natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It will be the responsibility of owners to ask the Member State authorities for a certificate proving the existence of a guarantee for all damage to third parties and for cases where seafarers are abandoned.
It will be the responsibility of owners to ask the Member State authorities for a certificate proving the existence of a guarantee for all damage to third parties and for cases where seafarers are abandoned.
This 'public' certification issued by the Member States will make it possible to verify the existence and soundness of insurance cover and keep pressure on insurers to insure only ships of the highest standard.
This 'public' certification issued by the Member States will make it possible to verify the existence and soundness of insurance cover and keep pressure on insurers to insure only ships of the highest standard.
Notification of certificates – This applies to all owners of ships entering waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, which must notify the authorities when entering the exclusive economic area that a certificate is being carried.
Notification of certificates – This applies to all owners of ships entering waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, which must notify the authorities when entering the exclusive economic area that a certificate is being carried.
This requirement, which is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), makes it possible to cover ships in transit not stopping in EU ports.
This requirement, which is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), makes it possible to cover ships in transit not stopping in EU ports.
Direct action – The compulsory guarantee is accompanied by the possibility of direct action on the part of the victim against the insurer, in line with the model introduced in the sectoral conventions.
Direct action – The compulsory guarantee is accompanied by the possibility of direct action on the part of the victim against the insurer, in line with the model introduced in the sectoral conventions.
The possibility of direct action by the victim is a necessary addition, ensuring swift and proper compensation for all victims.
The possibility of direct action by the victim is a necessary addition, ensuring swift and proper compensation for all victims.
Abandonment of seafarers
Abandonment of seafarers
The fact that the proposal introduces a guarantee mechanism in the event of the abandonment of seafarers is also to be welcomed.
The fact that the proposal introduces a guarantee mechanism in the event of the abandonment of seafarers is also to be welcomed.
The reference to the IMO guidelines will make it possible henceforth to cover the payment of unpaid wages to seafarers, as well as repatriation.
The reference to the IMO guidelines will make it possible henceforth to cover the payment of unpaid wages to seafarers, as well as repatriation.
This solution is not guaranteed by the new IMO conventions on maritime labour, which remain vague on the level of financial guarantee and the payment of salary arrears.
This solution is not guaranteed by the new IMO conventions on maritime labour, which remain vague on the level of financial guarantee and the payment of salary arrears.
Rapporteur's proposals
Rapporteur's proposals
Your rapporteur firmly believes that the Commission proposal will help improve the conditions for compensating the damage suffered by victims of incidents or maritime accidents and will lead to better treatment of seafarers.
Your rapporteur firmly believes that the Commission proposal will help improve the conditions for compensating the damage suffered by victims of incidents or maritime accidents and will lead to better treatment of seafarers.
Nevertheless, he remains convinced that the most serious damage suffered by third parties will not be adequately covered by the liability ceilings under the LLMC Convention and that the proposal fails to adequately address the most serious and most negligent behaviour on the part of maritime transport operators, even if most are serious professionals concerned to prevent the risks related to their activities.
Nevertheless, he remains convinced that the most serious damage suffered by third parties will not be adequately covered by the liability ceilings under the LLMC Convention and that the proposal fails to adequately address the most serious and most negligent behaviour on the part of maritime transport operators, even if most are serious professionals concerned to prevent the risks related to their activities.
In order to avert the risks related to inadmissible behaviour by certain maritime operators and ensure improved compensation for victims of the most serious cases of marine pollution, it is proposed to amend the Commission proposal in five areas.
In order to avert the risks related to inadmissible behaviour by certain maritime operators and ensure improved compensation for victims of the most serious cases of marine pollution, it is proposed to amend the Commission proposal in five areas.
Restricting the scope of the directive to cases of liability vis-à-vis third parties not involved in the transport operation
Restricting the scope of the directive to cases of liability vis-à-vis third parties not involved in the transport operation
Although ratification by the Member States of the LLMC Convention would mean that all maritime claims deriving from damage suffered as a consequence of the operation of a ship were covered, it is important that the supplementary Community provisions strengthening the limited liability regime apply only to damage suffered by persons and goods not directly involved in the maritime transport.
Although ratification by the Member States of the LLMC Convention would mean that all maritime claims deriving from damage suffered as a consequence of the operation of a ship were covered, it is important that the supplementary Community provisions strengthening the limited liability regime apply only to damage suffered by persons and goods not directly involved in the maritime transport.
