Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2000)489-1 - Committee on Safe Seas and amending the Regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2000)489-1 - Committee on Safe Seas and amending the Regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships.
source COM(2000)489 EN
date 15-09-2000
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

1. The Community's policy on safe seas is relatively recent. It is set out in the Commission Communication of 24 February 1993 'A common policy on safe seas', i which proposes an ambitious policy at Community level to improve the safety of ships, crews and passengers and more effectively prevent marine pollution.

Community action in the maritime safety sector takes account of the response given to these problems by the international bodies which establish rules in the area of the vessels' safety, pollution prevention and living and working conditions on board ships.

Consequently, the action programme annexed to the Commission Communication of 24 February 1993 listed a number of measures designed essentially to implement, and where appropriate supplement, the standards drafted by the principal international bodies: the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

2. The action programme included a list of legislative measures covering many aspects of maritime safety and protection of the marine environment. The legislative programme has now largely been completed, with more than a dozen directives and regulations adopted over a period of five years.

The updating of the regulations and the directives to keep in step with developments in the international standards and technical progress is an important task for the Commission and the Member States.

Updating of the Community legislation is to a large extent driven by the adoption of new rules at the international level. The international rules are constantly being adapted. As they are generally of a technical nature, these rules have frequently to be amended because of the pace of technological development in the fields of construction, equipment, navigation and communication. Furthermore, the past few years have seen a proliferation of standards and an extension of the international legislation into new areas (integrated management systems, social conditions on board, etc.).

3. The Community legislation on maritime safety must therefore be adapted at regular intervals to take account of the amendments or the protocols to the international conventions, new resolutions or changes to the codes and compendia of existing technical rules.

Owing to the technical nature of these rules, the basic acts - Council regulations or directives - generally make provision for effecting these changes through the committee procedure.

4. The first measure to be adopted following the Communication of 24 February 1993 was a Council Directive: Directive 93/75/EEC concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods. i Article 12 of this Directive set up a type III(a) regulatory committee in accordance with Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. i

Directive 93/75/EEC concerns the transport by sea of dangerous goods. Despite their different and very varied objectives, most of the Council regulations or directives subsequently adopted refer to the committee established by Article 12 of Directive 93/75/EEC. i Only four regulations and directives set up a specific committee. i

The current situation is very unsatisfactory. Although the general recourse to the committee set up by Directive 93/75/EEC ensures a certain uniformity of operation, it sometimes results in a lack of transparency and a source of confusion for the Member States when subjects completely unrelated to the transport of dangerous goods (e.g. safety of passenger ships, port State control) are on the agenda.

5. The value of a single committee dealing with maritime safety issues was, however, already underscored in the Commission Communication of 24 February 1993, which explicitly mentions setting up a committee on safe seas in its action programme.

According to the Communication, the establishment of such a committee would ensure coherent implementation of the Community measures planned in the field of maritime safety, as the comitology procedures provided for by the directives and regulations in this field have a common denominator: they primarily concern the incorporation into Community law of amendments and updates to the international conventions and international instruments that are an integral part of Community law.

Under a resolution adopted on 8 June 1993, i the Council approved "in principle the establishment of a committee on safe seas, in accordance with Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, with the purpose of:

a) centralising the duties of the committees, created by the implementation of the aforementioned decision in existing or future Community legislation, concerning maritime safety matters;

Contents

1.

b) assisting and advising the Commission in all maritime safety matters and matters of prevention or limitation of environmental pollution due to maritime activities."


Apart from this streamlining and centralisation aspect, the establishment of a committee on safe seas would have positive practical effects such as a reduction in the number of meetings, and should lead to a reduction in the costs of organising and running the committee meetings.

6. This proposal is not only designed to replace the five existing committees by the committee on safe seas. It would also replace the regulatory procedure applicable to the existing regulations and directives, based on Decision 87/373/EEC, by the new regulatory procedure adopted recently by Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. i

Decision 1999/468/EC simplifies the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission and ensures greater involvement and more comprehensive information to the European Parliament and the general public regarding the use of these powers and in particular the work of the committees.

Consequently, this proposal amends the existing provisions of Community legislation on maritime safety in order to replace the type III(a) committees mentioned by a committee operating in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC.

