natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Държавите-членки стават страни по Конвенцията от 1996 г. възможно най-скоро, и във всеки случай преди датата, посочена в член 13 от настоящата директива.
The Member States shall become contracting parties to the 1996 Convention as soon as possible and in any case before the date indicated in Article 13 of this Directive.
Държавите-членки, които все още са страни по Конвенцията от 1976 г. относно ограничаване на отговорността при морски искове, трябва да я денонсират.
Member States which are still parties to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims must denounce it.
To ensure that the applicable international regime is consistent, the ratification of the 1996 Convention means that Member States must denounce its previous versions.
To ensure that the applicable international regime is consistent, the ratification of the 1996 Convention means that Member States must denounce its previous versions.
Член 4, параграф 2а (нов)
Article 4, paragraph 2 a (new)
За целите на прилагането на член 4 от Конвенцията от 1996 г., за знанието на отговорно лице за вероятна щета може при всички случаи да се заключи от естеството и обстоятелствата на неговите лични действия или пропуски, извършени по небрежност.
For the purposes of applying Article 4 of the 1996 Convention, knowledge of probable damage by the person responsible may in all cases be deduced from the nature and circumstances of his personal act or omission committed recklessly.
The courts responsible for applying the 1996 Convention must be given the broadest possible margin for interpreting the concept of recklessness in order to break the liability limitation.
The courts responsible for applying the 1996 Convention must be given the broadest possible margin for interpreting the concept of recklessness in order to break the liability limitation.
Член 6, параграф 1
Article 6, paragraph 1
Всяка държава-членка взема необходимите мерки, за да гарантира, че всеки собственик на кораб, плаващ под неин флаг, има финансова гаранция за защита на морските лица, наети или заети на борда на кораба, в случай на изоставяне, в съответствие с Резолюция А 930(22) на ИМО.
Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that every owner of a ship flying its flag has a financial guarantee to protect the seafarers employed or engaged on board the ship in case of abandonment, in accordance with IMO Resolution A 930(22).
Всяка държава-членка взема необходимите мерки, за да гарантира, че всеки собственик на кораб, плаващ под неин флаг, има финансова гаранция за защита на морските лица, наети или заети на борда на кораба, в случай на изоставяне, в съответствие с Резолюция А 930(22) на ИМО , и за покриване на разходите по настаняване, медицински грижи и репатриране. .
Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that every owner of a ship flying its flag has a financial guarantee to protect the seafarers employed or engaged on board the ship in case of abandonment, in accordance with IMO Resolution A 930(22) , and to cover costs of accommodation, medical care, and repatriation .
Legal clarification.
Legal clarification.
Член 7, параграф 2, алинея 1
Article 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1
При издаване на удостоверения компетентните органи вземат предвид също така дали гарантът е с място на търговско установяване в ЕС.
When issuing certificates, competent authorities shall also consider whether a guarantor has a business establishment in the EU.
The business presence of guarantors in the EU, whether in the form of an agent or a branch office, should be one of the criteria on which competent authorities should base their assessments when granting guarantee certificates.
The business presence of guarantors in the EU, whether in the form of an agent or a branch office, should be one of the criteria on which competent authorities should base their assessments when granting guarantee certificates.
This would prevent direct action being hamstrung for legal reasons, as would be the case if, for example, victims were obliged to start court proceedings in a country that did not meet the minimum requirements of the rule of law.
This would prevent direct action being hamstrung for legal reasons, as would be the case if, for example, victims were obliged to start court proceedings in a country that did not meet the minimum requirements of the rule of law.
Удостоверението се намира на борда на кораба и копие от него се депозира при съответния орган, към който корабът е регистриран, или, ако корабът не е регистриран в държава-членка, при съответния орган на държавата, издала или заверила удостоверението.
The certificate shall be carried on board the ship and a copy shall be deposited with the authority which keeps the record of the ship's registry or, if the ship is not registered in a Member State, with the authority of the State which issued or certified the certificate.
Съответният орган предава екземпляр от преписката по удостоверяването на Службата на Общността, предвидена в член 10б, за да може тя да го включи в регистъра.
The authority concerned shall forward a copy of the certification file to the Community Office provided for in Article 10b so that the latter may include it in the register.
Provision must be made for penalties so as to encourage operators to comply with the obligations laid down in the Directive.
Provision must be made for penalties so as to encourage operators to comply with the obligations laid down in the Directive.
Член 8а (нов)
Article 8 a (new)
Член 8а
Article 8a
Държавите-членки наблюдават спазването на правилата, определени с настоящата директива, и определят санкции за нарушаване на тези правила.
Member States shall monitor compliance with the rules laid down in this Directive and shall establish penalties for the infringement of these rules.
