REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Third report assessing the implementation of the Directive on enhancing port security
Date: 2019-04-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: common ports policy, exchange of information, harbour installation, infringement procedure (EU), maritime safety, port administration, port traffic, public safety

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.4.2019  COM(2019) 191 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Third report assessing the implementation of the Directive on enhancing port security  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Third report assessing the implementation of the Directive on enhancing port security 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The main objective of Directive 2005/65/EC1 on enhancing port security (‘the Directive’) was 
to complement the measures adopted in 2004 by means of Regulation (EC) No  725/20042 on 
enhancing ship and port facility security (‘the Regulation’). 

The scope of application of that Regulation was limited to cover security measures on board 
ships  and  the  immediate  interface  between  ships  and  ports.  It  is  to  these  obligations,  which 
essentially  fall  under  the  ISPS  (International  Ship  and  Port  facility  Security)  Code  which 
Member States have committed as a priority, before agreeing to implement further obligations 
as part of the adoption of the Directive. The Directive complements the mechanism provided 
for  by  establishing  a  security  system  for  all  of  the  port  area,  in  order  to  ensure  a  high  and 
equal level of security for all European ports serving direct sea-going services3. 

Over 1 200 commercial maritime ports are operated along the 70 000 km of coastline in the 
European Union, one of the regions in the world with the largest number of ports. Around one 
thousand  of  these  ports  (see  point  6.1)  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  i.e  all  ports 
housing one or more port facilities which are the subject of a security plan approved under the 
Regulation. 

The  objective  of  the  Directive  is  to  improve  security  coordination  in  areas  of  ports  not 
covered  by  the  Regulation  and  also  to  ensure  that  the  enhancement  of  port  security  can 
support  the  security  measures  taken  under  the  Regulation.  Whilst  responsibility  for  the 
implementation of security measures at port facility level essentially falls to the port facility 
operator4, the appropriate security measures at port level are, as a priority, the responsibility 
of the port authority5 and of those authorities which are responsible for keeping public order, 
safety and security measures within the port area (in both, public and operational areas). 

Article 19  of  the  Directive  states  that  the  Commission  is  to  assess  compliance  with  the 
Directive and the effectiveness of measures taken by 15 December 2008 and every five years 
thereafter. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

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. 2 
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 
The EFTA Surveillance Authority ensures that Iceland and Norway comply with their obligations under 
the agreement on the European Economic Area. 
In the vast majority of cases, port facility operators are private operators. 
The  port  security  authority  is  appointed  by  the  Member  State  in  accordance  with  Article 5  of  the 
Directive. 

1 

 
 
                                                           
The  first  report  was  adopted  on  20  January  2009,  the  second  on  18  November  20136.  This 
third report on progress made in terms of implementing the Directive describes the measures 
which have been taken in order to promote the implementation of standardised port security 
measures across the Union, progress made during the last five-year reference period and the 
continued problems which have arisen during the implementation period. 

The report is based on: 

– 

– 

– 

exchanges  of  information  with  Member  State  authorities  responsible  for  maritime 
security and other stakeholders; 

the  results  of  the  large  number  of  port  security  inspections  carried  out  by  the 
Commission for the monitoring of this Directive during the period of reference; 

ongoing dialogue between the national authorities and the various players from  the 
maritime and port sectors. 

The report draws attention to various difficulties encountered as regards achieving the desired 
outcomes but also in terms of the global impact of the implementation of the Directive. 

2. 

CONCLUSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND REPORT 

The first report stressed the fact that, although the Directive had been adopted at first reading 
and approved by a large majority at the European Parliament and unanimously at the Council, 
there  had  been  significant  delays  in  terms  of  transposing  its  provisions  in  the  majority  of 
Member States involved. This led to the opening of infringement proceedings, two of which 
had resulted in a judgment finding failure to fulfil obligations7. 

At  the  end  of  this  assessment  period,  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  had  finally  been 
transposed into the national law of the vast majority of Member States. Unfortunately, there 
continued to be organisational and functional difficulties in terms of ensuring implementation 
in practical terms at port level, since local administrations did not yet have all the resources 
necessary in order to ensure the practical implementation of the Directive. The main difficulty 
related to defining the port perimeter from a security point of view. 

The second report showed significant progress but that the measures needed to implement all 
provisions  of  the  Directive  in  full  still  needed  to  be  improved  in  most  Member  States.  The 
level of security had increased in European ports and the combination of the implementation 
of the Regulation and the application of the Directive had made possible a credible framework 
for preventing security breaches in ports and to obtain adequate protection for maritime and 
port activities. The introduction of security measures often led to a review of the organisation 
of ports, such as – for example – the movement and storage of goods, the control of access to 
different areas of the port or a definition of restricted areas. These measures proved to be very 
important for making port activities more efficient, in a highly competitive environment. 

