Source: https://www.global-regulation.com/translation/denmark/610724/ordinance-on-the-technical-regulation-on-port-state-control-of-ships.html
Timestamp: 2018-10-17 18:04:11
Document Index: 539782314

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 6', 'art 2']

Machine Translation of "Ordinance On The Technical Regulation On Port State Control Of Ships" (Denmark)
Ordinance On The Technical Regulation On Port State Control Of Ships
Original Language Title: Bekendtgørelse om teknisk forskrift om havnestatskontrol af skibe
Read the untranslated law here: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=133506
Overview (table of contents) Annex 1 The full text of the Ordinance on technical regulation on port State control of skibe1)
Under section 1, paragraph 3, § 3, article 16, paragraph 3, article 20, paragraph 1, section 24 and section 32, paragraph 8 of the law on safety at sea, see. lovbekendtgørelse nr. 654 of 15. June 2010, and after consultation with the Minister for defence and Minister for the environment shall be established under the authority: Administrative provisions
§ 1. The provisions of European Parliament and Council directive 2009/16/EC on port State control are applied by the Danish maritime authority implementation of port State control within the framework of the law on safety at sea. The Danish maritime authority also follows the provisions of the directive when the Agency after authorization and agreement with other authorities carry out port State control tasks on their behalf.
(2). Excluded from the scope of paragraph 1 is nevertheless, article 19, paragraph 9, on the cooperation with the Danish maritime authority ports to facilitate receipt of detained ships.
(3). The directive is reproduced in the annex to this order.
(4). "Night time", see. Article 2 of the directive, no. 10, means the period from 18.00 to 08.00.
(5). The directive's provisions concerning the notification and registration of vessels arrival and departure shall be implemented by the Danish maritime authority notice on technical regulation on a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system in Danish waters and ports.
§ 2. The Ordinance shall apply to foreign ships and their crews, calling at Danish port or anchorage within a Danish port area, for the purpose of transfer between the ship and the port of persons or goods or the performance of port services.
(2). If the Danish maritime authority shall carry out an inspection of a foreign ship which is in Danish waters, but which are not in port, the inspection shall be regarded as being covered by this Ordinance.
(3). The Ordinance shall not apply to fishing vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries, wooden ships of primitive build, Government ships used for non-commercial purposes and pleasure yachts not used commercially.
§ 3. The shipowner or the master of a ship, which, according to article 14 of the directive, no. 3, can be subject to an expanded inspection should ensure that there is sufficient time in the schedule to the expanded inspection may be carried out.
(2). Unless otherwise indicated by the control measures required for the sake of fuse, such ships remain in the port or at the port until the inspection is completed.
§ 4. If port authorities or bodies – in the performance of their normal duties, learn that a ship within their port has deficiencies which may prejudice the safety of the ship or poses an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, such authority shall immediately inform the Danish maritime authority.
Punishment and the entry into force of
§ 5. The owner of a ship which is subject to an expanded inspection, and that without the express consent of the Danish maritime authority departs before the inspection has been completed, be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to 1 year.
(2). The penalty under paragraph 1 may rise to imprisonment for up to 2 years, if there is 1) from the infringement is done harm to life or health or caused danger for them, 2) previously delivered a prohibition or injunction for the same or similar conditions, or 3) in the infringement is intentional or obtained a financial benefit for the person himself or others.
(3). That can be imposed on companies, etc. (legal persons) criminal liability according to the rules laid down in the Penal Code Chapter 5.
§ 6. The notice shall enter into force on the 1. January 2011.
(2). At the same time repealed: 1) technical regulation of 15. July 2004 on port State control of shipping 2) Bekendtgørelse nr. 665 of 8. August 2002 on the procedure for Outlook on foreign ships calling at Danish port the Danish maritime authority, the 28. September 2010 Frank Mountain Mortensen/Torsten Arnt Olsen
Annex 1 European Parliament and Council directive 2009/16/EC
of 23. April 2009
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION —
having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular article 80, paragraph 2,
in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty, on the basis of the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved on 3. February 2009 [3], and
(1) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19. June 1995 on port State control of shipping [4] has been significantly amended on several occasions. Since further amendments are to be made, the directive should be recast in the interests of clarity.
(2) shipping casualties and pollution of the seas and coastlines of the Member States, the community gives rise to serious concern.
(3) the community is also aware of the living and working conditions on board ships.
(4) safety, pollution prevention and living and working conditions on board ships can be significantly improved if the presence in Community waters of ships that do not meet standards, greatly reduced through strict enforcement of conventions, international codes and resolutions.
(5) in accordance with Council decision 2007/431/EC of 7. June 2007 authorising Member States to the interest of the European Community to ratify the International Labour Organization maritime labour Convention, 2006 [5], Member States should therefore take the necessary steps to ratify those parts of this Convention falls within the competence of the community, as soon as possible and, if possible, before 31 December 1992. December 2010.
(6) be responsible for verifying whether the ship complies with the international standards for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions, mainly is the responsibility of the flag State. The flag State, if any, are based on recognised organisations, guarantees fully that the inspections and surveys required to issue the relevant certificates, the completeness and effectiveness. Responsibility for the maintenance of the ship's condition and its equipment after the sight in order to meet the requirements of the conventions, as the ship is covered by, is the responsibility of the shipping company. Several flag States have not, however, implemented and enforced international standards of properly. The supervision of the use of the international standards for safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions have been met, should therefore, as a further safeguard against the use of ships that do not comply with the standards also carried out by the port State, but in recognition of the fact that the port State control inspection is not a vision, and that the relevant inspection forms are not navigability certificates.
(7) A harmonised approach for Member States in the effective enforcement of these international standards for ships sailing in the waters under their jurisdiction and enter their ports, should prevent distortions of competition.
(8) the shipping industry is vulnerable to acts of terrorism. Security measures in transport should be implemented effectively and Member States should conduct strict supervision of compliance with the security rules by carrying out security checks.
(9) There should continue on the basis of the experience of the Paris Memorandum of understanding on port State control (Paris MOU), signed in Paris on 26 March. January 1982.
(10) the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) established by regulation of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 1406/2002 [6], should provide the necessary assistance to ensure that port State control scheme be implemented uniformly and effectively. The Agency should, in particular, help to develop and implement the inspection database to be created pursuant to this directive and, on the other hand, a harmonised Community scheme for the Member States ' training of port State inspectors and the evaluation of their competencies.
(11) an efficient port State control system should ensure that all ships calling at Community ports and anchorages are regularly inspected. The inspection should focus on ships which do not comply with the standards, while ships of high quality, that is. ships, if inspection reports are satisfactory, or if the flag State satisfy The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Member State audit scheme, should be rewarded with less frequent inspections. To this end, Member States shall, in particular, give priority to the inspection of ships with a high risk profile.
(12) Such new inspection rules to be incorporated into the community's port State control system, as soon as the various aspects thereof is determined, on the basis of a system of sharing of inspections, whereby each Member State makes a fair contribution to the achievement of the Community objective of a comprehensive inspection system, and so that the burden of inspections shall be distributed equally between Member States. This scheme for the allocation of the burden of inspections should be evaluated taking into account the experience gained in the application of the new port State control system, with a view to improving its efficiency. Furthermore, Member States should recruit and have at its disposal the necessary staff, including qualified inspectors, taking into account the volume and characteristics of shipping traffic at each port.
(13) The inspection system introduced by this directive take into account the work that has been done within the framework of the Paris MOU. Since there should be agreed at Community level on any developments arising from the work of the Paris MOU, before it applies in the EUROPEAN UNION, should be established and maintained a close coordination between the community and the Paris MOU in order to achieve the greatest possible convergence.
(14) the Commission should manage and update the inspection database in close cooperation with the Paris MOU. The inspection database should include inspection data from Member States and all States signatory to the Paris MOU. As long as the Community maritime information system, SafeSeaNet, is not fully operational and does not allow an automatic registration in the inspection database of data on ship calls at port, Member States should send the Commission the information necessary in order to ensure a proper monitoring of the application of this directive, in particular with regard to the ships ' movements. On the basis of the inspection data provided by Member States, the Commission should, from the inspection database extract data relating to ships ' risk profile of ships to be inspected, and relating to ships ' movements and should calculate each Member State inspection obligations. The inspection database should also be correlated with other community databases on maritime safety.
(15) Member States should endeavour to review the method used to calculate the white, the gray and the black list of flag States, within the framework of the Paris MOU, in order to ensure that it is fair, in particular with regard to the way it treats flag States with small fleets.
(16) the rules and procedures for port State control inspections, including criteria for the detention of ships, must be harmonised to ensure consistent effectiveness in all ports and at all anchorages, which would also drastically reduce the ability to select specific ports to escape effective control.
(17) the periodic and additional inspections should include an examination of pre-identified areas for each ship which will vary according to the type of ship, the type of inspection and the findings of previous port State control. The inspection database should contain elements, which can be designated risk areas to be checked at each inspection.
(18) certain categories of ships present a major accident or pollution hazard when they reach a certain age, and they should therefore be subject to an expanded inspection. The details of such expanded inspection should be laid down.
(19) Under the inspection system introduced by this directive, the intervals between periodic inspections depends on the ships of their risk profile, which is based on a series of generic and historic parameters. For high-risk ships the interval should not exceed six months.
(20) in order to provide the competent port State control authority with information about ships in port or at anchor seats forward the port authorities or bodies or the authorities or bodies designated for it, communication on ships ' arrival, as far as possible, as soon as they are received.
(21) Some ships pose a manifest risk to maritime safety and the marine environment because of their poor condition, flag State performance and their past. It is therefore legitimate that the Community shall ensure that such vessels do not get access to Member States ' ports and anchorages. The ban on access should be proportionate to the offence and can result in a permanent ban on access, if the ship's operator renewable fails to remedy the deficiencies and shortcomings despite repeated prohibition of access and detentions in ports and anchorages in the community. A third ban on access should only be lifted on condition of compliance with a number of conditions designed to ensure that the ship can sail in Community waters, without danger, and in particular, relates to the ship's flag State and company. Otherwise, should the ship permanently refused access to Member States ' ports and anchorages. Any subsequent detention of the ship should in any case lead to a permanent ban on access to Member States ' ports and anchorages. The list of ships that have been refused access to ports and anchorages in the community, should be published for the purpose of transparency.
(22) in order to limit the burden of repeated inspections of certain authorities and shipping companies should survey, as a host Member State which is not the flag State of the vessel, carrying out of ro-ro ferries or high-speed passenger craft under Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 2004. April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services [7], and which at least includes all points in an expanded inspection, be taken into account for the calculation of ship's risk profile, the intervals between inspections and the inspection commitment of each Member State. The Commission should also examine whether it would be appropriate in future to amend Directive 1999/35/EC with a view to raising the security level for the operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services to or from ports of the Member States.
(23) errors and omissions, which is due to the fact that the relevant conventions are not respected, should be remedied. Ships, where it is required to remedy deficiencies should, when the deficiencies pose an obvious risk to safety, health or the environment, be detained until these deficiencies are remedied.