There are two arguments in favour of restricting the scope of the directive in this way.
There are two arguments in favour of restricting the scope of the directive in this way.
Firstly, the limitation of liability, as provided for in the LLMC, must be maintained for parties to the transport contract or direct beneficiaries of the transport (shippers, owners of goods, etc.) with due regard for the principles related to maritime risk.
Firstly, the limitation of liability, as provided for in the LLMC, must be maintained for parties to the transport contract or direct beneficiaries of the transport (shippers, owners of goods, etc.) with due regard for the principles related to maritime risk.
Second, these relations are already covered by international rules such as the Hague-Visby or Hamburg rules and it would be inappropriate to include further provisions representing too great a departure from the rules normally applied to settle liability issues between maritime transport stakeholders.
Second, these relations are already covered by international rules such as the Hague-Visby or Hamburg rules and it would be inappropriate to include further provisions representing too great a departure from the rules normally applied to settle liability issues between maritime transport stakeholders.
Lastly, the rapporteur's major concern is for victims not party to the maritime transport, who have no direct interests in it and who are unable to act vis-à-vis a risk situation created by the shipowner.
Lastly, the rapporteur's major concern is for victims not party to the maritime transport, who have no direct interests in it and who are unable to act vis-à-vis a risk situation created by the shipowner.
Incorporating the HNS Convention into Community law
Incorporating the HNS Convention into Community law
The LLMC Convention lays down much lower liability ceilings than the HNS Convention on chemical substances (for a ship of 100 000 tonnes, the LLMC stipulates 35 million euros and the HNS 120 million euros).
The LLMC Convention lays down much lower liability ceilings than the HNS Convention on chemical substances (for a ship of 100 000 tonnes, the LLMC stipulates 35 million euros and the HNS 120 million euros).
However, ten years after being drawn up by the IMO, this latter convention is still not in force.
However, ten years after being drawn up by the IMO, this latter convention is still not in force.
In the event of major marine pollution caused by chemical substances in the waters of the Member States of the EU, third parties would therefore not be properly compensated, as they would be subject to the LLMC liability ceilings.
In the event of major marine pollution caused by chemical substances in the waters of the Member States of the EU, third parties would therefore not be properly compensated, as they would be subject to the LLMC liability ceilings.
To counter the possibility of serious damage being allowed to go without compensation, it is proposed that the Member States be asked to ratify the HNS Convention within the deadline for transposing the directive and enable it to be incorporated into Community law.
To counter the possibility of serious damage being allowed to go without compensation, it is proposed that the Member States be asked to ratify the HNS Convention within the deadline for transposing the directive and enable it to be incorporated into Community law.
This would make it possible to compensate the worst damage (chemical substances) and to supplement the liability ceiling in the HNS Convention by a fund equivalent to the FIPOL set up by the latter convention.
This would make it possible to compensate the worst damage (chemical substances) and to supplement the liability ceiling in the HNS Convention by a fund equivalent to the FIPOL set up by the latter convention.
Your rapporteur firmly believes that the obstacles to the ratification of the HNS Convention are purely technical and could be overcome within the proposed ratification deadline.
Your rapporteur firmly believes that the obstacles to the ratification of the HNS Convention are purely technical and could be overcome within the proposed ratification deadline.
The problem apparently concerns the question of supplementary HNS compensation fund, in relation in particular to the difficulty of identifying collectors and ensuring the traceability of some of the substances covered by the convention, and verifying the accuracy of the volume and value of the imports of the substances so as to calculate the contribution to the abovementioned HNS fund.
The problem apparently concerns the question of supplementary HNS compensation fund, in relation in particular to the difficulty of identifying collectors and ensuring the traceability of some of the substances covered by the convention, and verifying the accuracy of the volume and value of the imports of the substances so as to calculate the contribution to the abovementioned HNS fund.
The question of the traceability of chemical substances during maritime transport could be partially addressed under a proposal forming part of the third maritime safety package concerning traffic monitoring (Sterckx report).
The question of the traceability of chemical substances during maritime transport could be partially addressed under a proposal forming part of the third maritime safety package concerning traffic monitoring (Sterckx report).
Extending the concept of fault allowing the liability ceiling to be exceeded
Extending the concept of fault allowing the liability ceiling to be exceeded
The LLMC Convention's definition of a fault enabling the liability ceiling to be exceeded (wilful misconduct) is interpreted in different ways by the Member States' courts.
