EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.6.2023

COM(2023) 271 final

2023/0165(COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control

(Text with EEA relevance)

{SEC(2023) 202 final} - {SWD(2023) 148 final} - {SWD(2023) 149 final}

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The primary responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with IMO and ILO standards lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. However, flag State rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag. There continue to be flag States willing to allow substandard vessels to operate under their flags or unable to adequately enforce the international rules. Therefore, many of the IMO's most important technical conventions contain provisions for ships to be inspected when the vessels visit foreign ports to ensure that they meet the international requirements.

To improve effectiveness, port States carrying out PSC inspections began to coordinate their work systematically at regional level. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control 3 (hereinafter the ‘Paris MOU’) drawn up in 1982 is the first of nine intergovernmental structures across the world. All 24 European Economic Area (EEA) Member States with seaports, as well as Canada, the Russian Federation 4 and the United Kingdom, are signatories to the Paris MoU. The EU is not a member. 

The PSC Directive incorporates the procedures and tools of the Paris MoU as agreed in 2009. The Paris MoU and the PSC Directive are based on the concepts of shared burden and targeted, harmonised inspections. The Commission, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), provides all EEA and Paris MOU Member States with the technical support needed to decide which vessels to inspect, and to report and share the results of PSC inspections via the THETIS database (hosted by EMSA) and training on how to carry out inspections. EEA Member States are also provided with information on the vessels scheduled to call at their ports via the Union maritime information exchange system 'SafeSeaNet' 5 to allow them to plan their inspections.

The main objectives of the PSC Directive are to:

(i)continuously improve maritime safety and security;

(ii)continuously improve of pollution prevention and of environmental impact;

(iii)continuously improve on-board living and working conditions;

(iv)the avoidance of distortions of competition.

To this end, the key elements of the EU PSC regime are:

(i)to take a harmonised approach to inspections and detentions;

(ii)for each Member State to commit to an annual inspection commitment

(iii)to target ships for inspection based on a ship risk profile (SRP) for each individual ship and

(iv)record keeping and information sharing (inspection database).

Since it entered into force, the Directive has been amended to enforce the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 6 . Furthermore, in the EU, particular specific rules apply to ferries in regular service, 7 insurance requirements, 8  the control of ship generated waste and cargo residues 9 , the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships 10  and the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 11 where PSC inspections check enforcement of these rules. For other EU legal acts, such as control of the sulphur content of marine fuels, PSC is also used to check in the vast majority of the EU Member States by PSC 12 . Port State control in the EU is largely based on the rules and procedures of the Paris MOU but these EU provisions do not apply to the non-EEA signatories to the Paris MOU.  

The Directive was the subject of an ex-post evaluation and maritime fitness check (alongside other pieces of EU maritime safety legislation) in 2018. Since the Directive entered into application it has also been continuously monitored by the Commission which identified the following problematic issues:

1)current EU requirements are not aligned with new international mandatory rules and new procedures agreed at regional level (International Maritime Organization – IMO, and Paris MOU);

2)current EU requirements do not apply to fishing vessels – certain international conventions applying to fishing vessels of over 24 metres in length, which could be enforced by PSC, are not inspected or are not inspected in a coordinated manner;

3)there is an uneven distribution of PSC inspections across EU ports;

4)the current design of the ship risk profile and targeting mechanism used to select ships for inspection, are not up to date;

5)the system is too reliant on a cumbersome paper-based certificate system, and

6)there are inadequate and inflexible procedures and inadequate PSC resources (skills, training).

The problems identified apply across the EU and have the same underlying causes. In the absence of EU action, Member States risk working in an uncoordinated and non-harmonised way. There is clear EU value in improving the Directive to address the problems identified.

–Update and align EU legislation with international rules and procedures, set by the IMO/ILO or the Paris MOU; 

–Protect fishing vessels, their crew and the environment. Larger fishing vessels of more than 24 metres in length are not included in the scope of port State control. A voluntary system of control for this type of vessel – should increase the level of compliance with international standards of safety and environmental protection applicable to these vessels;

–Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, it encourages the uptake and use of electronic statutory certificates by linking their use with the ship risk profile used to target and select ships for inspection.