(24) There should be access to complain about the authorities ' decisions about detention in order to prevent unreasonable decisions which could give rise to unnecessary detention and delay. Member States should cooperate in order to ensure that complaints are dealt with within a reasonable time in accordance with their national legislation.
(25) authorities and inspectors involved in port State control, should not be in a conflict of interest in relation to the port of inspection or in the ships inspected or related interests. Inspectors should have relevant qualifications and should be trained to maintain and improve their competence in the field of inspection. Member States should cooperate in developing and promoting a harmonised Community scheme for ship inspectors after training and evaluation of their competencies.
(26) pilots and port authorities or bodies should have the possibility to provide useful information about apparent irregularities found on board ships.
(27) Complaints from persons who have a legitimate interest in living and working conditions on board ships, should be the subject of investigations. The complainant should be informed about the measures taken in respect of the complaint.
(28) it is necessary that the competent authorities of the Member States and other authorities or organizations shall cooperate with each other in order to ensure an effective follow-up with respect to ships with deficiencies which have been permitted to proceed and for the exchange of information about ships in port.
(29) Since the inspection database is an essential part of port State control, Member States should ensure that it is kept up to date, taking account of Community requirements.
(30) the publication of information concerning ships and their operators or companies which do not comply with the international standards for safety, health and protection of the marine environment, taking into account the size of the companies ' fleet, can be an effective means to discourage shippers from using these ships, and an incentive for shipowners to bring conditions in the order. As regards the information to be made available, the Commission should establish a close cooperation with the Paris MOU and take account of all the published information in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. Member States should provide the relevant information only once.
(31) All costs of inspecting detention of ships eligible, including the cost of cancellation of an access ban, should be borne by the owner or the operator.
(32) the measures necessary for the implementation of this directive should be adopted in accordance with Council decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999. June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission [8].
(33) in particular, the Commission should be empowered to amend this directive in order to implement subsequent changes to conventions, international codes and resolutions related thereto and to lay down the detailed rules for the application of articles 8 and 10. Since those measures are of general scope which seek to amend non-essential elements of this directive, including by supplementing it with new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 5a of decision 1999/468/EC.
(34) since the objectives of this directive, namely to restrict the voyage of ships which do not comply with the standards, in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States by improving the community's inspection system for seagoing ships and the development of opportunities for a preventive action in the field of marine pollution, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Community level; The community may therefore adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, as Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality referred to in article 6. that article, this directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.
(35) the obligation to transpose this directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive amendment to Directive 95/21/EC. The obligation to implement the unchanged provisions of that directive follows.
(36) this directive should not affect the obligations of the Member States with regard to those in annex XV, part B time-limits for transposition into national law of the directives.
(37) the deadline for the implementation of the port State control system introduced by this directive should be the same for all Member States. In this context, the Commission should ensure implementation of the necessary preparatory measures, including trial run of the inspection database and offer of training of inspectors.
(38) in accordance with point 34 of the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making [9], Member States are encouraged, both in themselves and in the interest of the community, to set up and publish their own correlation tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this directive and the transposition measures.
(39) in order not to impose disproportionate administrative burdens should be landlocked such Member States may be exempted from the provisions of this directive in a de minimis rule, which means that such Member States not to implement this directive, as long as they meet certain criteria.
(40) in order to take account of the fact that the French overseas departments belong to another geographical area, are to a large extent parties in other regional port State control memoranda of understanding than the Paris MOU and has very limited traffic flows with mainland Europe, should the Member State concerned shall be authorized to exclude those ports from the port State control regime applicable in the community —
The purpose of this directive is to contribute to a strong limitation of voyage in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States with vessels that fail to live up to the standards; This will be achieved by:
a) increasing compliance with international law and of the relevant Community legislation on maritime safety, on maritime security, protection of the marine environment and living and working conditions on board ships irrespective of the flag they fly
(b)) to establish common criteria for control of ships by the port State and harmonizing procedures for inspection and detention on the basis of the expertise and the experience gained in the framework of the Paris MOU
(c)) to carry out a port State control regime within the community, which is based on the inspections carried out in the community and the Paris MOU region, with the aim to inspect all ships with a frequency depending on their risk profile, so that ships posing a higher risk, be subjected to a more detailed and more frequent inspections.
1) "conventions":
the following conventions together with the protocols and amendments thereto and related codes of mandatory status, in its up-to-date version:
(a)) the 1966 International Convention on load lines (LL 66)
(b)) the 1974 International Convention for the safety of life at sea (Solas 74)
(c)) the International Convention of 1973 for the prevention of pollution from ships associated with the Protocol of 1978 (Marpol 73/78)
(d)) the International Convention of 1978 on the training of seafarers certification and Watchkeeping (STCW 78/95)
(e)) the 1972 Convention on the international regulations (Colreg 72)
f) the International Convention on tonnage measurement of ships, 1969 (ITC 69)
(g)) the 1976 Convention on minimum standards in merchant ships (ILO No. 147)
h) the International Convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage (CLC 92)
2) "Paris MOU" means the memorandum of understanding on port State control, signed in Paris on 26 March. January 1982, in the applicable version;
3) "rules and procedures for the voluntary IMO Member State audit scheme": IMO Assembly resolution a. 974 (24)
4) "Paris MOU region" means the geographical area in which the States signatory to the Paris MOU, shall carry out inspections in the framework of the Paris MOU
5) "ship" means any seagoing vessel to which one or more of the conventions apply, flying a flag other than that of the port State
6) "ship/port interface" means the interactions that occur when a ship is directly and immediately involved in the transfer between the ship and the port of persons or goods or the performance of port services
7) "ship at anchorage" means a ship in a port or another area within the jurisdiction of a port, but not at berth, which is part of a ship/port interface
8) "Inspector" means a public-sector employee or other person, duly authorised by the competent authorities of the Member State to carry out port-State control inspections, and which fall under these authorities
9) "competent authority" means a maritime authority responsible for port State control under this directive,
10) "night time": any period of not less than seven hours, as defined by national law, which in any event include the period between 24:00 and 05:00
11) "initial inspection" means a visit on board a ship inspector ship in order to carry out the control of the relevant conventions and regulations are complied with, including, as a minimum, the checks required by article 13, nr. 1)
12) "more detailed inspection" means an inspection where the ship, its equipment and crew as a whole or, as appropriate, parts thereof, except in the cases referred to in article 13, nr. 3), shall be subjected to a thorough examination, covering the ship's construction, equipment, Manning, living and working conditions and compliance with on-board operational procedures.
13) "expanded inspection" means an inspection, covering at least the conditions laid down in annex VII. An expanded inspection may include a more detailed inspection whenever there are clear grounds in accordance with article 13, nr. 3)
14) "complaint" means any information or reporting submitted by any person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safety of the ship, including an interest in safety and health of the crew, shipboard living and working conditions and the prevention of pollution
15) "detention" means the formal prohibition of a ship to proceed to sea due to established deficiencies which, individually or together, make the ship unseaworthy.
16) "refusal of access order" means a decision issued to the master of the vessel, to the managing company and to the flag State, which shall be notified that the ship will be refused access to all Community ports and anchorages
17) "stoppage of an operation" means a formal prohibition of a ship to continue an operation due to established deficiencies which, individually or together, would render the continued operation hazardous.
18) "company" means the owner of the ship or another organization or person, such as operator or the bareboat charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for operation of the ship from the owner of the ship, and as at this transfer of responsibility has assumed all the duties and responsibilities imposed by the international safety management code (ISM Code)
19) "recognised organisation" means a classification society or other private body carrying out statutory tasks on behalf of a flag State administration
20) "statutory certificate" means a certificate issued by or on behalf of a flag State in accordance with the conventions
21) "classification certificate" means a document that confirms compliance with Solas 74, chapter II-1, Part a-1, regulation 3-1
22) "inspection database" means the information system, which contributes to the implementation of the port State control system in the community and related to data on the inspections carried out in the community and the Paris MOU region.
1. This directive applies to any ship calling at a port or at an anchorage of a Member State, in order to engage in a ship/port interface, and its crew.
France may decide that the ports and anchorages, which are covered by this paragraph do not include ports and anchorages in the overseas departments referred to in Article 299 of the Treaty, paragraph 2.
If a Member State performs an inspection of a ship which is in the waters under its jurisdiction, but which are not in port, the inspection shall be considered as an inspection for the purposes of this directive.
Nothing in this article shall be without prejudice to the right of a Member State for intervention in accordance with the relevant conventions.
Member States which do not have sea ports who can demonstrate that, of the total annual number of individual vessels in the course of the previous three years have entered their river ports, is less than 5% ships covered by this directive, may derogate from the provisions of this directive.
Member States which do not have sea ports, gives not later than the date of the Commission communication on the implementation of the directive the total number of vessels and the number of ships calling at their ports during the above-mentioned period of three years, and shall inform the Commission of any significant change of the above numbers.
2. For vessels with a gross tonnage below 500, Member States shall apply those requirements of a relevant Convention which are applicable to these ships, and to the extent that a Convention does not apply to them, they shall take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that these ships do not constitute a manifest danger to safety, health or the environment. For the purposes of this paragraph allows Member States be guided by Annex 1 to the Paris MOU.
3. for the inspection of a ship flying the flag of a State not a party to a Convention, Member States shall ensure that this ship and its crew is not treated more favourably than a ship flying the flag of a State party to the Convention.
4. This Directive shall not apply to fishing vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries, wooden ships of primitive build, Government ships used for non-commercial purposes and pleasure yachts not used commercially.
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures in order to be legally empowered to carry out the inspections referred to in this directive on board foreign ships in accordance with international law.
2. Member States shall have appropriate competent authorities by assigning or possibly employ the requisite number of staff, in particular qualified inspectors, and the Member States shall implement the necessary measures to ensure that inspectors perform their duties as laid down in this directive, and in particular that they are available to carry out inspections in accordance with this directive.
Inspection system and the annual commitments for inspection
1. Member States shall carry out inspections in accordance with the selection procedure referred to in article 12, and the provisions of Annex i.
2. In order to comply with its annual inspection commitment, each Member State
a) inspect all priority I ships as referred to in article 12 (a)), calling at its ports and anchorages, and
(b) carry out a number of inspections per year) of priority I and priority II ships, as referred to in article 12) (a) and (b)), which are at least equivalent to its share of the total annual number of inspections to be carried out in the community and the Paris MOU region. The inspection share of each Member State to be established on the basis of the number of individual ships calling at ports of the Member State concerned, in relation to the total number of individual ships calling at ports in each State within the community and the Paris MOU region.
3. for the purposes of calculating the in paragraph 2 (b)), referred to the proportion of the total number of inspections to be carried out annually within the community and the Paris MOU region, included ships at anchor seats do not, unless the Member State concerned has specified otherwise.