7. In choosing the legal form for the act setting up the committee on safe seas and applying the regulatory procedure to the Community legislation, the Commission has followed the principle of congruent forms.

As the committees were established by two different types of legal act, namely Council regulations or directives, this principle implies that the provisions of regulations in force are amended by a regulation, and those of directives by means of a directive under the codecision procedure described in Article 251 of the Treaty.

This proposal therefore comprises, firstly, a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation setting up the committee on safe seas and amending accordingly the regulations in force and, secondly, a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending the Council directives in force by inserting a reference to the committee on safe seas.

Finally, in the proposal amending the directives in force, the Commission proposes correcting some anomalies of an editorial nature to be found in Directives 94/57/EC (classification societies) and 98/18/EC (safety of passenger ships).

8. Another objective of the proposal is to address a particularly thorny, complex issue concerning the relationship between the Community legal system and international law that arose when Member States implemented regulations or directives adopted by the Council in the field of maritime safety.

Community legislation is designed to apply international rules in force at the time the Community act in question is adopted. Subsequently, whenever changes are made to the international rules, Commission (or more rarely Council) regulations or directives are adopted in order to bring Community law into line with these changes.

The Commission has a problem of deadlines in exercising its implementing powers. Amendments to the current international conventions, resolutions or codes are adopted by the IMO at frequent intervals and rapidly enter into force worldwide. Given the lengthy nature of the internal procedures, the updating of Community legislation by the comitology procedure generally takes effect after the entry into force of the amendments at the international level. This slippage is even worse in the case of directives because of the time allowed for transposition.

Moreover, some Member States incorporate the international amendments ahead of any Community legislation, sometimes with the aid of an automatic update clause in their national legislation ("dynamic reference").

This practice is not compatible with Community law. In principle, Member States are not authorised to incorporate in national law or apply amendments to an international instrument until the latter have been incorporated in the relevant Community legislation (a consequence of the principle that Community law takes precedence).

There is thus a more or less systematic time lag in practice between entry into force at the international level and the date on which a provision becomes applicable in the Community.

9. This has several disadvantages, both for Member States and for the Commission itself:

-Member States are faced with the dilemma of either infringing Community law by incorporating international amendments in their national legislation where the latter have not yet been adopted at Community level, or of breaking international law if they fail to do so, as in principle they are required to honour their international commitments resulting from the entry into force of conventions and amendments thereto.

-The current situation considerably complicates the task of Member States when incorporating international rules on safety in their national law. This is particularly true where, according to the law of a Member State, the international amendments are automatically applicable in national law without first having to be transposed into national legislation. As Member States are not allowed to apply unilaterally the most recent version of an international convention, they cannot use this technique of 'automatic' incorporation of international law. The Member States concerned must instead make a distinction between the provisions of an international amendment that are outside the scope of a directive or regulation and those covered by a directive or a regulation in force: the latter cannot be incorporated into national law until the Community legislation in question has been amended.

-The coexistence of rules in force at the international level and applied by third countries and Community provisions based on older versions of these rules creates confusion and legal uncertainty for national authorities and private individuals alike, whether or not they are Community citizens, regarding the rules that should be applied.

-This has adverse repercussions on maritime safety and environmental protection, since the international amendments, which generally represent an improvement in safety standards, are applied with delay by the Member States which are often obliged by Community law to apply older versions of international instruments in the interim. The Community suffers an image loss as a region applying outdated or less rigorous standards.

-Preventing Member States from applying recent, more stringent international amendments is potentially self-contradictory in the (frequent) case of Community legislation that lays down minimum standards, where Member States have the choice of applying stricter standards justified on safety or environmental protection grounds.

-It leads to heavy bureaucracy at both Commission and Member State level. The Commission frequently has to amend the relevant directives or regulations because of amendments adopted in international fora (there are generally changes several times a year). These amendments, which give rise to substantial administrative expenses, are sometimes of a purely formal nature, consisting in changing the date of the applicable version of the international conventions referred to in the legislation (e.g. Directives 96/39/EC, 97/34/EC and 98/74/EC, amending Directive 93/75/EEC). This process has to be repeated by the Member States' maritime administrations when they incorporate the amendments adopted at Community level.