6 
7 

COM(2009)2 final and COM(2013)792 final 
Case  C-464/08  Commission  v  Estonia,  3 September  2009  and  Case  C-527/08  Commission  v  United 
Kingdom, 3 September 2009. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
3. 

SUPPORT AND MONITORING MEASURES SINCE THE PREVIOUS EVALUATION PERIOD 

The Directive – in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity– stipulates that Member States 
should themselves establish each port’s boundaries, leaving ports free to decide whether they 
should  also  apply  to  adjacent  areas.  Member  States  should  also  ensure  that  port  security 
assessments and plans are properly drawn up. However, in 2014, a number of ports were still 
unable to meet the requirements of the Directive. 

During  the  period  2014-18,  the  Commission  has  therefore  continued  its  commitment  to 
ensuring  a  more  effective  implementation  of  the  Directive.  The  measures  taken  by  the 
Commission  took  the  form  of  initiatives  to  help  Member  States  together  with  a  robust 
programme of  monitoring activities deployed through a large number of inspections.  

The  implementation  of  Directive  2005/65/EC  was  monitored  in  the  period  2014–2018 
through:  

17 inspections of national administrations;    
41 inspections of ports.   

These measures have focused on the following main areas: 

– 

– 

maintaining a system of regular reporting on the performance and implementation of 
action plans by Member States in order to ensure the practical implementation of the 
Directive; 

the performance of the above mentioned 58 inspections to monitor implementation of 
the  Directive  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No 324/20088,  as  amended  by 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2016/462.  collating  and  disseminating 
best practices within the MARSEC Committee; 

4. 

MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

4.1.  Monitoring  action  plans  for  completion  of  the  practical  implementation  of  the 

Directive 

Since 2009, the Commission has had a system for receiving regular information from Member 
States on the implementation of the Directive. A sustained dialogue has been opened with the 
authorities  of  the  Member  States  in  order  to  obtain  regular  and  reliable  information  on  the 
extent  to  which  assessments  have  been  carried  out  and  port  security  plans  adopted.  In 
addition, annual Member States monitoring reports submitted to the Commission are the basis 
for  monitoring  of  the  status  of  port  security  assessments  and  plans  by  the  Commission 
services.  

8 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  324/2008  of  9  April  2008  laying  down  revised  procedures  for 
conducting Commission inspections in the field of maritime security, as amended,  OJ L 98, 10.4.2008, 
p.5. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.2. 

Inspections  carried  out  by  the  Commission 
implementation of the Directive 

in  order  to  monitor  the 

The procedures for monitoring the implementation of the Directive were carried out during 
inspections by the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 324/2008, as 
amended. 

The inspections carried out, both regarding national administrations and direct inspections of 
a sample of ports, have shown that although the general legal framework of the 
implementation of the Directive has been correctly applied, there is still a series of recurrent 
common issues regarding proper implementation at the level of Member States ports, as 
follows.  

Discrepancy between the objective of improving port security coordination among local 
authorities, port operators and public law enforcement bodies and the still imperfect results 
which have actually been reported remain, even if there has been significant improvement 
over the last years.  

Defining port boundaries for security purposes is still an issue for certain Member States, and 
this despite Commission assistance, including two seminars in September 2006 and October 
2010 and the study on the technical aspects of port area security (TAPS II) which had been 
assigned to the Joint Research Centre (JRC Ispra). TAPS II gives clear guidelines on how to 
proceed with port security boundaries definition which is a basis for establishing the extent of 
the port secuity plan measures defined in Annex II of this Directive.  

Another essential issue concerns the review of port security assessments and port security 
plans. According to Article 10 of the Directive, Member States shall ensure that port security 
assessments and port security plans are reviewed as appropriate, and be reviewed at least once 
every five years. Inspections have shown that this five years regular review is not yet done 
everywhere. Changes or supressions regarding port facilities did not result in a review of the 
port security assessments and port security plans and in several cases the 5 year deadline had 
been missed.  

Furthermore, Commission inspections in the Member States ports disclosed the difficulties 
that some ports experience to launch the five years review process of port security assesments 
and plans. These notably include the large number of authorities and actors involved in the 
revision and on approval process which must be scheduled well in advance before the five 
years anniversary date.   

Furthermore, some Member States still did not ensure adequate supervision of the port 
security plans and their implementation as requested under Article 13.1 through a regular 
system of monitoring and inspections jointly with the inspections required in the port facilities 
of each port as provided in Article 9.4 of Regulation (EC) No725/2004.  

4 

 
 
 
Other deficiencies relate to taking into account all requirements when establishing the port 
security assessment or discrepancies between port security assessments and port security 
plans.  

4.3. 

Infringement procedures  

The decrease in the number of infringment procedures initiated is also an indicator of 
significant improvement of the implementation of the Directive. 