Rules for performance of the obligation of inspection
A Member State which does not carry out the inspections required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a)), shall be deemed to have fulfilled his obligation pursuant to that provision, if the lack of inspections does not exceed
a) 5% of the total number of priority I ships with a high risk profile calling at its ports and anchorages
b) 10% of the total number of priority I ships other than ships with a high risk profile calling at its ports and anchorages.
Regardless of the percentages in (a)) and (b)) requires Member States to give priority to the inspection of ships, which according to the information in the inspection database not quite frequently calling at ports in the community.
In terms of priority I ships calling at anchorages, Member States shall, regardless of the percentages in (a)) and (b)), give priority to the inspection of ships with a high-risk profile, which, according to the information in the inspection database not quite frequently calling at ports in the community.
Equitable distribution of inspection units in the community
1. A Member State in which the total number of priority I ships calling at ports and anchorages, exceeding its annual inspection obligation pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b)), shall be deemed to have fulfilled his obligation, if a number of inspections of priority I ships carried out by the Member State is at least equal to its inspection share and if the Member State does not bypass more than 30% of the total number of priority I ships calling at its ports and anchorages.
2. A Member State in which the total number of priority I and priority II ships calling at ports and anchorages, is less than the inspection share referred to in article 5, paragraph 2 (b)), shall be deemed to have fulfilled this obligation, if the Member State carries out the inspections of priority I ships, that are required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a)), and inspection of at least 85% of the priority II ships calling at its ports and anchorages.
3. the Commission shall examine, in the context of the evaluation referred to in article 35, the implications of this article of the inspection obligations taking into account the expertise and experience gained within the community and the Paris MOU. The evaluation shall take into account the objective of inspecting all ships calling at ports and anchorages in the community. The Commission is proposing additional measures, if necessary, with a view to improving the effectiveness of the inspection system applied in the community, and, if necessary, a new evaluation of the effects of this article at a later date.
Suspension of inspections and special situations
1. A Member State may decide to postpone the inspection of a priority I ship in the following situations:
(a) if the inspection is carried out by the ship's next) entry into a port located in the same Member State, provided that the ship does not call at any other port in the community or the Paris MOU region in between and the postponement time is not more than 15 days, or
(b)) if the inspection within 15 days may be carried out in another port of call within the community or the Paris MOU region, provided that the State in which that port is located, has agreed to carry out the inspection.
If an inspection is postponed in accordance with subparagraph (a)) or (b)) and is recorded in the inspection database, counts a missed inspection not with as a missed inspection for those Member States which exposed the inspection.
A priority I ship not subject to an inspection, shall be exempt from inspection not in the next port, the ship enters in the community, as laid down in this directive.
2. In the following special situations is considered to be an inspection of operational reasons are not made on a priority I ship, not as a missed inspection, provided that the reason for missing the inspection is recorded in the inspection database, and to:
(a)) the assessment by the competent authority, would involve a risk for the inspectors, the ship, the crew or the safety of the airport or to the marine environment to carry out the inspection, or
(b) the ship enters the Harbor only during night time). In this case, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that ships regularly call at the port of night time are inspected in an appropriate manner.
3. If an inspection is not performed on a ship at anchorage, shall be regarded not as a missed inspection, provided that:
a) ship within 15 days are inspected in another port or at another anchorage within the community or the Paris MOU region in accordance with Annex I, or
b) ship only enter ports during night time or in too short a time for the inspection can be carried out in a satisfactory manner, and the reason for missing the inspection is recorded in the inspection database, or
(c)) the assessment by the competent authority, would involve a risk for the inspectors, the ship, the crew or the safety of the airport or to the marine environment to carry out the inspection, and the reason for missing the inspection is recorded in the inspection database.
4. Measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this directive by supplementing it, and relating to the rules for implementing this article shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in article 31, paragraph 3.
1. the operator or his representative or the master of a ship which, in accordance with article 14 may be subject to an expanded inspection, and calling at a port or anchorage of a Member State shall notify its arrival in accordance with annex III.
2. on receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 and in article 4 of the European Parliament and of the Council Directive 2002/59/EC of 27. June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system for maritime traffic in the community [10], forwarding the port authority or body or the authority or body designated for it, this information to the competent authority.
3. All communications provided for in this article shall, whenever possible, be electronic.
4. The procedures and formats, as Member States shall draw up in connection with annex III to this directive, shall comply with the relevant provisions of Directive 2002/59/EC regarding ships ' notifications.
1. All ships calling at a port or at an anchorage of a Member State, in the inspection database will be assigned a ship risk profile which is crucial for their respective priorities with regard to the inspection, the intervals between inspections and the scope of the inspections.
2. A ship's risk profile determined by combining the following generic and historic risk parameters:
Generic parameters shall be based on the shipping type, age, flag, recognised organisations involved and company performance in accordance with Annex I, section i.1, annex II.
b) Historical parameters
Historic parameters shall be based on the number of deficiencies and detentions during a given period in accordance with Annex I, section i.2, annex II.
3. the measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this directive by supplementing it, and relating to the rules for implementing this article, in particular with regard to:
(a) the flag State criteria)
b) criteria of the company's performance
shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in article 31, paragraph 3, and on the basis of the expertise in the Paris MOU.
Ships calling at Community ports or anchorages shall be subjected to periodic inspections or to additional inspections as follows:
a) Ships shall be subjected to periodic inspections with pre-determined intervals, which depend on the ship's risk profile, which is determined in accordance with Annex I, part i. the interval between periodic inspections of ships shall be extended when the risk decreases. For high-risk ships this interval does not exceed six months.
b) Ships shall be subjected to the following additional inspections, regardless of when they were last periodic inspection:
-The competent authority shall ensure that ships to which overriding factors in Annex i, part II, item 2A, prevailing are inspected.
-Ships for which the unexpected factors in Annex i, part II, item 2B applies, may be inspected. Leaving it to the competent authority, professional judgment, whether such additional inspection shall be carried out.
Selection of the ships to be inspected
The competent authority shall ensure that ships are selected for inspection on the basis of their risk profile, as referred to in annex I, part I, as well as when overriding factors or unexpected factors apply, see. Annex I, part II, point 2A and 2B.
The purpose of the inspection of ships
(a) the competent authority shall select the ships), who must have a mandatory inspection, the so-called "priority I ships", in accordance with the selection scheme described in Annex i, part II, point 3A
(b)), the competent authority may select ships, who may be subjected to inspection, the so-called "priority II ships", in accordance with Annex I, part II, item 3B.
Initial inspection and more detailed inspections
Member States shall ensure that ships selected for inspection in accordance with article 12 shall be subject to an initial inspection or a more detailed inspection as set out in the following:
1) the competent authority shall ensure, in the context of each initial inspection of a ship, to the Inspector as a minimum:
a) check the certificates and documents listed in annex IV, shall be available on board in accordance with the Community maritime legislation and conventions on safety and security
b) controls whether outstanding deficiencies which have been identified in previous inspections, which were made by a Member State or of a State signatory of the Paris MOU have been rectified
c) satisfy himself of the overall condition of the ship, including the hygiene is satisfactory, including the engine room and accommodation.
2) when by an inspection as referred to in point 1. 1) in the inspection database is detected errors and deficiencies to be rectified at the next port of call, the competent authority of the next port in question decide not to carry out the checks referred to in point 1. 1), point (a)) and (c)).
3) to perform a more detailed inspection, which includes additional verification of compliance with the operational requirements on board, when after the in no. 1) referred to inspection are reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship's crew or the condition of the ship or its equipment is in, not substantially meet the relevant requirements of a Convention.
There are reasonable grounds for suspicion, if the Inspector finds evidence which in his professional judgment makes a more detailed inspection of the ship, its equipment or its crew justified.
Annex V contains examples of justified suspicion.
1. The following categories of ships may be subject to an expanded inspection in accordance with Annex I, part II, section 3A and 3B:
-ships with a high risk profile
-passenger ships, oil tankers, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, which is over 12 years old
-ships with a high risk profile or passenger ships, oil tankers, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, which is over 12 years old, in cases of overriding or unexpected factors factors
-ships subject to a re-inspection following a refusal of access order issued pursuant to article 16.
2. The shipowner or the master of the ship shall ensure that there is sufficient time in the schedule to the expanded inspection may be carried out.
Without prejudice to control measures required for the sake of fuse, such ships remain in the port or at the port until the inspection is completed.
3. Upon receipt of a prior notification from a ship that can be subject to an expanded inspection, the competent authority shall periodically inform the ship if no expanded inspection will be carried out.
4. It is provided in annex VII, what an expanded inspection includes including also which risk areas covered. The Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 31, paragraph 2, measures for the implementation of annex VII.
Guidelines and procedures on safety at sea
1. Member States shall ensure that their inspectors follow the procedures and guidelines set out in annex VI.
2. As far as security checks, Member States shall apply the relevant procedures in annex VI to this directive to all the ships referred to in article 3 (1), (2) and (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 725/2004 [11], which enter their ports and anchorages, unless they fly the flag of the port State in which the inspection takes place.
3. the provisions of article 14 of this directive relating to expanded inspection shall apply to ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft on as referred to in article 2 (a)) and (b)), of Directive 1999/35/EC.
When a ship is sighted in accordance with article 6 and 8 of Directive 1999/35/EC by a host State not the ship's flag State, recorded such a specific survey as a more detailed or an expanded inspection, as the case may be, in the inspection database, and that should be taken into account in connection with articles 10, 11 and 12 of this directive, as well as in the calculation of whether the individual Member States have fulfilled their inspection obligations as far as all the items listed in annex VII to this directive are covered.
Unless there is a prohibition against operation of a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft under article 10 of Directive 1999/35/EC, the provisions of this Directive shall apply as regards the rectification of deficiencies, detention, refusal of access, follow-up to inspections, detentions and refusal of access, as the case may be.
4. If necessary, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 31, paragraph 2, adopt rules for the harmonised implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2.
Measures for the banning of certain types of ships
1. A Member State shall ensure that any ship which
-flies the flag of a State which, because of its detention rate listed on the black list, which shall be adopted in accordance with the Paris MOU on the basis of the information recorded in the inspection database and each year shall be published by the Commission, and which more than twice in the course of the preceding 36 months have been detained or have been issued with prohibition of navigation in accordance with the provisions of Directive 1999/35/EC in a port or at an anchorage of a Member State or a State signatory to the Paris MOU, or
-flies the flag of a State which, because of its detention rate listed on the grey list, which shall be adopted in accordance with the Paris MOU on the basis of the information recorded in the inspection database and each year shall be published by the Commission, and which more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months have been detained or have been issued with prohibition of navigation in accordance with the provisions of Directive 1999/35/EC in a port or at an anchorage of a Member State or a State signatory to the Paris MOU
refused access to its ports and anchorages, except in the situations described in article 21, paragraph 6.
The refusal of access shall become applicable as soon as the ship leaves the port or anchorage, where it has been held the third time, and where there have been issued banning.
2. The access refusal order lifted at the earliest, when three months have passed from the issue of the ban, and only when the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 to 9 of annex VIII have been met.