–Ensure an efficient and harmonised approach to carrying out PSC inspections. This includes better targeting of vessels for inspection by restructuring out-dated aspects of the ship risk profile and adding new components to it.  

For the sake of clarity and consistency, this proposal also updates a number of definitions and references to related EU legislation and IMO regulations.

•Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

•Consistency with other EU policies

The proposal comes under the Commission's REFIT programme and delivers on its better regulation agenda by ensuring that existing legislation is simple and clear, does not create unnecessary burden and keeps pace with evolving political, societal and technological developments. This proposal and related proposals to revise the other maritime safety directives are also part of and have significant interaction with the EU’s body of law governing maritime safety which includes the EU vessel traffic monitoring and information system (SafeSeaNet) 15 , the EMSA founding Regulation 16 , the fishing vessel safety Directive 17 , the EU legislation relating to recognised organisations 18 , the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 19 and other EU environmental legislation 20 .

2.LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

•Legal basis

•Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

As the international instruments in the field of PSC in the maritime transport sector are an exclusive EU competence under Article 3(2) TFEU, the subsidiarity principle does not apply, either to those instruments or to the EU rules implementing those agreements.

•Proportionality

•Choice of the instrument

As the proposal only requires making several amendments to Directive 2009/16/EC, an amending Directive is the most appropriate legal instrument.

3.RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

•Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

The 2018 REFIT ex-post evaluation and maritime transport fitness check concluded that, although the Directive constrains the flexibility of the Paris MOU to some extent, it adds value, by combining a port State control framework with a legal enforcement mechanism, to ensure correct and consistent implementation in Member States. This has resulted in pressure to perform and continuously improve, and thus to a better resource allocation at Member State level for port State control. The evaluation concluded that the Directive has contributed to the intended objectives to improve maritime safety, security, pollution prevention and to ensuring better working and living conditions on-board.

EMSA has supported the port State control regime in important ways. Over two-thirds of EU/EEA Member States carrying out inspections exclusively use THETIS to select which vessels to inspect. The role of EMSA in managing and updating THETIS, and the training provided by EMSA of inspectors to harmonise inspections throughout the Paris MOU region, was also found to be very important.

In addition, the Commission and EMSA have continuously monitored implementation of the Directive. Since PSC inspection reports must be uploaded to THETIS as soon as an inspection is completed, EMSA has almost a real-time and detailed overview of all inspections carried out. EMSA also provides a help desk and technical assistance to Member States who require assistance, and they carry out visits to the EEA Member States to verify compliance.

However, the maritime transport fitness check and the horizontal analysis by EMSA identified several areas that could be improved in the PSC regime.

•Stakeholder consultations

–Four exploratory interviews with EU level representatives of key stakeholders, particularly to feed into and refine the overall problem definition and possible policy options.

–A targeted stakeholder survey organised by the consultant in charge of the external support study to the impact assessment, running from 7 September 2021 to 6 October 2021. The survey was sent to key stakeholders with specific information requests, in particular to underpin the assessment of impacts of possible policy measures.

–The consultant in charge of the external support study to the impact assessment, held 22 targeted interviews running from 13 July 2021 to 16 September 2021, with key stakeholders to fill specific information requests, particularly to support the assessment of impacts of possible policy measures.

–Additional consultation activities organised by DG MOVE and the consultant in charge of the external support study to the impact assessment in order to consult the Member States and key stakeholders to elicit their views on the different policy measures and validate the emerging and final results of the support study to the Impact Assessment in terms of the quantification of the impacts. These activities took place during meetings of the EU Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on maritime transport (16 April 2021, 23 September 2021 and 16 December 2021), the EU Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on Sea Fisheries (29 January 2021, 8 March 2021 and 16 November 2021), the EU Sector Social Dialogue Committee on ports (19 November 2021), an informal meeting of the EU/EEA Maritime Transport Directors (30 November 2021), virtual and in person meetings of the Port State Control Committee of the Paris MOU (May 2021 and May 2022) meetings of the of the EU Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (17 May 2021, 11 November 2021 and 31 May 2022).