Тези санкции са ефективни, пропорционални и с възпиращ ефект.
These penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Член 10а (нов)
Article 10 a (new)
Член 10а
Article 10a
Фонд за солидарност за покриване на щети, причинени от кораби без финансова гаранция
Solidarity fund to cover damage caused by ships without a financial guarantee
Създава се фонд за солидарност за обезщетяване на трети страни - както физически, така и юридически лица, които са претърпели щети, причинени от кораби, които, независимо от задълженията, определени в настоящата директива, са плавали в териториални води на ЕС без да притежават удостоверение за финансова гаранция.
A solidarity fund shall be set up to compensate third parties, whether natural or legal persons, that have suffered damage caused by ships which, notwithstanding the obligations laid down in this Directive, have sailed in EU territorial waters without being covered by a financial guarantee certificate.
Сумата, която предстои да се предостави на този фонд, и правилата за функциониране на фонда се определят в съответствие с процедурата, посочена в член 12.
The amount to be allotted to this fund, and the fund’s operating rules, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 12.
Before the Commission’s legislative proposals have been finally adopted and transposed by the Member States, and the IMO maritime safety conventions ratified by the countries belonging to that organisation, accidents are quite likely to be caused in places of refuge by ships without financial guarantees of any kind.
Before the Commission’s legislative proposals have been finally adopted and transposed by the Member States, and the IMO maritime safety conventions ratified by the countries belonging to that organisation, accidents are quite likely to be caused in places of refuge by ships without financial guarantees of any kind.
It is therefore essential to set up a solidarity fund to cover such eventualities.
It is therefore essential to set up a solidarity fund to cover such eventualities.
When a ship without financial guarantees has caused damage and losses, the Member State where the accident occurred should not, under any circumstances, have to meet the cost of the necessary compensation: this should be charged to the shipping industry.
When a ship without financial guarantees has caused damage and losses, the Member State where the accident occurred should not, under any circumstances, have to meet the cost of the necessary compensation: this should be charged to the shipping industry.
Shipowners will thus be unable to shirk their responsibility, and the victim (the Member State in which the accident occurred) will not be obliged to bear the consequences of the damage inflicted on its territory.
Shipowners will thus be unable to shirk their responsibility, and the victim (the Member State in which the accident occurred) will not be obliged to bear the consequences of the damage inflicted on its territory.
Член 10б
Article 10b
Служба на Общността
Community Office
Създава се Служба на Общността, отговорна за поддържането на пълен регистър на издадените удостоверения, за наблюдението и актуализирането на информацията за тяхната валидност, и за проверка на наличието на финансови гаранции, регистрирани в трети страни.
A Community Office is established which is responsible for keeping a full register of certificates issued, monitoring and updating their validity, and checking the existence of financial guarantees registered by third countries.
The Community Office can play an important role in helping the Member States to verify the content of financial guarantee certificates and ensuring the consistency of the system for issuing and notifying certificates.
The Community Office can play an important role in helping the Member States to verify the content of financial guarantee certificates and ensuring the consistency of the system for issuing and notifying certificates.
Пет години след влизането в сила на настоящата директива държавите-членки докладват на Комисията за опита, натрупан в прилагането на директивата.
Five years after this Directive enters into force the Member States shall report to the Commission on the experience gained in applying the Directive.
Въз основа на това Комисията представя на Европейския парламент и на Съвета доклад, в който включва онези предложения за изменения на настоящата директива, които счита за уместни.
On this basis, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council including those proposals for amendments to this Directive which it considers relevant.
Тези доклади оценяват по-конкретно процедурите по сертифициране и по издаване на удостоверения от държавите-членки, както и необходимостта от преценка дали тази задача да бъде делегирана изцяло или частично на Службата на Общността.
These reports shall assess in particular the procedures for certification and issuing of certificates by Member States and the need to consider whether this task should be delegated wholly or partly to the Community Office.
It is quite possible that the Member States may encounter difficulties in performing the task of issuing and monitoring guarantee certificates.
It is quite possible that the Member States may encounter difficulties in performing the task of issuing and monitoring guarantee certificates.
The possibility of subsequently assigning this task to the Community Office should be kept open.
The possibility of subsequently assigning this task to the Community Office should be kept open.
Приложение І, второ и трето тире
Annex I, indent 2 and 3
- Международна конвенция от 1996 г. за отговорност и обезщетяване във връзка с превоз на вредни и опасни товари по море
-.The International Convention of 1996 on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS Convention).
The aim of the proposal is to put in place a core of rules common to all Member States governing civil liability and insurance for shipowners, but also for any person responsible for the operation of a ship, including the registered owner, manager, or bare boat agent, and to draw up rules designed both to prevent accidents and compensate for damage.