Get the ship subject to a further refusal of access, the period shall be 12 months.
3. Any subsequent detention in a port or at an anchorage in the Community means that the ship will have access to all ports and anchorages in the community. This third refusal of access order may be lifted after a period of 24 months from the issue of the ban, but only if:
-the ship flies the flag of a State that is neither listed on the black or grey list referred to in paragraph 1
-ship's statutory certificates and classification certificates issued by one or more organizations recognized pursuant to European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 391/2009 of 23. April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations of ships (recast) [12]
-the ship is managed by a company with high performance in accordance with Annex I, part I, paragraph 1, and
-the conditions laid down in paragraphs 3 to 9 of annex VIII have been met.
Ships 24 months after the issue of a prohibition does not comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall be prohibited permanent access to all Community ports and anchorages.
4. After the third refusal of access should any subsequent detention in a port or at an anchorage in the community lead to the ship permanently refused access to all ports and anchorages in the community.
5. Member States are acting with a view to the implementation of this article in accordance with the procedures set out in annex VIII.
Inspection report to the master
An inspection, a more detailed inspection or an expanded inspection, the inspector shall draw up a report has been completed in accordance with annex IX. A copy of the inspection report to the ship's master.
All complaints shall be subject to a quick initial assessment by the competent authority. This evaluation should make it possible to determine whether a complaint is justified.
Is this the case, the competent authority shall treat the complaint in an appropriate manner, in particular with a view to ensuring to persons who are directly affected by the complaint, the opportunity to make known their position.
If the competent authority deems the complaint to be manifestly unfounded, it shall inform the complainant of its decision and the reasons for doing so.
The complainant's identity must not be revealed to the master or operator of. The inspector shall ensure the confidentiality of any conversations with crew members.
Member States shall inform the flag State administration notice on complaints that are not manifestly unfounded and of follow-up actions, if necessary, with a copy to The International Labour Organization (ILO).
1. It must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the competent authorities defects that have been confirmed or detected by inspection, are or will be rectified in accordance with the conventions.
2. in the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment, ensures the competent authority of the port State where the ship is being inspected shall ensure that the ship is detained, or the operation in the course of which the deficiencies have been revealed is stopped. The detention order or stoppage of an operation shall not be removed before the danger is averted, or before the competent authority establishes that the ship, possibly under certain conditions, as deemed necessary, can sail, or that the operation can be resumed without risk to the safety or health of passengers or crew members, without the risk to other ships, and without ship or operation pose a disproportionate threat of harm to the marine environment.
3. When exercising his professional judgement as to whether or not a ship should be detained, the inspector shall apply the criteria set out in annex X.
4. Should it prove in connection with inspection, the ship is not equipped with a functioning voyage data recording equipment and such equipment is mandatory in accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC, the competent authority shall ensure that the ship is detained.
Can such errors or defects, which is the reason for the detention, not immediately remedied in the port at which the detention takes place, the competent authority may either allow the ship to proceed to the appropriate repair yard nearest to the port at which the ship is detained, and where the mistakes or shortcomings can be immediately remedied, or require that errors or deficiencies be remedied within a maximum of 30 days in accordance with the guidelines established within the Paris MOU. In this connection, see the procedures referred to in article 21 shall apply.
5. In exceptional cases where it is clear that a ship's overall condition does not comply with international standards, the competent authority may suspend the inspection of the ship until the responsible parties to take the necessary steps to ensure that it complies with the relevant requirements of the conventions.
6. In the event of detention, the competent authority shall immediately in writing and at the same time transmission of the inspection report shall inform the flag State administration or, if this is not possible, the Consul or, in his absence, the nearest diplomatic representative of that State, on all the facts which formed the basis for the procedure. In addition, the authorised surveyors or recognised organisations responsible for the issue of the classification certificates or statutory certificates in accordance with the conventions, also be informed when appropriate.
7. This directive is without prejudice to the additional requirements of the conventions concerning notification and reporting procedures related to port State control.
8. When exercising port State control under this directive is put every effort to prevent a ship unnecessarily withheld or delayed. If a ship unnecessarily withheld or delayed, the owner or the operator claims for compensation for any loss or damage. In cases of alleged unnecessary detention or delay the burden of proof has the ship's owner or operator.
9. in order to avoid the accumulation of ships in a port, the competent authority may allow a detained ship maneuvered to another part of the port, if safety allows this. There must not, however, take into account the risk of congestion in the Harbour, when a decision on the retention or abolition of detention.
The port authorities or bodies shall cooperate with the competent authorities to facilitate the receipt of detained ships.
10. Port authorities or bodies shall be informed as soon as possible, when there is a decision on detention.
1. A ship owner, operator or his representative in the Member State shall have the right to appeal against a detention decision or refusal of access taken by the competent authority. A complaint has no suspensive effect on the detention or refusal of access.
2. for this purpose, Member States shall establish and maintain adequate complaint procedures in accordance with their national legislation.
3. The competent authority referred to in paragraph 1 shall provide the master with due indication of the redress and on the relevant procedures.
4. When a detention or a refusal of access order is revoked or amended as a result of a complaint or a request by a shipowner or the operator or his representative:
a) Member States shall ensure that the inspection database without delay be brought accordingly
(b) the Member State where the detention) or the access refusal order is issued, within 24 hours of such a decision, that the information is published in accordance with article 26, be corrected.
Follow-up of inspections and detention
1. When in article 19, paragraph 2, referred to deficiencies cannot be remedied in the port of inspection, the competent authority in that Member State may allow the ship to sail without undue delay to the appropriate repair yard nearest to the port at which the ship is detained, and which can take follow-up measures after the master and the authorities concerned election, subject to the conditions laid down by the competent authority of the flag State and acceded to by the Member State concerned, are complied with. Conditions shall ensure that the ship can sail on to the yard without the risk of passengers or crew members ' safety and health, without risk to other ships, and without that it poses any unreasonable threat to the marine environment.
2. When the reason for the decision to send a ship to a repair yard is non-compliance with IMO resolution a. 744(18), either with regard to the ship's papers or with regard to the ship's design flaws or deficiencies, the competent authority may require that the necessary thickness measurements be carried out in the port in which the ship is detained, before the ship is allowed to sail.
3. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, it shall inform the competent authority of the Member State in which the port of inspection, the competent authority of the Member State where the repair yard is situated, the parties mentioned in article 19, paragraph 6, and all other relevant authorities, whether the conditions laid down for the voyage.
The competent authority of a Member State receiving such notification, it shall inform the notifying authority of the measures taken.
4. Member States shall ensure that there are denied access to ports or anchorages in the community for the ships referred to in paragraph 1, which proceed to sea:
a) without complying with the conditions laid down by the competent authority of the Member State in the port of inspection;
(b)) which refuse to comply with the applicable requirements of the conventions by not calling into the indicated repair yard;.
This ban shall remain in force until the owner or operator to the competent authority of the Member State in which the ship's deficiencies were noted, has presented sufficient evidence that the ship fully complies with all applicable requirements.
5. In the cases referred to in paragraph 4 (a)), the competent authority of the Member State in which the ship's deficiencies were noted, immediately do the competent authorities in all the other Member States are aware of this.
In the cases referred to in paragraph 4 (b)), the competent authority of the Member State where the repair yard is situated, immediately do the competent authorities in all the other Member States are aware of this.
In the Member State issuing the ban, it may request consultations with the administration of the flag State of the vessel concerned.
6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 4, the port State authorities in cases of force majeure or overriding safety considerations, or to reduce the risk of pollution or make it as small as possible, or to deficiencies can be remedied, provide access to a specific port or anchorage, on condition that the ship's owner, operator or master has taken appropriate measures, which meet the requirements by the competent authority of the Member State concerned has made so that the vessel can enter the port or port safely.
The inspectors professional qualifications
1. Inspections shall be carried out only by inspectors who fulfil the qualification criteria specified in annex XI and which by the competent authority are authorized to carry out port-State control.
2. If the competent authority of the port State, does not have the required expertise, that authority inspectors can be assisted by any person with the required expertise.
3. The competent authority, the inspectors carrying out port State control and the persons assisting them shall have no commercial interest either in the port of inspection or in the ships inspected; nor should inspectors be employed by or work for non-governmental organizations which issue statutory and classification certificates or which carry out the surveys necessary for the issue of these ships ' certificates.
4. Each inspector shall carry a personal document in the form of an identity card issued by the competent authority in accordance with Commission Directive 96/40/EC of 25. June 1996 establishing a common model for an identity card for inspectors carrying out port State control [13].
5. Member States shall ensure that marine inspectors ' qualifications and their compliance with the minimum criteria referred to in annex XI, shall be verified before they are given permission to perform inspections, and then regularly on the basis of the educational system, referred to in paragraph 7.
6. Member States shall ensure that inspectors receive appropriate training on changes to the port State control system applied in the community, as provided for in this directive, and changes in the conventions.
7. In cooperation with the Member States, developing and promoting a harmonised Community scheme for the Commission by the Member States for the training of port State control inspectors and evaluation of their competencies.
1. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that their pilots, which brings ships for berthing or unberthing of ships or on its way to a port in a Member State or is in transit in a Member State shall immediately inform respectively the port State or the coastal State, if the competent authority in the performance of their normal duties, aware of the fact that the ship has apparent anomalies which may endanger safety during navigation or pose a risk of harm to the marine environment.
2. If port authorities or bodies in the performance of their normal duties, learn that a ship within their port has apparent anomalies which may prejudice the safety of the ship or poses an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, such authority shall immediately inform the competent authority of the port State concerned.
3. Member States shall require pilots and port authorities or bodies at least to report the following information in electronic format, when this is possible:
shipping information (name, IMO ship identification number, call sign and flag)
-sailing information (last port of call, destination port)
-description of the apparent anomalies detected on board.
4. Member States shall ensure that they are followed up on apparent anomalies notified by pilots and port authorities or bodies and shall record the details of the steps taken.
5. the Commission may, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in article 31 (2), adopt measures for the implementation of this article, including a harmonized electronic format and procedures for pilots and port authorities or bodies reporting of apparent irregularities and of the follow-up carried out by the Member States.
1. The Commission shall develop, maintain and update the inspection database on the basis of the expertise and the experience gained in the framework of the Paris MOU.
The inspection database shall contain all the information necessary for the implementation of the inspection system introduced by this directive, and shall contain the features listed in annex XII.
2. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that information on the actual arrival and departure time for all ships calling at their ports and anchorages, together with an indication of the person's identification name is transferred to the inspection database within a reasonable period of time by means of the Community maritime information exchange system SafeSeaNet, as referred to in article 3) (s) of Directive 2002/59/EC. When the Member States have transferred to the inspection database such information by means of SafeSeaNet, shall be exempted from the requirements relating to the transmission of information in section 1.2 and paragraph 2 (a)) and (b)), in annex XIV to this directive.