•Collection and use of expertise

•Impact assessment

·Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach

•Regulatory fitness and simplification (REFIT)

•Fundamental rights

4.BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

5.OTHER ELEMENTS

•Monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The implementation can be monitored by means of the Commission and/or EMSA monitoring of the THETIS database to verify that ships are being correctly targeted for inspection and that inspections are being correctly carried out and that the inspection reports are uploaded to the database. EMSA also carries out cycles of visits to Member States to verify operations on the ground as part of EMSA’s support role to the Commission 21 . Member States will have to have a quality management system (QMS) to certify its organisation, policies, processes, resources and documentation are appropriate to achieve its objectives. This will have to be certified and subsequently subject to periodic audit. Member States will be required to share with Commission/EMSA the results of the audits carried out by the accredited body such that the national port State control authorities can retain their QMS certification.

Given that the full cycle of envisaged EMSA implementation visits is scheduled to last 5 years 22 , it is proposed that the evaluation cycle of the Directive is set at seven-year intervals.

•Explanatory documents (for directives)

•Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

Recital 11 encourages all EU Member States which are eligible (Spain, Greece, France, Croatia, Italy and Slovenia) to become members of the Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding on port State control to improve the quality and quantity of port State control inspections carried out in the Mediterranean basin.

Point 28 updates Annex VIII concerning the refusal of access (banning) procedures referred to in Article 16 to align these with the changes already agreed in the Paris MOU.

2023/0165 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 23 ,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions 24 ,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1)Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 25  sets out rules on the system for port State control inspections, whereby eligible ships calling in Union ports are inspected to verify if the competency of the crew on board and the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions on the safety of life at sea and on the protection of marine environment.

(2)Directive 2009/16/EC is based on the pre-existing voluntary intergovernmental structure of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control (Paris MOU) and the notions of a shared inspection burden, risk-based targeting of ships for inspections, harmonised inspections and the sharing of inspection results.

(3)Since the Directive 2009/16/EC entered into force, there have been changes in the international regulatory environment (in particular in the Paris MOU and the International Maritime Organisation) and technological developments. Those changes as well as the experience gained from implementation of Directive 2009/16/EC should be taken into account.  

(4)A number of international conventions have entered into force and been ratified by the Member States since 2011. These are the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) and the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (Nairobi Convention). Therefore, they should be included in the list of the Conventions covered by Directive 2009/16/EC, to allow them to be enforced as a part the port State control system.

(5)To allow for an up to date and harmonised system of port State control it is necessary to have a swifter way to update the list of international conventions enforced by port State control without a need for amending the whole Directive. Therefore once an international Convention has entered into force – meaning that it has reached an agreed level of ratification - and following its adoption by the Members of the Paris MoU as a relevant instrument the list of Conventions in the Directive should be updated by the Commission.

(6)Due to their small size, most fishing vessels in the EU operate in territorial waters, and are not susceptible to being inspected in foreign ports. This means that in general, only larger fishing vessels above 24 meters in length (which are also the fishing vessels which are most subject to international conventions) are likely to engage in international waters and call at ports different than those in the country where they are registered and therefore be subject to PSC. As the majority of the international conventions applicable to larger fishing vessels are different to those which are currently enforced through port State control and to avoid undesirable spill over effects onto the current port state control system a parallel system of port state control for fishing vessels is being proposed.

(7)However, due to the patterns of fishing not all EU Member States are visited by these larger fishing vessels. Therefore, a voluntary system for those EU Member States that wish to carry out these inspections and which is separate from the current port state control regime is being proposed to allow for flexibility and the way that standards are developed in port State control. This system of port State control of fishing vessel of over 24 metres in length can therefore be developed organically by Member States, the Paris MoU and the Commission.

(8)The fair share mechanism provides a distribution of the inspection burden among the Member States of the Paris MOU. Each Member State is allocated a certain number of inspections – its inspection commitment or 'fair share' - to be carried out each year. Eligibility for inspection is primarily determined by the length of time which has passed since the last inspection. Priority II ships may be inspected while Priority I vessels shall be inspected.

(9)Member States are permitted to miss a certain number of “Priority” inspections and still comply with their inspection commitment. However, for some Member States the number of ship calls that actually occur during a given year can either exceed or be less than the allocated inspection commitment. An alternative method of compliance to the fair share obligation for these (over-burdened or under-burdened) Member States was found to be inflexible, therefore it is necessary to align the provisions concerned with the revised Paris MOU provisions.

