Joined Cases C-14/21 and C-15/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Sea Watch eV v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (C-14/21 and C-15/21), Capitaneria di Porto di Palermo (C-14/21), Capitaneria di Porto di Porto Empedocle (C-15/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Activities relating to the search for and rescue of persons in danger or distress at sea carried out by a humanitarian non-governmental organisation (NGO) — Regime applicable to ships — Directive 2009/16/EC — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea — Respective competences and powers of the flag State and the port State — Inspection and detention of ships)
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, cargo vessel, common ports policy, harbour installation, international convention, maritime safety, non-governmental organisation, search and rescue, ship's flag








C_2022424EN.01000801.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/8






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Sea Watch eV v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (C-14/21 and C-15/21), Capitaneria di Porto di Palermo (C-14/21), Capitaneria di Porto di Porto Empedocle (C-15/21)
(Joined Cases C-14/21 and C-15/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Activities relating to the search for and rescue of persons in danger or distress at sea carried out by a humanitarian non-governmental organisation (NGO) - Regime applicable to ships - Directive 2009/16/EC - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea - Respective competences and powers of the flag State and the port State - Inspection and detention of ships)
(2022/C 424/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sea Watch eV

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (C-14/21 and C-15/21), Capitaneria di Porto di Palermo (C-14/21), Capitaneria di Porto di Porto Empedocle (C-15/21)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control, as amended by Directive (EU) 2017/2110 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2017,
must be interpreted as:






—


applying to ships which, although classified and certified as cargo ships by the flag State, are in practice being systematically used by a humanitarian organisation for non-commercial activities relating to the search for and rescue of persons in danger or distress at sea; and










—


precluding national legislation ensuring its transposition into domestic law from limiting its applicability only to ships which are used for commercial activities.














2.


Article 11(b) of Directive 2009/16, as amended by Directive 2017/2110, read in conjunction with Part II of Annex I to that directive, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the port State may subject ships which systematically carry out search and rescue activities and which are located in one of its ports or in waters falling within its jurisdiction, having entered those waters and after all the operations relating to the transhipment or disembarking of persons to whom their respective masters have decided to render assistance have been completed, to an additional inspection if that State has established, on the basis of detailed legal and factual evidence, that there are serious indications capable of proving that there is a danger to health, safety, on-board working conditions or the environment, having regard to the conditions under which those ships operate.










3.


Article 13 of Directive 2009/16, as amended by Directive 2017/2110, must be interpreted as meaning that, during more detailed inspections organised pursuant to that article, the port State has the power to take account of the fact that ships which have been classified and certified as cargo ships by the flag State are, in practice, being systematically used for activities relating to the search for and rescue of persons in danger or distress at sea in the context of a control intended to assess, on the basis of detailed legal and factual evidence, whether there is a danger to persons, property or the environment, having regard to the conditions under which those ships operate. By contrast, the port State does not have the power to demand proof that those ships hold certificates other than those issued by the flag State or that they comply with all the requirements applicable to another classification.










4.


Article 19 of Directive 2009/16, as amended by Directive 2017/2110, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that it is established that ships which are, in practice, being systematically used for activities relating to the search for and rescue of persons in danger or distress at sea, despite having been classified and certified as cargo ships by a Member State which is the flag State, have been operated in a manner posing a danger to persons, property or the environment, the Member State which is the port State may not make the non-detention of those ships or the lifting of such a detention subject to the condition that those ships hold certificates appropriate to those activities and comply with all the corresponding requirements. By contrast, that State may impose predetermined corrective measures relating to safety, pollution prevention and on-board living and working conditions, provided that those corrective measures are justified by the presence of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment and which make it impossible for a ship to sail under conditions capable of ensuring safety at sea. Such corrective measures must, in addition, be suitable, necessary, and proportionate to that end. Furthermore, the adoption and implementation of those measures by the port State must be the result of sincere cooperation between that State and the flag State, having due regard to the respective powers of those two States.






(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.