10. The current situation is unquestionably unsatisfactory. The option of speeding up the updating of Community legislation is scarcely feasible given the inherent delays in the internal procedures leading to the adoption of a legislative act by the committee procedure. Ideally, an amendment should enter into force at the same time internationally and at the Community level - no easy matter in view of the differences between the deadlines for entry into force at the international level (generally six months after the adoption of an amendment by the tacit approval procedure) and the time normally required to implement international amendments in the Community legislation. The internal deadlines take account in particular of the time needed for detailed examination of the international amendments, preparation of a draft Commission directive or regulation, consultation of the committee and adoption of the text by the Commission, plus the time normally allowed for applying the national transposition measures (12 or 18 months after the entry into force of the Community act).

11. The Commission proposes to take the opportunity presented by the setting up of a committee on safe seas to put forward a solution that is legally sound and satisfies Member States' and the Commission's desire to see coherent, efficient application of international measures introduced into Community law.

This solution consists in allowing Member States to apply the most recent versions of international amendments subject to certain safeguards (prior conformity check), whereby amendments that appear to be unacceptable can be excluded if necessary from the scope of any directive or regulation.

12. To this end, the provisions of regulations or directives containing a reference to international instruments must first be identified. Three scenarios may be encountered:

-Some Community provisions contain a list of definitions of terms used in the main body of or annexes to the act in question. This list generally includes the international instruments applicable for the purposes of the directive, indicating that they are the versions 'in force at the date of adoption of this directive' or at a given date in the case of a subsequent amendment.

-Other Community provisions reproduce the text of parts or specific provisions of international conventions or other instruments.

-Finally, some provisions merely refer to an international instrument or part of an international instrument that is declared applicable for the purposes of the Community act.

13. In the first case, the inclusion in a Community act of a definition of an international instrument serves to identify the international instrument that is to apply in full or in part. There are two components of such a definition:

-the acronym normally used to refer to an international convention and its full name (for example: 'MARPOL shall mean the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto'), the aim also being to facilitate subsequent reading of the Community act by avoiding repetition of lengthy names of instruments;

-stipulation of the date of the version of the international instrument to be taken into account for the purposes of applying the directive.

In no case does such a definition have the aim, or the effect, of incorporating all the provisions of the international text concerned into Community law, or of obliging Member States to apply them.

Thus the fact that Article 2 of Directive 93/75/EEC defines the IMDG code as 'the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code ... in force on 1 January 1997' obviously does not mean that this Article has the effect of incorporating the IMDG code into Community law and of obliging Member States to apply all of its provisions. Directive 93/75/EEC does not oblige Member States to comply with the rules, for example, on stowage or separation of packages, which are not relevant to the aim of that directive. The provisions of the IMDG code it makes mandatory are listed in Annex I to the Directive (notification of the IMDG number of the goods transported).

The definitions in Community acts therefore are not strictly speaking 'operational' provisions involving specific obligations for Member States: the international rules Member States are required to implement are identified in other provisions of the Community act in question.

In this context, the stipulation of the date is, in the final analysis, merely part of the definition of an international instrument and has no direct effect on the substance of the obligations imposed by the Community act.

The Commission therefore considers that it is not necessary to stipulate the precise date of a version of an international instrument. It is sufficient to refer to the version in force, which will be the most recent applicable version of that instrument. i

This definition in principle includes the latest amendments made to an international text. However, the operation of the safeguard clause described in paragraph 16 below may lead to the exclusion of certain contentious provisions of an international amendment from the scope of the directive or the regulation concerned. It is therefore important, in the interests of legal clarity, to specify that the definition of an international instrument given by the Community act is without prejudice to any measures taken in application of the safeguard clause.

14. In the second case, the Community intends to make certain clearly identified provisions of an international convention or resolution mandatory in the Community. The international provisions are reproduced in the main body of the act or in an annex and form an integral part of the directive or regulation in question.

In principle, Member States cannot apply the most recent international amendments until they have been incorporated in the corresponding Community act, as the international standards contained in a regulation or a directive have become provisions of Community law and continue to exist until amended by a subsequent Community act.

The fact that an amendment enters into force internationally and is applied by the world shipping community does not create particular problems. It is quite clear in this event that Member States can only accept and apply those of the new amendments that are not covered by Community legislation, which becomes as it were 'lex specialis' vis-à-vis the international law in force.