3. Member States shall ensure that the information on the inspections carried out in accordance with this directive, shall be transferred to the inspection database, as soon as the inspection report is completed or the detention lifted.
Within 72 hours, Member States shall ensure that the information is transferred to the inspection database, validated for publication.
4. the Commission shall, on the basis of the inspection data transfers by the Member States, could extract all the data from the inspection database, which is relevant for the implementation of this directive and, in particular, whether the ships ' risk profile of ships to be inspected, relating to ships ' movements, for each Member State inspection obligations.
Member States shall have access to all the information that is recorded in the inspection database, which are relevant for the implementation of the inspection procedures in accordance with this directive.
Member States and third countries that are signatories to the Paris MOU, shall have access to all information they have recorded in the inspection database, and to information concerning ships flying their flag.
The exchange of information and cooperation
Each Member State shall ensure that its port authorities or bodies and other designated authorities or bodies shall communicate to the competent port State control authority with the following information, as they are in possession of:
-information notified in accordance with article 9 and annex III
– information concerning ships which have failed to report any information that is required by this directive and of a European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59/EC of 27. November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues [14] and Directive 2002/59/EC and, where appropriate, Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 725/2004
– information concerning ships which have proceeded to sea without having complied with articles 7 or 10 of Directive 2000/59/EC
– information concerning ships which have been denied admission to or have been expelled from a port for security reasons
-information about apparent irregularities in accordance with article 23.
The Commission has pointed out, and keep up to date on a publicly accessible Web site information on inspections, detentions and refusal of access in accordance with annex XIII, on the basis of the expertise and the experience gained in the framework of the Paris MOU.
Publication of a list of shipping companies with a low and very low performance level
The Commission shall establish and publish regularly on a publicly accessible Web site information on shipping companies, whose level of performance with regard to determining the ship risk profile as referred to in annex I, part I, has been regarded as low or very low for a period of three months or longer.
The Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in article 31, paragraph 2, measures for the implementation of this article, including specifying how the publication must take place.
1. Should the inspections referred to in articles 13 and 14 shall confirm or reveal deficiencies in relation to the requirements of a Convention, as does the detention of a ship, all costs relating to the inspections in any normal accounting period shall be covered by the shipowner or the operator or by his representative in the port State.
2. All costs of inspecting, as the competent authority in a Member State carries out in accordance with article 16 and article 21, paragraph 4, charged to the shipowner or operator.
3. where a ship is detained, borne all the costs of the detention in the port by the ship's owner or operator.
4. Detention shall not be lifted until full payment has been made, or that is provided with adequate guarantee for reimbursement of the costs.
Information for monitoring the implementation
Member States shall send the Commission the information referred to in annex XIV with the frequency listed in the annex.
Monitoring of Member States ' compliance with the rules and their efforts
In order to ensure the effective implementation of this directive and to monitor the overall functioning of the Community port State control system, in accordance with article 2, subparagraph (b)), nr. in) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 1406/2002, the Commission collects the necessary information and visits in the Member States.
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on safe seas and the prevention of pollution from ships (COSS) created by article 3 of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 2099/2002 [15].
2. where reference is made to this paragraph, articles 5 and 7 of decision 1999/468/EC shall apply. its article 8.
Period referred to in article 5 (6) of decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.
3. where reference is made to this paragraph, article 5a, paragraphs 1 to 4, and article 7 of decision 1999/468/EC shall apply. its article 8.
a) adapt the annexes, except annex I, to take account of amendments which have entered into force by the Community legislation on maritime safety and maritime security and to conventions, international codes and resolutions of relevant international organizations, as well as by developments in the Paris MOU
(b)) change the definitions that refer to conventions, international codes and resolutions and EC legislation, and which is relevant for this directive.
These measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this directive, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in article 31, paragraph 3.
The amendments to the international instruments referred to in article 2 may be excluded from the scope of this directive pursuant to article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 2099/2002.
The Commission shall, in the preparation of the implementing rules referred to in article 8, paragraph 4, article 10, paragraph 3, article 14, paragraph 4, article 15, paragraph 4, article 23, paragraph 5, and article 27, in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 31, paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, take particular care that these provisions take account of the knowledge and the experience that is achieved by virtue of the inspection system in the community and the Paris MOU region.
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that these sanctions are applied. Penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
The Commission carries out an evaluation of the implementation of the directive no later than 30 June. June 2012. The evaluation includes a review of, among other things. the fulfilment of the overall Community inspection commitment in accordance with article 5, the number of port State inspectors in each Member State, the number of completed inspections and whether each Member State has fulfilled its annual inspection commitment, as well as of the implementation of articles 6, 7 and 8.
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council on the results of this evaluation and acting on the basis of this evaluation, whether or not it is necessary to present proposals for amending the directive or proposal for further legislation in this area.
1. Member States shall adopt and publish by 31 March 2007. December 2010 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive.
Member States shall apply these measures from 1 January 2000. January 2011.
2. These laws and regulations to be adopted shall contain a reference to this directive or shall be accompanied by such reference publication. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the Directive repealed by this Directive shall be construed as references to this directive. Member States shall lay down the rules for this reference and the wording of the relevant information.
4. In addition, the Commission regularly inform the European Parliament and the Council on the progress made with regard to the implementation of this directive in the Member States, in particular with a view to the uniform application of the community's inspection system.
Directive 95/21/EC, as amended by the directives referred to in annex XV, part A, is repealed with effect from 1 January. January 2011, without prejudice to Member States ' obligations with regard to those in annex XV, part B time-limits for transposition into national law of the directives.
References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in annex XVI to this directive.
Done at Strasbourg, 23. April 2009.
[1] OJ C 318 of 23.12.2006, p. 195.
[2] OJ C 229 of 22.9.2006, p. 38.
[3] opinion of the European Parliament of 25.4.2007 (OJ C 74 E, 20.3.2008, p. 584), Council common position of 6.6.2008 (OJ C 198, 5.8.2008 E, p. 1), position of the European Parliament of 24.9.2008 (not yet published in the official journal), Council decision of 26.2.2009 and European Parliament legislative resolution of 11.3.2009 (not yet published in the official journal).
[4] OJ L 157 of 7.7.1995, p. 1.
[5] OJ L 161 of 22.6.2007, p. 63.
[6] OJ L 208 of 5 August 2002, p. 1.
[7] OJ L 138 of 1.6.1999, p. 1.
[8] OJ L 184 of 17.7.1999, p. 23.
[9] OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003, p.1.
[10] OJ L 208 of 5 August 2002, p. 10.
[11] OJ L 129 of 29.4.2004, p. 6.
[12] see page 11 of this official journal.
[13] OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 8 of.
[14] OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000, p. 81.
[15] OJ L 324 of 29.11.2002, p. 1.
The following elements must be included in the Community system for port-State inspections:
The risk profile of a ship shall be determined by combining the following generic and historic parameters:
a) type of ship
Passenger ships, oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers and bulk carriers are deemed to pose a higher risk.
(b)) the ship's age
Older than 12 years old, shall be deemed to confer a higher risk.
c) Flag State performance
I) Ships flying the flag of a State with a high detention rate within the community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a higher risk.
II) Ships flying the flag of a State with a low detention rate within the community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a lower risk.
III) Ships flying the flag of a State for which an audit has been completed, and for which, if appropriate, put forward an action plan to remedy deficiencies, both of which are in accordance with the rules and procedures for the voluntary IMO Member State audit scheme, should be considered as posing a lower risk. As soon as the measures referred to in article 10, paragraph 3, is adopted, the flag State of such a ship to document compliance with the code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments.
d) recognised organisations
I) ships which have been issued with certificates from recognised organisations with a low or very low performance level in terms of their detention rates within the community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a higher risk.
II) ships which have been issued with certificates from recognised organisations with a high level of performance with regard to their detention rates within the community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a lower risk.
III) ships which have been issued with certificates from recognised organisations in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 391/2009, shall be considered as posing a lower risk.
e) Company performance
I) Ships from a company with a low or very low performance as determined by its ships ' deficiency and detention rates within the community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a higher risk.
II) Ships from a company with a high performance as determined by its ships ' deficiency and detention rates within the community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a lower risk.
I) ships which have been detained more than once, shall be considered as posing a higher risk.
II) ships which, during inspection (s) carried out within the period set out in annex II is less than the number of errors and omissions, which are referred to in annex II, shall be considered as posing a lower risk.
III) Ships which have not been detained during the period set out in annex II, shall be considered as posing a lower risk.
Risk parameters are compared by using a weighting which reflects the individual parameters proportional impact on the ship's overall risk to determine the following ship risk profiles:
In determining these risk profiles places most emphasis on the parameters for the type of ship, flag State, of recognised organisations and the companies ' performance.
Periodic inspections are performed at regular intervals. Their frequency is determined by the ship risk profile. The interval between periodic inspections of high risk ships shall not exceed six months. The intervals between periodic inspections of ships in other risk groups must be longer, the lower the risk.
For Member States to carry out periodic inspection on board:
-any ship with a high risk profile, if they have not been inspected in a port or anchorage within the community or the Paris MOU region within the last six months. High-risk ships may be subject to inspection from the 5. month
-all ships with a standard risk profile, if they have not been inspected in a port or anchorage within the community or the Paris MOU region within the past 12 months. Standard risk ships may be subject to inspection from the 10. month
-any ship with a low risk profile, if they have not been inspected in a port or anchorage within the community or the Paris MOU region during the last 36 months. Low-risk ships may be subject to inspection from the 24. month.
Ships to which the following overriding factors or unexpected factors applies, may be subjected to inspection, regardless of when they were last periodic inspection. However, leaving it to the controller's professional judgment, whether there is a need for an additional inspection due to unexpected factors.
2A. Factors that result in top priority
Ships to which the following overriding factors applies, be subjected to inspection, regardless of when they were last periodic inspection:
-ships for safety reasons has been suspended or withdrawn from their class since the last inspection carried out in the community or the Paris MOU region
-ships which another Member State has made reporting or communication
-ships which cannot be identified in the inspection database
-who has been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their way to the port
-which has been accused of violation of the provisions on discharge of harmful substances or effluents
-manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner, so that routing measures, adopted by the IMO, or safe navigation practices and procedures have not been followed.
Ships to which the following unexpected factors apply, may be subjected to inspection, regardless of when they were last periodic inspection. Leaving it to the competent authorities ' professional judgment, about to be made such further inspection:
-ships which have not complied with the applicable Edition of the IMO recommendation on navigation in the entrance to the Baltic Sea
-ships carrying certificates issued by a former recognised organisation whose approval has been withdrawn since the last inspection in the community or the Paris MOU region
-ships which pilots or port authorities or bodies have reported apparent anomalies, which can affect safety during navigation or pose a risk of harm to the marine environment, see. Article 23 of this directive
-ships which do not comply with the relevant requirements on notification as referred to in article 9 of this directive and in Directive 2000/59/EC and 2002/59/EC and, where appropriate, Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 725/2004
-ships which have made reporting or complaining from the master, a crew member, or any person or organization that has a legitimate interest in, the ship operated on security properly, in the living and working conditions on board or in the prevention of pollution, unless the Member State concerned deems the alert or the complaint for apparently unjustified
-ships which have been detained for more than three months ago
-ships which have been reported with outstanding deficiencies, except ships for which deficiencies to be rectified within 14 days after departure, and for errors and deficiencies to be rectified before departure
-ships which have been reported with problems concerning their cargo, in particular harmful and dangerous goods
-ships which operated in such a way that there has been a danger to persons, property or the environment;
-ships for which information from a reliable source has shown that their risk parameters differ from the registered parameters, and that is why the level of risk is higher.