The aim of the proposal is to put in place a core of rules common to all Member States governing civil liability and insurance for shipowners, but also for any person responsible for the operation of a ship, including the registered owner, manager, or bare boat agent, and to draw up rules designed both to prevent accidents and compensate for damage.
With this is view, the proposal for a directive seeks essentially to:
With this is view, the proposal for a directive seeks essentially to:
(a) invite all Member States to become contracting parties to the 1996 LLMC Convention of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
(a) invite all Member States to become contracting parties to the 1996 LLMC Convention of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims.
Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims.
Ten Member States have already ratified the 1996 convention (DE, DK, EE, FI, CY, LU, MT, ES, SE, UK). .
Ten Member States have already ratified the 1996 convention (DE, DK, EE, FI, CY, LU, MT, ES, SE, UK). .
(b) incorporate this Convention into Community law so that it can be interpreted in a uniform manner at EU level (with the intervention of the Court of Justice of the European Communities).
(b) incorporate this Convention into Community law so that it can be interpreted in a uniform manner at EU level (with the intervention of the Court of Justice of the European Communities).
(c) supplement the LLMC regime, so as to introduce improved guarantees as regards compensation of victims and crew (compulsory guarantee certificate, direct action by victims).
(c) supplement the LLMC regime, so as to introduce improved guarantees as regards compensation of victims and crew (compulsory guarantee certificate, direct action by victims).
Currently, for most damage caused to third parties by ships, civil liability regimes for shipowners in Europe are not harmonised and no compulsory insurance scheme exists.
Currently, for most damage caused to third parties by ships, civil liability regimes for shipowners in Europe are not harmonised and no compulsory insurance scheme exists.
There are, however, a number of international conventions on civil liability and insurance which have been negotiated within the IMO.
There are, however, a number of international conventions on civil liability and insurance which have been negotiated within the IMO.
Only one of these conventions has been implemented, namely the 1992 International Convention Civil on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage.
Only one of these conventions has been implemented, namely the 1992 International Convention Civil on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage.
The other conventions on civil liability and insurance concern other types of damage:
The other conventions on civil liability and insurance concern other types of damage:
- the HNS Convention of 1996
- the HNS Convention of 1996
Convention on Hazardous and Noxious Substances. concerning pollution and explosions caused by chemical products;
Convention on Hazardous and Noxious Substances. concerning pollution and explosions caused by chemical products;
- the Bunker Oil Convention of 2001 on pollution caused by fuels
- the Bunker Oil Convention of 2001 on pollution caused by fuels
In addition to these, a draft convention on wreck removal has been under negotiation within the IMO for 10 years and should be able to be adopted in 2007. ;
In addition to these, a draft convention on wreck removal has been under negotiation within the IMO for 10 years and should be able to be adopted in 2007. ;
The latter two conventions are not yet in force.
The latter two conventions are not yet in force.
However, the EU Member States have undertaken to implement them and the Council has adopted decisions providing for the Member States to ratify the HNS and Bunker Oil Conventions 'if possible by the end of June 2006' .
However, the EU Member States have undertaken to implement them and the Council has adopted decisions providing for the Member States to ratify the HNS and Bunker Oil Conventions 'if possible by the end of June 2006' .
Civil liability
Civil liability
3.1 Ceilings
3.1 Ceilings
The LLMC is a convention of horizontal scope which harmonises civil liability regimes of ship owners in cases where none of the sectoral conventions apply.
The LLMC is a convention of horizontal scope which harmonises civil liability regimes of ship owners in cases where none of the sectoral conventions apply.
It applies to all types of damage caused by ships.
It applies to all types of damage caused by ships.
The LLMC stipulates that a shipowner may limit his liability to certain levels, unless he is guilty of wilful misconduct
The LLMC stipulates that a shipowner may limit his liability to certain levels, unless he is guilty of wilful misconduct
The concept of 'wilful misconduct' is described in the maritime conventions (Article 4 LLMC), which state that a person responsible is not entitled to limit his liability 'if it is proved that he himself caused the damage by an act or omission (...) committed recklessly and in the knowledge that such damage would probably result'.
The concept of 'wilful misconduct' is described in the maritime conventions (Article 4 LLMC), which state that a person responsible is not entitled to limit his liability 'if it is proved that he himself caused the damage by an act or omission (...) committed recklessly and in the knowledge that such damage would probably result'.
Under American law, negligence or the simple breach of a building or shipping safety rule is sufficient to make the persons responsible legally liable (Oil Pollution Act 1990. , in which case liability cannot be limited.
Under American law, negligence or the simple breach of a building or shipping safety rule is sufficient to make the persons responsible legally liable (Oil Pollution Act 1990. , in which case liability cannot be limited.