The LLMC Convention's definition of a fault enabling the liability ceiling to be exceeded (wilful misconduct) is interpreted in different ways by the Member States' courts.
Some courts continue to require the plaintiff to provide proof that the person liable was actually aware of the harmful consequences of his behaviour in order to accept the lifting of the liability ceiling.
Some courts continue to require the plaintiff to provide proof that the person liable was actually aware of the harmful consequences of his behaviour in order to accept the lifting of the liability ceiling.
The result is that the perpetrator enjoys what is a virtually absolute right to limit his liability.
The result is that the perpetrator enjoys what is a virtually absolute right to limit his liability.
Other judges consider that the gravity of the act or omission must in some cases prompt the conclusion that the perpetrator must have been aware of the harmful consequences which might result.
Other judges consider that the gravity of the act or omission must in some cases prompt the conclusion that the perpetrator must have been aware of the harmful consequences which might result.
This difference of interpretation must be seen as a shortcoming at a time when the precautionary and 'polluter pays' principles are recognised and implemented by Community law and when protection of citizens from industrial risks is a major concern of public policy.
This difference of interpretation must be seen as a shortcoming at a time when the precautionary and 'polluter pays' principles are recognised and implemented by Community law and when protection of citizens from industrial risks is a major concern of public policy.
Nor does this state of affairs do anything to encourage vigilance and the compliance with international standards by maritime transport operators or to ensure fair treatment of third party victims who may suffer because of the limitation of the compensation they can receive, even though the guilty party may have acted dangerously and without concern for the harmful consequences of his action ('recklessness').
Nor does this state of affairs do anything to encourage vigilance and the compliance with international standards by maritime transport operators or to ensure fair treatment of third party victims who may suffer because of the limitation of the compensation they can receive, even though the guilty party may have acted dangerously and without concern for the harmful consequences of his action ('recklessness').
It is therefore suggested that a broad interpretation of the concept of wilful misconduct be introduced so as to allow the courts the possibility of lifting the liability ceiling in cases where the party liable, had he acted in a proper professional manner, should have been aware of the probable damage that would result.
It is therefore suggested that a broad interpretation of the concept of wilful misconduct be introduced so as to allow the courts the possibility of lifting the liability ceiling in cases where the party liable, had he acted in a proper professional manner, should have been aware of the probable damage that would result.
Including this interpretation in the directive would make it possible to address the most serious cases of pollution damage suffered by third parties not involved in the transport operation, as well as environmental damage to aquatic or coastal fauna and flora (chemical disasters).
Including this interpretation in the directive would make it possible to address the most serious cases of pollution damage suffered by third parties not involved in the transport operation, as well as environmental damage to aquatic or coastal fauna and flora (chemical disasters).
Furthermore, incorporating these provisions into Community law would enable the Court of Justice to enforce this interpretation in all Member States.
Furthermore, incorporating these provisions into Community law would enable the Court of Justice to enforce this interpretation in all Member States.
Barring the application of the limited liability regime to ships flying the flag of a state which has not ratified the LLMC Convention
Barring the application of the limited liability regime to ships flying the flag of a state which has not ratified the LLMC Convention
The Commission proposal (Article 4(3)) would withdraw the benefit of limitation of liability in the event of gross negligence on the part of the owner of a ship flying the flag of a state which has not ratified the LLMC Convention.
The Commission proposal (Article 4(3)) would withdraw the benefit of limitation of liability in the event of gross negligence on the part of the owner of a ship flying the flag of a state which has not ratified the LLMC Convention.
This provision is clearly intended to encourage IMO member states to ratify the convention and promote wider application of international law.
This provision is clearly intended to encourage IMO member states to ratify the convention and promote wider application of international law.
While the aim of this provision should be supported, the means provided for achieving it are counterproductive.
While the aim of this provision should be supported, the means provided for achieving it are counterproductive.
In fact, the introduction and, to an ever greater extent, the definition of the concept of gross negligence, means that we now have a new concept very difficult to distinguish from that of wilful misconduct.
In fact, the introduction and, to an ever greater extent, the definition of the concept of gross negligence, means that we now have a new concept very difficult to distinguish from that of wilful misconduct.
This confusion over how to apply concepts of fault could call into question the case-law advances made in maritime civil liability cases dealt with under the IMO conventions (CLC).
This confusion over how to apply concepts of fault could call into question the case-law advances made in maritime civil liability cases dealt with under the IMO conventions (CLC).