As referred to in the second report, from 2009 to 2013 five infringment procedures had to be 
initiated; three cases were related to delays regarding the implementation of the Directive at 
Member State level and the other two cases related to incorrect implementation revealed 
during inspections. 

Between 2014 and 2018 only one infringment procedure took place, and this for the reason of  
incorrect implementation of the Directive: On 6 April 2017 the European Court of Justice 
gave its judgment on Case C-58/16. For a series of ports the German Land of North Rhine-
Westfalia had failed to define the boundaries, approve port security assessments and plans and 
appoint port security officers. In early 2018 Germany confirmed that all ports in North Rhine-
Westfalia were now in conformity with the provision of the Directive and that Germany 
complies with the Court judgment. 

5. 

5.1. 

SPECIFIC POINTS RESULTING FROM THE ASSESSMENTS 

Critical  size  of  the  ports  subject  to  the  requirements  of  the  practical 
implementation of the Directive 

During discussions with stakeholders, the view was often expressed that the Directive is 
generally well designed for large ports with high commercial activity but that implementation 
is harder for small ports. 

It should be noted that the Directive applies to all ports situated in Member States housing one 
or more port facilities covered by a port facility security plan approved under Regulation (EC) 
No 725/2004 (Article 2(2)) and also that Member States are required to ensure that port 
security measures are closely coordinated with measures taken in application of the 
Regulation (Articles 4 and 7). The Directive stipulates that the Member States should 
themselves establish each individual port’s boundaries and allows them discretion in terms of 
deciding whether to apply the Directive to port adjacent areas if these have an impact on the 
security of the said port. 

Consequently, in order to ensure the balanced implementation of useful measures in 
accordance with the principle of proportionality, the co-legislators have taken the possibility 
and option provided for in Article 2(4) that if the boundaries of a port facility within the 

5 

 
 
 
 
meaning of Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 have been defined as effectively covering the entire 
port, the relevant provisions of the Regulation shall take precedence over the provisions of the 
Directive. 

This provision has been widely used by Member States in ports with only one port facility 
under the Regulation. On the basis of the port security assessment, the port boundaries have 
very often (but not always) been defined as being the same as that of the port facility. 
Therefore, of the 1087 ports housing one or several port facilities covered by a port facility 
security plan approved under the Regulation, 405 ports have been considered as falling under 
the provisions of Article 2(4) of the Directive, i.e. 37,2 % of ports in the European Union. 
This has particularly been the case in Member States with small ports scattered along 
coastlines or on islands9. 

5.2. 

Awareness of the threat and awareness-raising amongst players 

The work carried out during assessments makes it possible to identify the assets and 
infrastructure which need to be protected against the threats and risks of intentional illegal 
action facing port activities. The next phase involves designing and implementing appropriate 
measures which can be used to counteract threats, at each of the three risk levels identified 
(normal, increased, high), by means of specific procedures and by using technical equipment 
tailored to the needs of ports and which make it possible to provide the right response to the 
potential vulnerability of infrastructure. 

The Directive has made it possible to set up port security committees responsible for 
providing practical advice (9th recital). In Member States with this type of structure, this 
generally consists of local representatives from the bodies responsible for security (police, 
coastguards, maritime affairs, customs, etc.) and also in most cases private operators acting in 
the port. This provides an appropriate forum for the essential exchange of information and a 
forum for the dissemination of knowledge of the threat, thus promoting awareness amongst all 
stakeholders. 

Increasing awareness of the protection of ports forms part of general security policy, of which 
all staff employed at the port (i.e. staff of port undertakings but also those employed by 
external companies involved in port activities) and also the various users of the port need to 
be aware. Awareness-raising activities provide key tools for ensuring effective dissemination 
and appropriate ways of raising awareness as regards security measures. It is important that 
security measures are seen as a means to encouraging a port’s economic activities and how to 
develop these activities. 

9 

These ports with a single port facility represent a  significant proportion of ports in Finland (65/78, or 
83 %), Sweden (131/162, or 81 %), Greece (82/119, or 69 %), the United Kingdom (119/175, or 68 %) 
and Denmark (51/82, or 62 %). 

6 

 
 
                                                           
5.3. 

Inspection and supervision of port security plans 

In accordance with Article 13 of the Directive, Member States shall conduct inspections in a 
way that enables them to monitor, in an appropriate and regular manner, port security plans 
and the implementation of those plans. This is a crucial issue which is still not performed 
adequately in all Member States, mainly due to the discrepancy between the objectives 
established and the resources needed to conduct such checks. 

Each Member State has developed its own monitoring system depending on its own internal 
organisation and the human resources available. This monitoring role has been devolved to 
either central or local governments, or even to multi-purpose teams combining several 
administrative bodies (Departement of transport, police, customs, harbour-master offices, 
etc.). The audits were designed to verify that the plans complied with the rules and provisions 
set in Annex II of the Directive, that the reality of security measures implemented in the ports 
matched the requirements of the plan and that they had been correctly implemented. 