(10)Member States are also allowed to postpone inspections of ships under certain circumstances, provided that the vessel is inspected in the next port of call or within 15 days and this possibility is modified so that it can availed of by all Member States. Certain categories of vessels which are perceived to present a higher risk and which are therefore eligible for an expanded inspection are required to notify their estimated time of arrival to a port 72 hours in advance of their arrival. However after a number of years, it was concluded that this obligation was too burdensome on operators and added no value as the national authorities already have the information required more easily available in the THETIS database. On this basis the Paris MOU abolished this pre-arrival notification obligation therefore Directive 2009/16/EC should be aligned accordingly.

(11)Over the last decade and despite increases in the number of vessels calling to EU ports including the short sea shipping transport of goods between main ports in the EU Member States and ports situated in geographical Europe or in non-European countries on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, the safety profile of vessels calling to EU ports has improved considerably. Port State control inspections are being increasingly used to enforce environmental legislation such as in relation to sulphur emissions or the safe and environmental scrapping of ships. The “Fit for 55 package” aims to reduce the EU’s total green-house gas emissions by 55% by 2030, paving the way to climate neutrality by 2050 and maritime transport is expected to contribute to this effort. However, the ship risk profile devised prior to 2009 had different priorities and is not fully adapted to focus the inspection effort on the least environmentally performing vessels.

(12)On this basis, the ship risk profile should be updated to reflect environmental issues by attaching more importance to the environmental performance, including the operational carbon intensity of the ships being inspected as well as to environmental related deficiencies and detentions.

(13)Digitalisation is an essential aspect of technological progress in the area of data collection and communication with a view to helping to bring down costs and making efficient use of human resources. The number of ships currently carrying electronic certificates is on the rise and expected to increase. Therefore the effectiveness of port State control should be enhanced by making more use of electronic certificates to allow for more ship focussed better prepared inspections. The uptake and use of these electronic certificates should be incentivised by their inclusion in the ship risk profile.

(14)Port State control has been increasing in complexity as new inspection requirements are added, either by EU law or via the International Maritime Organization. There is therefore a need to ensure the upskilling and reskilling of the port State control officers and continuously develop their training.

(15)Union Flag State administrations in line with Directive 2009/21/EC  of the European Parliament and of the Council 26  are required to have a quality management system in order to help Member States to further improve their performance as flag States and to ensure a level playing field between administrations. A similar requirement for the port state control activities should allow Member States to certify that their organisation, its policies, processes, resources and documentation are appropriate to achieve its objectives as well as identify system problems such as resource or personnel allocation issues before these become problematic.

(16)In order to allow for an up-to date application of the provisions of this Directive to allow Member States to fulfil their obligations under international law in compliance with the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of updating the Conventions within the scope of Directive 2009/16/EC and amending the list of procedures and guidelines relating to port State control adopted by the Paris MOU. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making 27 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(17)In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of Directive 2009/16/EC concerning the list of Conventions under its scope, the voluntary port state control regime for fishing vessels above 24 meters length overall, the conditions for the application of Annex VII on expanded inspection, the uniform set of safety and security guidelines and procedures, as well as the requirements for electronic certificates, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council 28 .

(18)In order to improve the quality of port state control inspections in marine areas close to the EU all eligible Member States are encouraged to join the Mediterranean MoU on port State control (Med MOU).

(19)In view of the full monitoring cycle of visits to Member States by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to monitor the implementation of Directive 2009/16/EC, the Commission should evaluate the implementation of Directive 2009/16/EC no later than [ten years after its date of application referred to in Article XX)] and report to the European Parliament and the Council thereon. Member States should cooperate with the Commission to gather all information necessary for this evaluation.

(20)Since the objectives of this Directive, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States because of the international nature of maritime transport but can rather, by reason of the network effects of member States acting together, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(21)Directive 2009/16/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Amendments to Directive 2009/16/EC

Directive 2009/16/EC is amended as follows:

(1)Article 2 is amended as follows:

(a)in point 1 the following points (i) and (m) are added:

‘(l)International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention);

(m)Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (Nairobi Convention).’

(b)point 3 is deleted.