In practice, the Commission endeavours to reduce the time lag as far as possible by regularly amending the basic acts concerned. Where an international amendment introduced amendments unacceptable to the Community, simply refraining from introducing it into the relevant Community legislation would be sufficient in order for the previous provisions to continue to be applicable in the Community.

15. In the third scenario, however, where the act makes reference to an international text, any amendment to this international text will automatically be incorporated in the Community legislation in the absence of a reference to a version of the international act in force at a given date. Although in practice the international amendments generally represent a raising of international safety standards, it is in theory possible that new international standards will de facto lower the level of safety or prove incompatible with other applicable provisions of Community maritime legislation.

16. It is therefore essential to establish a procedure for advance conformity checking to ensure that an international amendment in direct conflict with the common policy on safe seas or that lowers safety standards cannot be introduced at Community level.

This procedure will involve calling an emergency meeting of the committee on safe seas at the initiative of the Commission or a Member State whenever such a case is detected, in order to take the appropriate action.

Appropriate action might, for example, consist in explicitly excluding from the scope of the Community act any provisions of an amendment to a convention or of a resolution adopted by the IMO that conflict with Community legislation. In this case, the basic act would have to be amended by a Commission directive or regulation as appropriate, after emergency consultation of the committee on safe seas.

By way of example, the conformity checking procedure could be used in the following case: a provision of Directive 95/21/EC on port State control provides that the inspectors charged with carrying out inspections on board ships must apply the detailed procedures described in Annex I to the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. In the event that certain provisions of a recent amendment to this Memorandum caused serious problems, the conformity checking procedure could be applied and Directive 95/21/EC amended to stipulate that inspectors must apply the procedures laid down in Annex I to the Paris MOU, except for provisions X, Y or Z thereof (clearly identified). This would avoid any risk of confusion or legal uncertainty as to the nature of the excluded provisions of an international amendment.

17. The conformity checking procedure must enable specific measures to be adopted urgently. The period between an international amendment being adopted and its entry into force may be very short. However, the time required for the conformity checking procedure, from the decision to call a committee meeting until the possible adoption of a specific measure (e.g. excluding contentious international amendments from the scope of a directive) may be several months.

It is therefore necessary, firstly, to take precautions to prevent any unilateral measures that might compromise the outcome of the procedure during this period. Thus, in order not to compromise the adoption of specific measures through the conformity checking procedure, the Commission should be able to ask Member States to refrain from agreeing to the contentious amendment at international level or from enacting it in national law.

A Member State should therefore refrain from:

- beginning a ratification procedure, or

- amending its national legislation,

and a fortiori beginning to apply directly the international amendment in question. The latter case could arise when countries are urged at the international level to apply amendments to certain international codes as soon as possible after adoption; in such cases there is no additional deadline granted for entry into force.

18. A particular scenario that might arise concerns amendments to international conventions adopted in the IMO by tacit acceptance. This procedure was introduced by the IMO to overcome the sluggishness of the traditional procedures for amending conventions. Instead of making it a condition of entry into force that an amendment must have been approved by a given number of parties, the new procedure provides that an amendment (usually adopted by a resolution of an IMO Committee) will enter into force on a given date, unless objections to the amendment are tabled by a specified number of parties by that date.

In this case, where silence is deemed to signal acceptance, it is important that the Community take a stance explicitly opposing an international amendment that conflicts with Community legislation. Such action has to be taken before the amendment enters into force internationally if it is to be effective. This is a prime example of a case where a problem must be submitted to the committee on safe seas as a matter of urgency, to enable a Community approach to be defined in time to allow Member States to express their opposition to the draft international amendment by the deadline.

This need for a speedy response requires proposals for amendments to international instruments to be examined quickly and carefully in order to verify their compatibility with Community law or policy on maritime safety as soon as they are adopted or preferably before, when the content of the proposed measures is established in sufficient detail. This examination should be carried out not only by the Commission, but also by the Member States, which also have the right to call an emergency meeting of the committee on safe seas. An emergency procedure also justifies reducing the period granted to the Council under Article 5 i of Decision 1999/468/EC to act on measures proposed by the Commission (where the committee does not express an opinion or is against the proposed measures) from the current maximum of three months to one month.

The Community's opposition to an international amendment may not of course be sufficient to prevent its entry into force. Should a contentious amendment nevertheless enter into force at the international level, the situation would be no different to one in which the Community acts and international acts in force were mutually incompatible, i.e. the amendment adopted and applied at the international level will not be applicable in the Community.