These tasks are carried out in keeping with a work programme which is approved on a regular 
basis. If a shortcoming is identified, a proposal is made in order to rectify the problem. On the 
basis of the report submitted to the competent administration, a new or updated port security 
assessment may be required. One important subject of concern for the inspectors is to verify 
the existence of coordination between the measures taken at port facility level and those 
envisaged at port level. The monitoring of corrective measures is done through regular audits. 

The reports, both of national auditors and also of those of Commission inspectors, serve as a 
basis for the national authorities to provide advice and assistance to the competent authorities 
at the ports, with a view to rectifying the shortcomings identified. This practice should be 
encouraged and extended. However, as mentioned some Member States still do not 
systematically provide this verification of compliance on a regular and appropriate basis. It is 
important that the human and financial resources needed for these monitoring tasks  are put in 
place as soon as possible. Further attention will be paid in the future as regards this point; the 
current systems for monitoring port security plans within a number of Member States still 
need improvement. 

6. 

CONCLUSION 

The assessment of the implementation of Directive 2005/65/EC has shown that further 
significant progress has been made, but that the security measures needed to implement all 
provisions of Annex I and II of the Directive in full still need to be improved in some Member 
States. 

The level of security coordination among local authorities, port operators and public law 
enforcement bodies has further increased in European ports. The combination of the 
implementation of the Regulation and the application of the Directive has made possible a 
credible framework for preventing security breaches in ports and to obtain adequate 
protection for ships in port and port commercial activities. Although it is difficult to assess the 

7 

 
 
impact of these measures in terms of providing a deterrent for terrorist acts, port authorities 
agree that there has been a major impact in terms of smuggling, theft and malicious acts, 
which have been greatly reduced. Furthermore, the introduction of security measures have 
often led to a review of the organisation of ports, such as – for example – the movement and 
storage of goods, the control of access to different areas of the port or a definition of restricted 
areas within the port operational areas. These measures have proved to be very important for 
making port activities more efficient in terms of security and protection of persons, goods and 
ships in port, in a highly competitive environment. 

The large number of port security inspections has also significantly contributed to this high 
level of port security; findings are exchanged between Member States through the MARSEC 
Committee and the exchange of best practices fostered.  

As recalled by the Commission in its Communication dated 23 May 2013 (‘Ports: an engine 
for growth’)10, the European Union is extremely dependent on maritime ports for trade with 
the rest of the world and also within its own internal market. The security of ports and their 
approaches is therefore essential to ensuring the overall security of maritime transport. 
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. All players involved must therefore continue to work towards the constant 
improvement of prevention, protection and response in order to combat the new threats. To 
this end, port facility security systems and those of the port must complement each other fully. 
Ensuring effective relationships between the port, its port facilities and the ships which serve 
them, continues to be a major challenge for operators and administrations. 

The combination of Regulation and Directive constitutes the key element in securing our ports 
and thus directly contributes to the objectives of the Security Union. The Directive is a good 
example upon how heterogenous complex infrastructure can be secured through individual 
assessments and corresponding plans based upon a common approach and through fostering 
coordination and communication amongst a high number of stakeholders involved. Providing 
plans with measures foreseen for three different security levels matches security and 
operational needs in full flexibility. 

The Commission considers that this system is currently meeting the expectations and that 
Directive 2005/65 on enhancing port security does not need to be amended at this point in 
time. 

In the coming months, Member States will again re-examine port security assessment and 
plans in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 of the Directive, which lays down that 
this review should take place at least once every five years. The Commission therefore 
considers that the methodology developed in the TAPS II study could be useful where 
necessary, in order to redefine the perimeter of ports, including the necessity to take due 
account of the water side  of theses ports. 

10 

COM(2013)295 final 

8 

 
 
                                                           
Moreover, the Commission’s multi-annual inspections work programme will continue to 
include detailed examinations of port security measures. For example, the implementation and 
application of procedures under the port security plans to be applied to passengers and 
vehicles to be loaded on RO-RO vessels (which are, by nature, particularly vulnerable) will 
continue to be the subject of further examination and monitoring by the Commission 
inspection services. Similarly, in the case of international maritime transport services, the 
approach of checks on both sides of the route will be continued in order to verify and ensure 
that the Member States concerned are cooperating in port security assessments. 

Finally,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  work  with  Member  States  to  improve  the 
implementation of the Directive, with the common objective of better safeguarding EU ports 
for the benefit of all port users, transport users, the maritime transport economy and society as 
a whole. It will continue to monitor the application of this Directive and continue to take legal 
action where it considers this to be necessary. 

9