(2)Article 3 is amended as follows:

(a)paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.Fishing vessels below 24 meters overall, warships, naval auxiliaries, wooden ships of a primitive build, government ships used for non-commercial purposes and pleasure yachts not engaged in trade shall be excluded from the scope of this Directive.’

(b) the following paragraph 4a is added: 

‘4a.Member States may carry out port state control inspections of fishing vessels of above 24 metres length overall. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts establishing the modalities of such a specific port state control regime for fishing vessels above 24 meters length overall. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 31(2).’

(3)in Article 5, the following paragraph 2a is inserted:

‘2a.Inspections of Priority II ships carried out by Member States when its annual inspection commitment has been exceeded by more than 150% shall not be taken into account in the calculation of the annual inspection commitment of Member States parties to the Paris MOU.’

(4)Article 6 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 6

Modalities of compliance with the inspection commitment

A Member State which fails to carry out the inspections required in Article 5(2)(a), complies with its commitment in accordance with that provision if such missed inspections do not exceed 10 % of the total number of Priority I ships calling at its ports and anchorages, irrespective of their risk profile.

Notwithstanding the percentages of missed inspections referred to in the first subparagraph, Member States shall prioritise inspection of ships, which, according to the information provided by the inspection database, call at ports within the Union infrequently.

Notwithstanding the percentages of missed inspections referred to in the first subparagraph, for Priority I ships calling at anchorages, Member States shall prioritise inspection of ships with a high risk profile, which, according to the information provided by the inspection database, call at ports within the Union infrequently.’

(5)In Article 7, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.A Member State, in which the total number of calls of Priority I and Priority II ships is less than 150% of the inspection share referred to in Article 5(2) point (b), shall be regarded as complying with its annual inspection commitment, if that Member State carries out inspections of two thirds of Priority I and II ships of the total number of Priority I and II ships calling at its ports and anchorages.’,

(6)in Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

1.A Member State may decide to postpone the inspection of a Priority I or Priority II ship in the following circumstances:

(a)if the inspection may be carried out at the next call of the ship in the same Member State, provided that the ship does not call at any other port in the Union or the Paris MOU region in between and the postponement is not more than 15 days; or

(b)if the inspection may be carried out in another port of call within the Community or the Paris MOU region within 15 days, provided the State in which such port of call is located has agreed in advance to perform the inspection.

2.Where an inspection is not performed on a Priority I or Priority II ship for operational reasons, it shall not be counted as a missed inspection, provided that the reason for missing the inspection is recorded in the inspection database and the following exceptional circumstances occur:

(a)in the judgement of the competent authority the conduct of the inspection would create a risk to the safety of inspectors, the ship, its crew or to the port, or to the marine environment; or

(b)the ship call takes place only during night time (as provided for in Article 2(10)). In this case Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that ships which call regularly during night time are inspected as appropriate.’

(7)the following Article 8a is inserted:

‘Article 8a

Force majeure

Failure to carry out an inspection for force majeure reasons shall not be counted as a missed inspection provided that the missed inspection and the reasons for not carrying it out are documented and recorded in the inspection database.’

(8)Article 9 is deleted;

(9)In Article 10(2) the following is added

‘(c) Environmental parameters

Environmental parameters shall be based on the Carbon Intensity Indicator of the ship and the number of deficiencies relating to MARPOL, AFS, BWM Convention, CLC 92, Bunkers Convention and Nairobi Conventions in accordance with Annex I, Part I.3 and Annex II.’

(10)In Article 14, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.An expanded inspection shall be carried out by no less than two port State control officers. The scope of an expanded inspection, including the risk areas to be covered, is set out in Annex VII. The Commission shall adopt by means of implementing acts detailed measures to ensure uniform conditions for the application of Annex VII. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 31(2).’;

(11)In Article 14a, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.Article 11 point (a) and Article 14 shall not apply to ro-ro passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft on a regular service inspected under this Article.’

(12)Article 16 is amended as follows:

(a)Paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.A Member State shall refuse access to its ports and anchorages to any ship which:

–flies the flag of a State which falls into the low performance list, adopted in accordance with the Paris MOU on the basis of information recorded in the inspection database and published annually by the Commission, and has been detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 36 months in a port or anchorage of a Member State or of a State signatory of the Paris MOU, or

–flies the flag of a State which falls into the high or medium performance list, adopted in accordance with the Paris MOU on the basis of information recorded in the inspection database and published annually by the Commission, and has been detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months in a port or anchorage of a Member State or of a State signatory of the Paris MOU.

