
14 
11 
27 
9 
23 
84 
40 
51 
2 
22 
111 
9 
12 
3 
29 
79 
16 
11 
13 
4 
96 
44 
113 
832 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
Table 7 - Calls and inspections at anchorages 

Total calls   Calls at 

anchorage 

Inspections at 
anchorage 

PI calls at 
anchorage  

PI inspections 
at anchorages 

PI detentions at 
anchorage 

Belgium 

18649 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

U.K. 

2633 

2304 

8920 

3754 

18229 

29204 

23330 

5318 

3439 

2942 

14201 

8570 

3189 

3886 

1248 

- 

283 

147 

1 

- 

17 

148 

- 

62 

3 

1 

1 

10 

- 

18 

25 

1 

- 

1 

14 

- 

294 

- 

- 

18080 

2446 

210 

1567 

7450 

3 

5 

73290 

15541 

421 

5682 

- 

22 

- 

382 

130 

294 

7 

829 

22 

- 

- 

- 

26 

12 

3 

3 

15 

- 

363 

- 

182 

17 

82 

23 

4 

113 

11 

113 

36 

38490 

1916 

30168 

3851 

2 

245 

Netherlands 

47686 

- 

13 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

47 

- 

- 

53 

- 

- 

- 

2 

11 

1 

1 

4 

- 

29 

- 

13 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

EN 

16 

   EN