3A. Priority I ships be inspected as follows:
(a) an expanded inspection is carried out by)
-ships with a high risk profile which has not been inspected over the past six months
-passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old, with a standard risk profile not inspected in the last 12 months.
(b)) carried out an initial or a more detailed inspection, as appropriate, of
-ships, other than passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old with a standard risk profile and which have not been inspected over the past 12 months.
c) in the case of an overriding factor:
-a more detailed or an expanded inspection according to the professional professional judgment of all ships with a high-risk profile and any other passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old
-a more detailed inspection shall be carried out by other ships, there are no passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, older than 12 years old.
3B. Where the competent authority decides to inspect a priority II ship, the following applies:
(a) an expanded inspection is carried out by):
-ships with a high risk profile not inspected in the last five months
-passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old, with a standard risk profile not inspected in the previous 10 months, or
-passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old, with a low risk profile not inspected in the previous 24 months.
(b)) carried out an initial or a more detailed inspection, as appropriate, of:
-ships, other than passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old, with a standard risk profile and which have not been inspected in the past 10 months, or
-ships, other than passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old, with a low risk profile and which have not been inspected in the past 24 months.
c) in the case of an unexpected factor:
-a more detailed or an expanded inspection according to the professional professional judgment of all ships with a high risk profile or any other passenger ships, oil, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, there are over 12 years old
-a more detailed inspection shall be carried out by ships, other than passenger ships, oil tanker, gas or chemical tanker or a bulk carrier, older than 12 years old.
(as referred to in article 10, paragraph 2)
(as referred to in article 9, paragraph 1)
Information to be provided in accordance with article 9, paragraph 1:
The following information must be submitted to the port authorities or bodies or other designated authorities or bodies, at least three days before the estimated time of arrival at the port or port or before departure; from the previous port or anchorage if the voyage is expected to be fewer than three days:
a) ship identification (name, call sign, IMO identification number or MMSI number)
(b)) planned duration of stay in the port or anchorage
I) configuration: single hull, single hull with SBT, double hull
(ii)) of the cargo and ballast tanks: full, empty, inerted,
III) volume and nature of the cargo,
d) planned operations at the port of destination or port (loading, unloading, other)
e) planned statutory survey inspections and substantial maintenance and repair work to be carried out in the port of destination
f) date of the last expanded inspection in the Paris MOU region.
(as referred to in article 13, nr. 1))
1) international tonnage certificate (1969)
2)-passenger ship safety certificate
-Cargo ship safety certificate Design
-Equipment for the cargo ship safety certificate
-Exemption certificate, including, where applicable, weight of contents
3) international ship security certificate (ISSC)
4) Ship history
5) International certificate of fitness for the carriage of liquefied gases in bulk
-Certificate of fitness for the carriage of liquefied gases in bulk
6) international certificate of fitness for the carriage of dangerous chemicals in bulk
-Certificate of fitness for the carriage of dangerous chemicals in bulk
7) International certificate for the prevention of oil pollution
8) international pollution prevention certificate for the carriage of noxious liquid substances in bulk
9) international load line certificate (1966)
-International load line exemption certificate
10) Oil journal, part I and II
11) Cargo journal
12) Document relating to the ship's minimum manning requirements (Minimum Safe Manning Document)
13) Certificates or other documents required in accordance with the provisions of STCW 78/95
14 Medical certificates (see). ILO Convention No. 73 concerning medical examination of seafarers)
15) overview of work organisation (ILO Convention No 180 and the STCW 78/95)
16) records of seafarers ' hours of work and rest periods (ILO Convention No. 180)
17) stability information
18) copy of document of compliance and a safety management certificate issued in accordance with the international management code for the safe operation of ships and for pollution prevention (Solas 74, chapter IX)
19) certificates as to the ship's hull strength and machinery installations issued by the recognised organisation in question (only to be required if the ship maintains its class in a recognized organization)
20) Document attesting to compliance with the special requirements for ships carrying dangerous goods
21) for high speed craft safety certificate and permit to operate high speed craft
22) Special list or manifest, or detailed stowage plan for dangerous goods
23) Ships a record of tests and drills, including security exercises, record of survey and maintenance of rescue equipment and events as well as fire-fighting equipment and measures
24) Security certificate for ships designed for special purposes
25) safety certificate for mobile offshore drilling unit
26) For oil tanker, a record of monitoring and control system for the disposal of oil in the last ballast voyage (oil journal)
27) muster list, fire-fighting plan, and for passenger ships, a plan for the reduction of damages
28) contingency plan in the event of oil pollution on board
29) survey report files (in case of bulk carriers and oil tankers)
30) reports on previous surveys in the context of port State control
31) For ro-ro passenger ships: information about (A)/A-maximum ratio
32) document that authorizes grain transport
33) cargo securing manual
34) Plan for the treatment of waste and garbage
35) decision support system for masters of passenger ships
36) SAR cooperation Plan for passenger ships on regular service
37) list of operational limitations for passenger ships
38) bulk carrier booklet
39) Plan for loading and unloading of bulk carriers
40) certificate of insurance or other financial security for civil liability for oil pollution damage (the International Convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage)
41) Certificates in accordance with European Parliament and Council directive 2009/20/EC of 23. April 2009 on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims [1]
42) certificate in accordance with European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 392/2009 of 23. April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents [2]
43) International certificate for the prevention of air pollution
International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate) 44.
[1] see page 128 of this official journal.
[2] see page 24 of this official journal.
EXAMPLES OF "CLEAR GROUNDS"
(as referred to in article 13, no. 3))
A. examples of justified suspicion, which gives rise to a more detailed inspection
1. Ships in accordance with Annex I, part 2A and 2B.
2. Oil record book has not been completed correctly.
3. verification of certificates and other documents showing the existence of inaccuracies.
4. There are indications that the crew members did not meet the requirements for communications on board in article 18 of European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/106/EC of 19. November 2008 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (recast) [1].
5. Evidence obtained in a fraudulent way, or the certificate holder is not the person to whom the certificate was originally issued.
6. The ship has a master, officer or enlisted men, who are in possession of certificates issued by a third country which has not ratified the STCW 78/95.
7. It is evident that the cargo and other operations not carried out under safe conditions or in accordance with Imo guidelines, URf.eks. the oxygen content of the inert gas system to the cargo tanks is above the prescribed maximum level.
8. An oil tanker driver is not able to produce the record of the supervisory and control system for the disposal of oil in the last ballast voyage.
9. Absence of an up-to-date muster list, or crew members not aware of their duties in the event of a fire, or if the order to abandon the ship.
10. Seconded wrong distress alerts not followed by proper cancellation procedures.
11. There is a lack of the essential equipment required in the conventions or events.
13. It is clear from the ship inspector's general impression and observations that serious hull or structural is fraught with serious errors or omissions, which may involve a risk of the ship's construction, watertight integrity, weather tightness.
14. There is information or evidence that the master or crew are not familiar with essential functions on board in connection with the safety of the ship or pollution, or that such operations have not been attended to.
15. There is no overview of the work organisation on board or records of seafarers ' hours of work and rest periods.
B. examples of reasoned suspicion with regard to the security control of ships
1. The Inspector may during the initial port State control inspection on the following way determine that on the basis of justified suspicion may require additional measures to control by ensuring:
1.1. ISSC is not valid or has expired.
1.2. Ship Security level is lower than the port.
1.3. Drills related to the security of the ship is not performed.
1.4. Records of the last 10 ship/port interfaces or between ships is incomplete.
1.5. Evidence or finding of fact that the ship's key staff are unable to communicate with each other.
1.6. Evidence on the basis of observations that there are serious deficiencies in security measures.
1.7. Information from third parties, URf.eks. reports or complaints relating to security.
1.8. The ship is in possession of an interim international ship security certificate (ISSC), which continuously issued subsequently, and one of the ship's or company's purpose in requesting such a certificate according to the professional judgement of the Inspector, the ship is to avoid full compliance with Solas 74 chapter XI-2 and part a of the ISPS code part A in addition to the period in which it originally issued temporary certificate is valid. ISPs code part A refers to the circumstances under which a certificate may be issued on a temporary basis.
2. If in addition from the above conditions exists reasonable grounds, the Inspector will inform immediately the competent security authority (unless the Inspector is also a security officer, duly authorized official). The competent security authority decides ex-post, what additional control measures are needed in view of the level of security referred to in article 6. Rule No 1. 9 of Solas 74, chapter XI.
3. Clear grounds for other reasons than those listed above may be determined only by the duly authorised, security official responsible.
[1] OJ L 323 of December 2008, p. 33.
(see article 15, paragraph 1)
Annex 1 to the Paris MOU: procedures for port State control ("Port State Control Procedures" (PSCPs)), and following instructions from the Paris MOU in the updated version:
-Instruction 33/2000/02: Operational Control on Ferries and Passenger Ships (Instructions 33/2000/02 on operational control on ferries and passenger ships)
-Instruction 35/2002/02: guidelines for PSCOs on Electronic Charts (Instruction 35/2002/02 on guidelines on electronic charts for port State inspectors)
-Instruction 36/2003/08: Guidance for Inspection on Working and Living Conditions (Instruction 36/2003/08 on guidelines for the inspection of working-and indkvarteringforhold)
-Instruction No 37/2004/02: guidelines in Compliance with STCW 78/95 Convention as Amended (37/2004/02 Instructions for port State inspectors about STCW 78/95, as amended)
-Instruction 37/2004/05: guidelines on the Inspection of Hours of Work/Rest (Instructions 37/2004/05 on guidelines for the inspection of the working and rest time)
-Instruction 37/2004/10: guidelines for Port State Control Officers on Security Aspects (Script 37/2004/10 of port State inspectors about the safety aspects)
-Instruction 38/2005/02: guidelines for PSCO's Checking a Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) (Instruction 38/2005/02 for port State inspectors who control the ' black box ' data recorder (VDR))
-Instruction 38/2005/05: guidelines on Marpol 73/78 Annex I (Instruction 38/2005/05 guidelines on Marpol Annex I)
-Instruction 38/2005/07: guidelines on Control of the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) of Single Hull Oil Tankers (Instruction 38/2005/07 on the control of the condition assessment scheme for single-hull oil tankers)
-Instruction 39/2006/01: guidelines for the Port State Control Officer on the ISM Code (Instruction 39/2006/01 establishing the guidelines for port State inspectors on the ISM Code)
-Instruction 39/2006/02: guidelines for Port State Control Officers on Control of GMDSS (Instruction 39/2006/02 establishing the guidelines for port State inspectors on control of GMDSS)
-Instruction 39/2006/03: Optimisation of Banning and Notification Checklist (Instruction 39/2006/03 about optimizing check list in connection with prohibitions and notification)
-Instruction 39/2006/10: Guidance for PSCOs for the Examination of Ballast Tanks and Main Power Failure Simulation (black-out test) (Instruction 39/2006/10 on guidelines for port State inspectors with regard to the examination of ballast tanks and simulated failure of the main power supply (power interrupt test))
-Instruction 39/2006/11: Guidance for Checking the Structure of Bulk Carriers (Instruction 39/2006/11 on guidelines for the control of bulk carrier construction)
-Instruction 39/2006/12: Code of Good Practice for Port State Control Officers (Instruction 39/2006/12 on guidelines for good practice for port State inspectors)
-Instruction 40/2007/04: Criteria for Responsibility Assessment of Recognised Organisation (R/O) (Instruction 40/2007/04 on recognised organisations accountability assessment)
-Instruction 40/2007/09: guidelines for Port State Control Inspections for Compliance with Annex VI of Marpol 73/78 (Instruction 40/2007/09 on guidelines for port State inspectors in connection with enforcement of annex VI to Marpol 73/78).