It would introduce an element of complexity into the settlement of disputes by the courts concerned, which would have to distinguish - sometimes in the case of a single accident - between the concepts of gross negligence and wilful misconduct, at a time when there is a trend in some countries' courts to make the criterion of wilful misconduct, more flexible, a trend your rapporteur proposes to support via an amendment to Article 4.
It would introduce an element of complexity into the settlement of disputes by the courts concerned, which would have to distinguish - sometimes in the case of a single accident - between the concepts of gross negligence and wilful misconduct, at a time when there is a trend in some countries' courts to make the criterion of wilful misconduct, more flexible, a trend your rapporteur proposes to support via an amendment to Article 4.
One possible solution would be to implement Article 15, second sentence, of the LLMC Convention in its entirety, quite simply excluding those responsible for damage caused by a ship not flying the flag of a state party to the LLMC from the benefits of limitation of liability, thus leaving it for the relevant court to enforce civil liability rules under general law.
One possible solution would be to implement Article 15, second sentence, of the LLMC Convention in its entirety, quite simply excluding those responsible for damage caused by a ship not flying the flag of a state party to the LLMC from the benefits of limitation of liability, thus leaving it for the relevant court to enforce civil liability rules under general law.
Since this exclusion would apply only to damage caused to third parties (not involved in the transport), it would not call into question the legal and commercial relations between participants in the transport operation.
Since this exclusion would apply only to damage caused to third parties (not involved in the transport), it would not call into question the legal and commercial relations between participants in the transport operation.
Effective management of the issuing and monitoring of civil liability guarantee certificates
Effective management of the issuing and monitoring of civil liability guarantee certificates
Examining financial liability guarantee documents, and checking whether they are valid and in compliance with the directive is an onerous but necessary task requiring substantial human and material resources.
Examining financial liability guarantee documents, and checking whether they are valid and in compliance with the directive is an onerous but necessary task requiring substantial human and material resources.
One way of proceeding, as proposed by the Commission, would be to use the network of national control authorities through the SAFESEANET facility
One way of proceeding, as proposed by the Commission, would be to use the network of national control authorities through the SAFESEANET facility
The relevant provisions would need to be included in the traffic monitoring directive (Sterckx report). , with scope for cross-checking by any Member State authority of a draft certificate issued by the authority responsible at the ship's point of entry.
The relevant provisions would need to be included in the traffic monitoring directive (Sterckx report). , with scope for cross-checking by any Member State authority of a draft certificate issued by the authority responsible at the ship's point of entry.
The second possibility would be to assign this task to a Community office endowed with the necessary independence and appropriate facilities.
The second possibility would be to assign this task to a Community office endowed with the necessary independence and appropriate facilities.
The system for issuing and monitoring certificates must in any case make it possible to prevent the issuing of certificates of convenience or, more generally, certificates based on dubious data.
The system for issuing and monitoring certificates must in any case make it possible to prevent the issuing of certificates of convenience or, more generally, certificates based on dubious data.
With this in view, the danger of the Commission proposal lies rather in the question of whether the human and material resources available to port state control authorities can effectively perform the sensitive and onerous task of certification.
With this in view, the danger of the Commission proposal lies rather in the question of whether the human and material resources available to port state control authorities can effectively perform the sensitive and onerous task of certification.
Your rapporteur therefore believes that it would be worthwhile to set up a special body to provide a Community solution for the verification and centralisation of certificates.
Your rapporteur therefore believes that it would be worthwhile to set up a special body to provide a Community solution for the verification and centralisation of certificates.
A Community office could initially be given responsibility for keeping a register of guarantee certificates issued by Member States and for verifying the validity and veracity of these certificates.
A Community office could initially be given responsibility for keeping a register of guarantee certificates issued by Member States and for verifying the validity and veracity of these certificates.
As for the issuing of certificates, the Commission should be required to draw up a report on the operation of the certification system, with the possibility, if necessary, of bringing the issuing of certificates within Community competence in the medium term.
As for the issuing of certificates, the Commission should be required to draw up a report on the operation of the certification system, with the possibility, if necessary, of bringing the issuing of certificates within Community competence in the medium term.
СТАНОВИЩЕ НА КОМИСИЯТА ПО ПРАВНИ ВЪПРОСИ
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs
на вниманието на комисията по транспорт и туризъм
for the Committee on Transport and Tourism
Maritime casualties are one of the areas in which EU action most obviously provides added value in relation to individual action by Member States.
Maritime casualties are one of the areas in which EU action most obviously provides added value in relation to individual action by Member States.