Limitation of liability is something of an institution in maritime law.
Limitation of liability is something of an institution in maritime law.
Although the procedures governing the principle of limitation have evolved over the centuries, the justifications always remain the same: maritime transport, which is a high risk economic activity, must be protected; limitation of liability provides that protection; furthermore, a trader asking a shipowner to transport his goods by sea accepts that he is running a certain risk and must assume the consequences; limitation of the owner's liability reflects this way of thinking.
Although the procedures governing the principle of limitation have evolved over the centuries, the justifications always remain the same: maritime transport, which is a high risk economic activity, must be protected; limitation of liability provides that protection; furthermore, a trader asking a shipowner to transport his goods by sea accepts that he is running a certain risk and must assume the consequences; limitation of the owner's liability reflects this way of thinking.
These principles need to be re-examined for two reasons.
These principles need to be re-examined for two reasons.
On the one hand, civil liability in other modes of transport has changed considerably towards the end of the 20th century.
On the one hand, civil liability in other modes of transport has changed considerably towards the end of the 20th century.
The regime governing air transport, a high-risk activity par excellence, is now much more protective than that provided under maritime law, while rail transport is also moving towards a more stringent liability system.
The regime governing air transport, a high-risk activity par excellence, is now much more protective than that provided under maritime law, while rail transport is also moving towards a more stringent liability system.
Furthermore, while it is possible to understand the economic considerations justifying limitations in relation to damage suffered by shippers and owners of goods who benefit directly from the maritime transport chain, such limitations are less acceptable when they relate to third parties not involved in the shipment and who suffer damages in connection with a maritime activity from which they do not directly benefit.
Furthermore, while it is possible to understand the economic considerations justifying limitations in relation to damage suffered by shippers and owners of goods who benefit directly from the maritime transport chain, such limitations are less acceptable when they relate to third parties not involved in the shipment and who suffer damages in connection with a maritime activity from which they do not directly benefit.
The updated 1996 version of the LLMC, which the Commission proposal calls on all Member States to ratify within a set period, has advantages and drawbacks in this connection.
The updated 1996 version of the LLMC, which the Commission proposal calls on all Member States to ratify within a set period, has advantages and drawbacks in this connection.
Its advantage is that it sets liability ceilings at levels high enough to ensure that in most cases victims can be properly compensated (cargo not covered by the HNS Convention, containers, etc.).
Its advantage is that it sets liability ceilings at levels high enough to ensure that in most cases victims can be properly compensated (cargo not covered by the HNS Convention, containers, etc.).
Its drawback lies in the fact that the principle of limiting liability is almost absolute - the threshold above which the owner relinquishes his right to limit his liability being to all intents and purposes unbreakable.
Its drawback lies in the fact that the principle of limiting liability is almost absolute - the threshold above which the owner relinquishes his right to limit his liability being to all intents and purposes unbreakable.
An unbreakable threshold is tantamount to favourable treatment for shipowners, to the detriment to victims, when the damages suffered exceed the ceilings.
An unbreakable threshold is tantamount to favourable treatment for shipowners, to the detriment to victims, when the damages suffered exceed the ceilings.
This also represents favourable treatment for bad shipowners, to the detriment of good ones, since a shipowner who fails to pay attention to the quality of his ships must be shown to have been guilty of wilful misconduct, which is very difficult to prove, in order to be held truly liable.
This also represents favourable treatment for bad shipowners, to the detriment of good ones, since a shipowner who fails to pay attention to the quality of his ships must be shown to have been guilty of wilful misconduct, which is very difficult to prove, in order to be held truly liable.
Compulsory civil liability guarantee
Compulsory civil liability guarantee
The LLMC does not include the compulsory insurance system that is to be found in particular in the CLC Convention.
The LLMC does not include the compulsory insurance system that is to be found in particular in the CLC Convention.
In line with the IMO recommendations
In line with the IMO recommendations
Resolution A 898 (21) of 25 November 1999. , the proposal introduces a compulsory guarantee system based on the insurance certificates model introduced by the sectoral conventions.
Resolution A 898 (21) of 25 November 1999. , the proposal introduces a compulsory guarantee system based on the insurance certificates model introduced by the sectoral conventions.
The only difference between the proposal and the IMO resolution with regard to damage covered by the LLMC is that the resolution stipulates that insurance should cover an amount corresponding to the LLMC ceilings, while the proposal calls for a minimum amount corresponding to double the level of the ceilings.
The only difference between the proposal and the IMO resolution with regard to damage covered by the LLMC is that the resolution stipulates that insurance should cover an amount corresponding to the LLMC ceilings, while the proposal calls for a minimum amount corresponding to double the level of the ceilings.