(referred to by article 14)
An expanded inspection concerns in particular the overall condition on the following risk areas:
-design mode
-weather tightness
-loading and unloading operations
-accommodation and working conditions
-propulsion and auxiliary machinery
-Prevention of pollution.
Having regard to the practical feasibility or any constraints relating with persons, the master of the ship or the port's security includes an expanded inspection also checks by specific elements of risk areas, which depend on the inspected vessel type, see. Article 14, paragraph 3.
PROVISIONS CONCERNING REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO PORTS AND ANCHORAGES IN THE COMMUNITY
1. If the conditions laid down in article 16, paragraph 1, are complied with, it shall inform the competent authority of the port, where a third detention of ship takes place, in writing the master that the refusal of access order will be issued, which shall enter into force immediately after the ship has left the port. The access refusal order will take effect when the ship has left the port after the deficiencies leading to the detention, are remedied.
2. the authority shall send a copy of the refusal of access to the flag State administration, the recognised organisation concerned, the other Member States and the other States signatory to the Paris MOU, the Commission and the Paris MOU secretariat. The competent authorities shall update the inspection database without delay with information also about the access refusal order.
3. In order to have the access refusal order lifted, the owner or the operator must address a formal request to the competent authority of the Member State that imposed the access refusal order. This request must be accompanied by a document issued by the administration of the flag State, after one of the flag by a surveyor duly authorised Inspector has visited on board and found that the ship fully complies with the applicable requirements of the conventions. Flag State administration shall provide the competent authority with evidence that there is carried out a visit on board.
4. The request to remove the access refusal order must also, where appropriate, be accompanied by a document issued by the classification society, where the ship is classified, according to an inspector from the classification society has visited on board, stating that the ship conforms to the class standards stipulated by that society. The classification society shall submit to the competent authority, proof that there is carried out a visit on board.
5. The access refusal order may only be lifted after the expiry of the period referred to in article 16 and after a re-inspection of the ship at an agreed port.
If the agreed port is located in a Member State, that State authority at the request of the competent authority of the Member State that issued the access refusal order, give the ship to call at the agreed port in order to perform the re-inspection. In this case, there should not be performed cargo operations at the port, before the access refusal order is lifted.
6. If the detention which led to the issuance of an access ban, relate to deficiencies in the ship's structure, the competent authority which issued the refusal of access, require that certain areas, inter alia: cargo spaces and tanks, are made available for examination during the re-inspection.
7. The re-inspection is carried out by the competent authority of the Member State that imposed the access refusal order or by the competent authority of the port of destination, with the agreement of the competent authority of the Member State that imposed the access refusal order. The competent authority may require that a re-inspection is indicated up to 14 days in advance. There must be evidence of satisfaction of the Member State that the vessel fully complies with the applicable requirements of the conventions.
9. All costs of this expanded inspection shall be borne by the shipowner or operator.
10. If the results of the expanded inspection satisfy the Member State referred to in article 6. Annex VII repealed the access refusal order, and the ship's operator will be informed in writing.
11. the authority shall notify its decision in writing also to the flag State administration, the classification society concerned, the other Member States, the other States signatory to the Paris MOU, the Commission and the Paris MOU secretariat. The competent authorities shall update the inspection database without delay with information also about the lifting of the ban.
12. Information relating to ships that have been refused access to ports and anchorages in the community, shall be made available in the inspection database and published in accordance with the provisions of article 26 and in annex XIII.
The inspection report shall include at least the following:
1. The competent authority which prepared the report
2. Date and place where the inspection has taken place
3. Name of the ship has been inspected
5. type of ship (as indicated on the certificate for the safe operation of ships)
10. Year of construction on the basis of the date indicated in the ship's safety certificates,
11. The classification society, or classification societies, as well as any other organization, if it is relevant, which has/have issued any certificates of the ship classification
12. the competent authority or recognized organization (s) and/or any other party which has/have issued certificates on behalf of the flag State of the ship in accordance with the applicable conventions
13. name and address of the ship's company or operator
14. Name and address of the charterer responsible for the selection of the vessel and the type of charter in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargo in bulk;
16. Indication that detailed information on an inspection or a detention may be published.
1. Certificates issued in accordance with the relevant conventions, authority or organisation that issued the certificate (s) concerned, date of issue and expiry date
2. Parts or elements of the ship that has been inspected (in the case of more detailed or expanded inspection)
3. Port and date of the last intermediate or annual survey or a renewal survey and a statement of the Organization, which has carried out the sight
5. Error ' and the nature of the deficiencies
1. date of decision about detention
2. date of decision on the abolition of detention
3. nature of the deficiencies, which justified the decision on detention (references to conventions, if relevant)
4. Where appropriate, an indication of whether the recognised organisation or other private body that carried out the sight, had any responsibility for the deficiencies which, alone or in combination, led to detention
(see article 19, paragraph 3)
Ship inspector's decision of whether deficiencies found during an inspection warrant detention of the ship involved, based on the criteria laid down in point 1 and 2.
Point 3 includes examples of deficiencies, which alone can make the detention of the ship involved, see. Article 19, paragraph 4.
If the reason for the detention is caused by injuries as a result of an accident, as the ship has suffered along the way to a port, no order for detention shall be issued, provided that:
(a)) have been taken, with due regard to the requirements for reporting contained in Solas 74 Regulation 1/11 (c) concerning the notification to the flag State administration, the nominated surveyor or the approved organisation responsible for issuing the relevant certificate,
(b)) the master or shipowner in deepwater port has informed the port State control authorities the circumstances surrounding the accident and the resulting damage, as well as information about the required notification to the flag State authority
(c)) from the ship's side has taken appropriate measures to repair the damage, to the satisfaction of the authority, and
(d)) the authorities after being informed of remediation work completion, are satisfied that the damage and missing that uniquely constituted a risk to the safety, health and the environment have been rectified.
Ship inspector's decision on the possible detention of a ship taken out from a professional discretion and on the basis of the following criteria:
Choice of time:
Ships, as it would be irresponsible to let proceed to sea must be detained after the first inspection irrespective of how much time the ship will stay in port.
A ship should be detained if its deficiencies are sufficiently serious to merit an inspector deems it necessary to carry out a new visit on board to ensure that the deficiencies have been rectified before the ship departs.
It means that we are talking about such serious deficiencies, that it is necessary that the inspector shall submit a new visit on board. It does not, however, such a visit mandatory in all cases. This means that the authorities in one way or another, preferably by a new visit, must verify that the deficiencies have been rectified before the ship departs.
2. the use of the basic criteria
Ship inspector's decision of whether the deficiencies found in a ship are sufficiently serious that the ship should be detained, taken on the basis of the following assessments:
1. whether the ship has the relevant and valid documents
2. whether the ship is manned in accordance with the minimum safe manning document.
During the inspection the inspector must also assess whether the ship and/or crew is able to:
4. safe handling, transport and monitor the condition of the cargo throughout the forthcoming voyage;
7. If necessary, to carry out effective fire fighting everywhere on the ship throughout the forthcoming voyage;
8. If necessary, to make quick and safe evacuation of the ship and carry out rescue operations throughout the forthcoming voyage;
9. to prevent pollution of the environment throughout the forthcoming voyage;
11. sufficient to ensure that the ship is waterproof throughout the forthcoming voyage;
12. If necessary, to communicate with the outside world in a disaster situation throughout the forthcoming voyage;
13. ensuring safe and hygiene conditions on Board throughout the forthcoming voyage;
14. in the event of an accident to provide as much information as possible.
If one of these assessments is negative, it must, having regard to all the deficiencies found strong consideration should be given to detain the ship. Several less severe deficiencies can also make a detention of a ship.
3. As help for the Inspector, using these guidelines follows below, grouped under relevant conventions and/or codes, a list of deficiencies, which are considered to be so serious that they may make a detention of the ship involved. The list is not exhaustive.
The lack of valid certificates and documents as prescribed in the relevant conventions. Ships flying the flag of a non-Convention State, or who have not implemented another relevant instrument, are however not eligible for certificates in accordance with this Convention or other relevant conventions. Lack of mandatory certificates is therefore not in itself constitute reason to detain these ships; under the application of the clause on not more favourable treatment to the ship, however, meet all essential parts of the provisions, before it departs.
3.2. areas under the Solas 74
1. Failure of the proper operation of propulsion and other essential machinery, as well as in electrical installations
2. Insufficient cleanliness of engine room, large amount of oily-water mixtures in bilges, insulation of piping including exhaust pipes in engine room contaminated by oil, improper operation of bilge pumping arrangements.
3. Failure of the proper operation of emergency generator, lighting, batteries and switches
4. Failure of the proper operation of the main and auxiliary steering gear
6. Absence, non-compliance or substantial deterioration of fire detection system, fire alarms, firefighting equipment, fixed fire-extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, fire dampers, quick-closing devices so that they cannot be used for the intended use
7. absence, substantial deterioration or failure of proper operation of fire-fighting equipment on deck on tankers
9. Lack of radio equipment to the Envoy of distress and safety communication or failure in its correct function
10. absence or failure of the proper operation of navigation equipment, taking into account the provisions of Solas 74 regulation V/16.2
11. Lack of updated navigational charts, and/or all other relevant nautical publications necessary for the intended voyage; However, a type-approved electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS), using official data, used in place of the said map
12. Lack of not spark forming fans from cargo pump rooms
13. Serious operational deficiencies as described in section 5.5 of annex 1 to the Paris MOU.
14. The number of crew, crew composition or certification does not match document on safe manning
15. non-execution of the enhanced survey programme in accordance with Solas 74, chapter XI, Regulation No 2377/90. 2.