The first subparagraph of this Article shall not apply to the situations referred to in Article 21(6).

The refusal of access shall be applicable as soon as the ship leaves the port or anchorage where it has been the subject of a third detention and where a refusal of access order has been issued.’;

(b)Paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.Any subsequent detention in a port or anchorage within the Union shall result in the ship being refused access to any port and anchorage within the Union. This third refusal of access order may be lifted after a period of 24 months has passed from the issue of the order and only if:

–(a) the statutory and classification certificates of the ship are issued by an organisation or organisations recognised under Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council 29

–(b) the ship is managed by a company with a high performance according to Annex I, Part I.1, and

–the conditions listed in paragraphs 3 to 9 of Annex VIII are met.

Any ship not meeting the criteria specified in this paragraph, after a period of 24 months has passed from the issue of the order, shall be permanently refused access to any port and anchorage within the Union.’

(c)paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.Any subsequent detention of a vessel flying the flag of a State listed in the medium or low performance list, as published in the annual report of the Paris MOU, in a port or anchorage within the Union after the third refusal of access shall result in the ship being permanently refused access to any port and anchorage within the Union.’

(d)The following paragraph 4a is inserted:

‘4a.If a ship flying the flag of a State listed in the high performance list is detained in a port or anchorage after the third or any subsequent refusal of access and, at the time of the first subsequent ship/port interface in an EU port, the statutory and classification certificates of the ship are issued by an organisation or organisations recognised under Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and evidence is provide that an on-board visit by the classification society has taken place prior to the issuance of such certificates, the ship shall be refused access to any port or anchorage for a period of 24 months.

If at the time of the first ship/port interface the statutory or classification certificates are not issued by an organisation or organisations recognised under Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 the ship shall be permanently refused access to any port and anchorage.’

(13)In Article 21, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.Member States shall take measures to ensure that access to any port or anchorage within the Union is refused to ships referred to in paragraph 1 which proceed to sea:

(a)without complying with the conditions determined by the competent authority of any Member State in the port of inspection; or

(b)which do not comply with the applicable requirements of the Conventions by not calling into the indicated repair yard.

The refusal of access order shall be lifted after a period of 12 months has passed. The refusal of access order shall become applicable from the date of its issuing.

Such refusal shall be maintained until the owner or operator provides evidence to the satisfaction of the competent authority of the Member State where the ship was found defective, demonstrating that the ship fully complies with all applicable requirements of the Conventions.’

(14)In Article 22, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following: 

‘7.In cooperation with Member States and taking into account the expertise and the experience gained in the Union and under the Paris MOU, the Commission shall develop a professional development and training programme for port State control inspectors. This training programme shall take account of the widened scope of port State control as well as improvements in the scope and forms of training.  

In cooperation with the Member States, the Commission shall on a continuous basis identify and provide new training needs to amend the curricula, syllabi and content of the professional development and training programme for inspectors, especially as regards new technologies and in relation to the additional obligations arising from the relevant instruments.’

(15)Article 24 is amended as follows:

(a)paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.Member States shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that the information on the actual time of arrival and the actual time of departure of any ship calling at their ports and anchorages, together with an identifier of the port concerned, is transferred within three hours of the departure to the inspection database through the Union maritime information exchange system ‘SafeSeaNet’ referred to in Article 3 point (s) of Directive 2002/59/EC. Once they have transferred such information to the inspection database through SafeSeaNet, Member States are exempted from the provision of data in accordance with points 1.2 and 2(a) and (b) of Annex XIV to this Directive.’

(b)paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

‘3.Member States shall ensure that the information related to inspections performed in accordance with this Directive is 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 transferred to the inspection database is validated for publication purposes. The inspection report shall be validated before its transfer to the database by a port State control inspector who was not part of the team that carried out the inspection.’