19. It should be emphasised that, in principle, there are likely to be very few cases where the conformity checking procedure will have to be carried out. The likelihood of an international amendment actually lowering existing safety standards is pretty remote in practice. On the contrary, the general trend is to extend or raise safety standards. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that an international amendment might, directly or indirectly, cause safety rules to be diluted.

20. It is worth emphasising the originality of the proposed approach compared with the normal practice where amendments are incorporated by addition to the existing text: in this case, the Council only delegates to the Commission the power to exclude from the Community act any amendments to the international conventions that are not in conformity with the objectives of the common policy on safe seas. Barring intervention by the Commission, these amendments would automatically come within the scope of the Community instrument.

Power is delegated strictly within the framework of Article 202, third indent, of the Treaty (former Article 145). Furthermore, the power thus conferred on the Commission is limited to maritime safety, where the international standards are essentially technical in nature.

2.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES


21.a) What are the objectives of the proposed measure, and how do they relate to the Community's obligations- What is the scale of the problem at Community level (e.g. how many Member States are affected and what solution has been adopted until now)-

The proposed measure comes under the common policy on safe seas. The objective is to apply the provisions of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission to Community legislation in the field of maritime safety, and to facilitate and simplify updating of that legislation in the light of changes in the pertinent international law.

3.

22.b) Is the measure in an area where the Community has sole jurisdiction or where it shares jurisdiction with the Member States-


The measure applies, in a specific area (maritime safety), the provisions of Article 202 of the Treaty, according to which the Council can confer on the Commission the power to take measures implementing the rules it adopts. It is also designed to facilitate the implementation of Community policy in an area where responsibility is shared by the Commission and Member States.

4.

23.c) What would be the most effective solution among those available to the Community and the Member States-


Because of its 'institutional' nature, such action can only be taken at Community level.

5.

24.d) What practical gains does the proposed measure offer and what would be the cost of failure to take action-


The planned measure corresponds to the Commission's commitment to update all Community legislation in the light of Council Decision 1999/468/EC on committee procedures. It will also make it easier for Member States to implement amendments to international conventions and reduce the need for the Commission to amend at frequent intervals the basic acts in the field of maritime safety.

The cost of failure to take action would be a confused legal situation and cumbersome administrative procedures, owing to the coexistence of committees operating in accordance with the rules laid down by Decision 87/373/EEC and new legislative measures involving a committee governed by Decision 1999/468.

The cost of failure to act would also be Community and - by extension - national legislation that frequently lags behind international law and consequently a less satisfactory standard of safety in the Community than in the rest of the world.

6.

25.e) What options are available to the Community (e.g. recommendations, financial assistance, regulations, mutual recognition)-


Given the objectives of the measure and given the principle of congruent forms, existing regulations can only be amended by a regulation and directives by a directive.

7.

26.f) Are uniform rules needed, or is the adoption of a directive setting out the general objectives and leaving implementation to the Member States sufficient-


As stated in the previous point, the choice of type of legislation is dictated by the very objectives of the measure and the legal form of the instruments it is amending.

8.

CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL


27. The objective of the legislative proposals described is to set up a committee on safe seas and to have it replace the committees referred to in the Council regulations and directives in force in the field of maritime safety. In addition, the proposals aim to facilitate the subsequent updating of the regulations and directives on maritime safety in the light of developments in international law.

Two separate proposals have been made:

-A proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation, which sets up the committee on safe seas and lays down the procedures governing its operation and its scope. The proposal also provides for amending existing regulations in the field of maritime safety, both to take account of the creation of the committee on safe seas and to facilitate their subsequent updating in the light of developments in the international legislation on maritime safety.

-A proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive, the aim of which is to amend the existing directives in the field of maritime safety in order to take account of the establishment of the committee on safe seas and to facilitate their subsequent updating.

28. An impact assessment form has not been attached, as the proposals do not affect businesses. It has not been deemed necessary to prepare a financial statement either, since the proposals should not result in any increase in expenditure but, given their possible effects on streamlining the tasks of the committee and the expected decrease in the number of committee meetings, should actually have a positive financial impact.

9.

SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS


I - PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL CONCERNING THE COMMITTEE ON SAFE SEAS AND AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ON MARITIME SAFETY AND THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

Article 1

This article defines the objective of the regulation: to establish a committee on safe seas centralising the tasks of the existing committees and to facilitate the amendment of Community legislation in the light of developments in the main conventions, resolutions or other agreements that have entered into force at the international level.

10.

Article 2


This article defines the key terms in the regulation. In particular, it lists all the Community acts, regulations and directives affected by the establishment of the committee on safe seas.

11.

Article 3


This article sets up a regulatory committee, to be known as the committee on safe seas, and specifies the procedures applicable to it by making reference to Decision 1999/468/EC. The committee on safe seas exercises the powers already conferred on it by virtue of the Community legislation in force. The regulation can also be amended to include in the list of regulations and directives concerned any new Community acts that enter into force following its adoption.

12.

Article 4


This article describes the conformity checking mechanism established to ensure that amendments to a convention or resolution adopted at the international level, which would have the effect of lowering Community standards, can be examined by the committee on safe seas. It provides in particular for the possibility of calling an emergency meeting of the committee at the initiative of the Commission or at the request of a Member State to examine the disputed amendments and to issue an opinion on appropriate Community measures. As a precaution, the Commission can also, where appropriate, ask Member States to suspend or delay any plans to accept or apply the international amendment concerned.

13.

Article 5


This article describes the powers conferred on the committee on safe seas. These are powers that have already been conferred on it under the regulations and directives in force. In addition, the committee also has to give an opinion on including new acts in the list of regulations and directives that constitute 'Community maritime legislation', as and when they are adopted.

14.

Articles 6 to 8


This article amends the regulations in force in the area of maritime safety, i.e. Regulation (EEC) No 613/91 on the transfer of ships from one register to another within the Community, Regulation (EEC) No°2978/94 on the implementation of IMO Resolution A.747 i on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in segregated ballast oil tankers, and Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 on the safety management of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries.

The amendments made involve deleting references to the date of adoption of the regulation and replacing the committee set up by the basic regulation (the committee established by Directive 93/75/EEC in the case of Regulation (EC) No 3051/95, and a specific committee in other cases) by the committee on safe seas.

15.

Article 9


No comment.


16.

II - PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE AMENDING THE DIRECTIVES ON MARITIME SAFETY AND THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS


Article 1

Article 1 defines the objectives of the proposal for a directive, namely the replacement of the committees set up by the directives in force on maritime safety by the committee on safe seas established by Regulation (EC) No .../2000. The proposal also has the aim of facilitating the amendment of the applicable directives in step with developments in the main conventions, resolutions or other agreements in force at the international level.

17.

Articles 2 to 10


These articles amend the pertinent Commission directives in the field of maritime safety and protection of the marine environment. The directives concerned are as follows:

-Article 2: Council Directive 93/75/EEC of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods.

-Article 3: Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (classification societies).

-Article 4: Council Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November 1994 on the minimum level of training of seafarers.

-Article 5: Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control).

-Article 6 : Council Directive 96/98/CE of 20 December 1996 on marine equipment.

-Article 7: Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over.

-Article 8: Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships.

-Article 9: Council Directive 98/41/EC of 18 June 1998 on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships operating to or from ports of the Member States of the Community.

-Article 10: Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services.

-The amendments made to these directives involve:

-Deleting, for each international instrument, the reference to a version in force at a specified date, without prejudice to the safeguard clause described in Article 3 i of Regulation EC No .../2000.

-Replacing the committee established in each directive by the committee on safe seas and stipulating the regulatory procedures laid down in Article 3 of Regulation EC No .../2000.

-In certain cases, making some adjustments to the scope of the committee procedure. This concerns more particularly amendments to Directives 94/57/EC and 98/18/EC. In the first case, an omission is corrected: Article 8 of the Directive refers to amendments to the codes and the resolution mentioned in Articles 2(d) and 6 of the Directive, while Article 2(d) refers not only to the codes, but also to the international conventions and protocols. As regards Directive 98/18/EC, the Council states its intention of being able to amend Annex I by a simplified procedure. i However, the Council omitted to include this possibility in Article 8 regarding the areas covered by the committee procedure. The new wording proposed in point (b) of Article 8 is intended to rectify this omission.

18.

Articles 11, 12 and 13


No comment.