1. Transport of a substance not mentioned in the certificate of fitness or missing cargo information
2. Missing or damaged high-pressure safety devices
3. Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not corresponding to code requirements
4. possibility of ignition in hazardous areas
5. Contraventions of special requirements
6. Exceeding of maximum allowable cargo quantity per tank
2. Missing closing devices for accommodations or service spaces
3. Bulkhead not gastight
4. Defective air locks
5. Missing or defective quick-action valves
6. Missing or defective safety valves
7. electrical installations not intrinsically safe (explosion proof) or not corresponding to code requirements
8. Ventilators in cargo area not
9. Pressure relief devices for cargo tanks do not work
10. Defective gasdetektionsanlæg and/or gas detection systems for toxic gases
11. Transport of substances without valid inhibitor certificate, which must be added an inhibitor.
3.5. areas under the LL 66
1. Significant areas of damage, corrosion or holes in the shell plating and associated stiffening in decks and hull affecting seaworthiness or strength to resist local loads, unless there has been a sufficient temporary repairs for a voyage to port with a view to finally repair
2. Found insufficient stability
3. The absence of sufficient and reliable information in approved form that quickly and in an easy way, enables the master to arrange for the loading and ballasting in such a way that there is always and under varying conditions of the voyage is a sufficient margin of stability, security and the presence of an unfair impact on the ship's construction
4. absence, substantial deterioration or defective closing devices, hatch closing arrangements and watertight doors
6. Missing or illegible draught marks.
3.6. Areas under the Marpol 73/78, annex I
1. absence, serious deterioration or failure of proper operation of oil filtration, oil discharge monitoring and control system or the 15 ppm alarm arrangements.
2. Insufficient remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank for the intended voyage.
3. Oil journal are not available
4. Unauthorised discharge bypass valves for drainage
5. Vision report missing or not in accordance with regulation 13 g (3) (b) of Marpol 73/78.
3.7. Areas under the Marpol 73/78 Annex II
1. No P & A-manual
2. Cargo is not categorized
3. No loading journal
4. Transport of oil-like substances without satisfying the requirements or without relevant change of certificate
5. Installation of unauthorized by-pass valves fitted.
3.8. Areas under the Marpol 73/78, annex V
1. No plan for handling of waste
3. Ship's personnel is not familiar with the requirements for disposal/discharge into the plan for the management of waste.
3.9. areas under the STCW 78/95 and Directive 2008/106/EC
1. Seafarers possess no certificate, does not have an adequate certificate, does not have a valid dispensation or cannot prove that an application has been submitted to the flag State administration about an endorsement
2. Reimbursement of that evidence was obtained in a fraudulent way, or that the holder of the certificate is not the person to whom the certificate was originally issued to
3. Non-compliance with the safe-manning requirements of the flag statsadministrationens
4. Improper performance of the requirements of the flag State administration shall make to the bridge and machine guards
5. There is a lack of on-call a qualified person who can operate the equipment, which is essential to safe navigation, radio communications or the prevention of marine pollution
6. absence of proof of professional competence for the tasks, the crew shall be imposed in connection with the safety of the ship and the prevention of pollution
7. Inability to provide for the first watch guard team at the beginning of a sea voyage, and to then to obtain guard replacements that are sufficiently rested and otherwise fit to serve.
1. Insufficient food for voyage to next port
2. Lack of sufficient potable water for voyage to next port
4. No heating in accommodation living room of a ship operating in areas where temperatures may be excessively low.
5. Insufficient ventilation in the ship's lounge
6. Excessive garbage, blockage by equipment or cargo or otherwise unsafe conditions in passageways/accommodations
7. Clear indications that the watchkeepers on the first watch or subsequent relieving watches is hampered by fatigue.
3.11. Areas which may not warrant detention justified, but where URf.eks. loading operations must be set
Failure of the proper operation (or maintenance) of inert gas system, cargo-related equipment or machinery are considered sufficient grounds for stopping cargo operations.
INSPECTORS MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
(as referred to in article 22, paragraphs 1 and 5)
1. Inspectors must be in possession of appropriate theoretical knowledge and practical experience of ships and ship operation. They must be able to enforce the requirements of the conventions and of the relevant port State control procedures. This knowledge and competence in enforcing international and Community requirements must be achieved with documented training programmes.
2. Inspectors must, as a minimum, be in possession of either:
a) relevant qualifications obtained at a marine or nautical and sailing experience as a certificated ship officer who is or has been the holder of a valid STCW 78/95 II/2 or III/2 certificate, which is not limited with regard to the workspace, the propulsion power or tonnage, or
b) diploma, recognised by the competent authority as a naval architect, mechanical engineer or an engineer related to the maritime fields and worked in that capacity for at least five years, or
c) a relevant university degree or equivalent, and be appropriately trained and qualified as inspectors.
3. Qualified inspectors shall have
-worked for at least one year as a flag-State Inspector either dealing with surveys and certification in accordance with the conventions or have participated in the monitoring of activities carried out by recognised organisations, which are assigned to the authority, or
-acquired a comparable level of competence through at least one year of practical studies and participation in port State control under the guidance of experienced people in the field of port State control.
4. The inspectors with the training referred to in paragraph 2 (a)), must have at least five years ' experience at sea, including periods when he worked as a deck officer or an officer in the machinery section or as a flag State inspector or as an Assistant port State Inspector. Such experience must include at least two years at sea as a deck or engineer officer.
5. Inspectors must be able to communicate orally and in writing with seafarers in the language most commonly spoken at sea.
6. Inspectors not fulfilling the above criteria are also accepted if on the date of the adoption of this directive are employed by the competent authorities of a Member State to carry out port-State control.
7. If in article 15, paragraphs 1 and 2, where, in a Member State inspections referred to shall be undertaken by inspectors from the port State control, these inspectors must be in possession of relevant qualifications, including sufficient theoretical and practical experience in maritime security. This usually involves:
a) a good understanding of maritime security and how it applies to the features examined
(b)) a good working knowledge of security technologies and techniques
c) knowledge of inspection principles, procedures and techniques
d) working knowledge of the functions under review.
INSPECTION DATABASE FUNCTIONS
(see article 24, paragraph 1)
1. The inspection database must, as a minimum, have the following functions:
-contain inspection data from the Member States of the European Union and all States signatory to the Paris MOU
-provide data on the ship's risk profile and on ships, which are about to be inspected
-calculate the inspection commitments of each Member State
-generate the white, the gray and the black list of flag States referred to in article 16, paragraph 1
-generate data on shipping companies ' performance
-identify the elements in the risk areas to be checked at each inspection.
2. The inspection database must be designed so that it can adapt to the future development and correlated with other community databases relating to safety at sea, including SafeSeaNet, which provide data about ships ' actual calls at ports of the Member States and, where appropriate, with relevant national information systems.
3. The inspection database should be connected with the Equasis information system using a deep link. Member States shall encourage the public and private databases relating to ship inspection accessible through the Equasis information system, to be consulted by the inspectors.
PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION RELATED TO INSPECTIONS, DETENTIONS AND REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO PORTS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND ANCHORAGES
1. Information published in accordance with article 26, shall include the following:
(a) name of ship)
b) IMO identification number
c) type of ship
e) of build, on the basis of the date indicated in the ship's safety certificates,
f) name and address of the ship's company
(g)) in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, the name and address of the charterer responsible for the selection of the vessel and the type of charter
h) flag State
I) classification and statutory certificates in accordance with the relevant conventions and the authority or organisation that issued each of these certificates, as well as the date of issue and expiry date
j) port and date of the last intermediate or annual survey of the certificates in the above paragraph (i)), and the designation of the authority or organisation which has carried out the sight
k) date, country, port, where the detention has taken place.
2. in the case of detained ships they must, in accordance with article 26 published information include:
(a)), the number of detentions in the past 36 months
(b)) date of termination of the detention
(c)) duration of detention, in days
(d)) the reasons for detention, expressed in clear and unambiguous way
(e)) where appropriate, an indication of whether the recognised organisation that carried out the sight, had any responsibility for the deficiencies which, alone or in combination, led to detention
f) description of the measures taken in the case of a ship which has been allowed to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard
g) when the ship is denied access to a port or anchorage within the community, please indicate the reasons for this in a clear and unambiguous way.
INFORMATION TRANSMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MONITORING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
1. Member States shall communicate no later than the 1. April every year the Commission the following information relating to the previous year:
1.1. Number of inspectors working on their behalf with port State control
This information is then sent to the Commission, using the form below [1] [2].
Number of full-time inspectors (A)
Number of part-time inspectors (B)
Port X/or area X ...
Port Y/or area Y ...
1.2. The total number of individual ships calling at ports, which at national level. Century must specify the number of ships that are subject to the provisions of this directive, and which entry into their ports at national level. Each ship is counted only once.
(a)) every six months communicate to the Commission a list of berthing points of the individual ships that entered their ports or recorded arrival in Anchorage to a port authority or port authority, other than regular ferry services for passengers and goods, with indication of the IMO identification number, date of arrival and port for each of the ship's movements. The list is presented in the form of a spreadsheet, from which the said information can be retrieved and processed automatically. This list shall be submitted, within four months after the expiry of the period to which the data relate
b) communicate to the Commission the separate lists of the regular ferry services, on the one hand, of passengers, on the one hand, of goods referred to in point (a)), no later than six months following implementation of this directive, and thereafter each time changes take place in the regular ferry services. The list shall contain for each ship its IMO identification number, name and the route, the ship has followed. The list is presented in the form of a spreadsheet, from which the said information can be retrieved and processed automatically.
[1] If the inspections carried out in the framework of port State control represent only part of the work of the inspectors, the total number of inspectors must be converted to a number of equivalent full-time inspectors. The same Inspector works in more than one port or a geographical area, counted the applicable part-time equivalent in each port.
[2] this information is set at national level and for each port in the Member State concerned. For the purposes of this annex, a port is an individual port or the geographical area covered by an inspector, or a team of inspectors, comprising several individual ports where appropriate.
Repealed Directive with its changes
(see article 37)
(OJ L 157 of 7.7.1995, p. 1)
(OJ L 133 of 7.5.1998, p. 19)
(OJ L 184 of 27.6.1998, p. 40)
(OJ L 331 of 23.12.1999, p. 67)
European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/106/EC
(OJ L 19 of 22.1.2002, p. 17)
European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/84/EC
(OJ L 324 of 29.11.2002, p. 53)
The deadline for implementation
Artikel 2, nr. 1), the introductory words Article 2, nr. 1), the introductory words Article 2, nr. 1), første led
Artikel 2, nr. 1), seventh indent article 2, nr. 1), litra g)
Artikel 2, nr. 1), eighth indent article 2, nr. 1), litra h)
Article 2, point 3. 14)
Artikel 13, nr. 1), introductory words Article 6, paragraph 1, point (a)) Article 13, nr. 1), litra a)
Artike l 19, stk. 4
Artike l 22