(16)the following article 24a is inserted:

‘Article 24a

Electronic certificates

1.The Commission shall, in close cooperation with the Member States, adopt implementing acts laying down the functional and technical specifications for a harmonised reporting interface, validation tool and central repository/database for electronic versions of the certificates listed in Annex IV and referred to in Article 13(1). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 31(2).’

2.The Member States may use the harmonised reporting interface, validation tool and central repository/database for electronic versions of the certificates to facilitate the transition of their ship registers to electronic certificates.

3.Ships flying the flag of a State that issue such electronic certificates shall have this reflected in the ship risk profile (SRP) as set out in Annexes I and II.

4.The Member State shall be responsible for ensuring the submission of data elements in compliance with the applicable legal and technical requirements, The Member State shall remain responsible for the data and the validity of the information and the certificates, as well as for updating any information that has changed after the submission to the central database.’

(17)Article 25 is replaced by the following: 

‘Article 25

Exchange of information and cooperation

Each Member State shall ensure that its port authorities or bodies and other relevant authorities or bodies provide the competent port State control authority with the following types of information in their possession:

(a)information concerning ships which have failed to notify any information according to the requirements of this Directive, Directive 2002/59/EC and to Directive (EU) 2019/883 of the European Parliament and of the Council 30 , as well as, if appropriate, with Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security,

(b)information concerning ships which have proceeded to sea without having complied with Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2019/883 on port reception facilities,

(c)information concerning ships which have been denied entry or expelled from port on security grounds,

information on apparent anomalies in accordance with Article 23.’

(18)Article 30 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 30

Monitoring of compliance and performance of Member States

In order to ensure the effective implementation of this Directive and to monitor the overall functioning of the Union’s port State control regime in accordance with Article 2(b) point (i) of Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002, the Commission shall collect the necessary information and carry out visits to Member States.

Each Member State shall develop, implement, and maintain a quality management system for the operational parts of the port State-related activities of its administration. Such quality management system shall be certified in accordance with the applicable international quality standards.’

(19)in Article 30a is replaced by the following:

‘Article 30a

Delegated acts

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 30b, to amend Article 2(1) to amend the list of Conventions set out in Article 2(1) once such Conventions have been adopted as a relevant instrument by the Paris MoU and to amend Annex VI in order to add and/or update the list of procedures and guidelines relating to port State control adopted by the Paris MOU set out in that Annex.’

(20)in Article 31 the following is inserted:

‘4. Amendments to the relevant instruments listed in Article 2 point 1 may be excluded from the scope of this Directive pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002.’

(21)Article 33 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 33

Implementing rules

When establishing the implementing rules referred to in Articles 2(2) 3(4a), 10(3), 10(4), 14(4), 15(3), 18a(7), 23(5) 24a(6) and Article 27 in accordance with the procedures referred to in Article 31(2), the Commission shall take specific care that those rules take into account the expertise and experience gained with the inspection system in the Union and build upon the expertise of the Paris MOU.’

(22)Article 35 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 35

Implementation review

The Commission shall by [OP: Please insert a date: ten years from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive] submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of, and compliance with, this Directive.’

(23)Annex I is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Directive.

(24)Annex II is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Directive.

(25)Annex III is deleted.

(26)Annex IV is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Directive.

(27)Annex V is replaced by the text in Annex IV to this Directive.

(28)Annex VIII is replaced by the text in Annex V to this Directive. 

Article 2

Transposition

1.Member States shall adopt and publish, by [OP: Please insert a date: one year from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive] the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

2.Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 4

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 'AGENCIES'

1.FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

1.1.Title of the proposal/initiative

1.2.Policy area(s) concerned

1.3.The proposal relates to 

◻ a new action

◻ a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action 31  

☑ the extension of an existing action 

◻ a merger of one or more actions towards another/a new action 

1.4.Objective(s)

1.4.1.General objective(s) 

1.4.2.Specific objective(s) 

1.4.3.Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

1.4.4.Indicators of performance 

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements.

1.5.Grounds for the proposal/initiative 

1.5.1.Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for roll-out of the implementation of the initiative

1.5.2.Added value of Union involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g. coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting from Union intervention which is additional to the value that would have been otherwise created by Member States alone.

1.5.3.Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

1.5.4.Compatibility with the Multiannual Financial Framework and possible synergies with other appropriate instruments

1.5.5.Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for redeployment

1.6.Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative

◻ limited duration

–◻    Proposal/initiative in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

–◻    Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY

☑ unlimited duration

–Implementation with a start-up period from YYYY to YYYY, [n.a.],

–followed by full-scale operation.

1.7.Method(s) of budget implementation planned 32  

◻ Direct management by the Commission through

–◻    executive agencies

◻ Shared management with the Member States

☑ Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:

◻ international organisations and their agencies (to be specified);

◻the EIB and the European Investment Fund;

☑ bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71;

◻ public law bodies;

◻ bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that they are provided with adequate financial guarantees;

◻ bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with the implementation of a public-private partnership and that are provided with adequate financial guarantees;

◻ bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the CFSP pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act.

Comments

2.MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

2.1.Monitoring and reporting rules 

Specify frequency and conditions.

2.2.Management and control system(s) 

2.2.1.Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed

2.2.2.Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up to mitigate them

2.2.3.Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure) 

2.3.Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities 

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures, e.g. from the Anti-Fraud Strategy.

3.ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

3.1.Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected 

·Existing budget lines

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

·New budget lines requested

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

3.2.Estimated impact on expenditure 

3.2.1.Summary of estimated impact on expenditure 

EUR million (to three decimal places)

European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)			Year 2025	Year 2026	Year 2027	Year 2028-2034	TOTAL
Title 1:	Commitments	(1)	0.171	0.342	0.342	2.394	3.249
	Payments	(2)	0.171	0.342	0.342	2.394	3.249
Title 2:	Commitments	(1a)
	Payments	(2a)
Title 3:	Commitments	(3a)	0.068	0.479	0.504	1.778	2.829
	Payments	(3b)	0.068	0.479	0.504	1.778	2.829
TOTAL appropriations for EMSA	Commitments	=1+1a +3a	0.239	0.821	0.846	4.172	6.078
	Payments	=2+2a +3b	0.239	0.821	0.846	4.172	6.078

The budget impact beyond the current MFF is an indicative overview, without prejudice to the future MFF Agreement.

EUR million (to three decimal places)

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 7 of the multiannual financial framework

(Total commitments = Total payments)

EUR million (to three decimal places)

The budget impact beyond the current MFF is an indicative overview, without prejudice to the future MFF Agreement.

3.2.2.Estimated impact on EMSA's appropriations 

–☑    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

–◻    The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below:

Amounts in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Where applicable, amounts reflect the sum of the Union contribution to the agency and other revenue of the agency (fees and charges).

3.2.3.Estimated impact on EMSA’s human resources 

3.2.3.1.Summary

–◻    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an administrative nature

–☑    The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative nature, as explained below:

EUR million (to three decimal places) Where applicable, amounts reflect the sum of the Union contribution to the agency and other revenue of the agency (fees and charges).

Temporary agents (AD Grades)	0.171	0.342	0.342	2.394	3.249
Temporary agents (AST grades)
Contract staff
Seconded National Experts

The budget impact beyond the current MFF is an indicative overview, without prejudice to the future MFF Agreement.

Staff requirements (FTE):

Temporary agents (AD Grades)	2	2	2	2	2
Temporary agents (AST grades)
Contract staff
Seconded National Experts

TOTAL

2

2

2

2

2

The budget impact beyond the current MFF is an indicative overview, without prejudice to the future MFF Agreement.

EMSA will start preparing the recruitment as soon as the proposal is adopted. The costs are estimated based on the assumption that the 2 FTEs are recruited as of 1st July 2025. So only 50% of the HR costs are needed for the first year.

3.2.3.2.Estimated requirements of human resources for the parent DG

–☑    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.

–◻    The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below:

Estimate to be expressed in full amounts (or at most to one decimal place)

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.

Description of tasks to be carried out:

Description of the calculation of cost for FTE units should be included in the Annex V, section 3.

3.2.4.Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework 

–☑    The proposal/initiative is compatible the current multiannual financial framework.

–☑    The proposal/initiative will entail reprogramming of the relevant heading in the multiannual financial framework.

–◻    The proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility instrument or revision of the multiannual financial framework 41 .

3.2.5.Third-party contributions 

–The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third parties.

–The proposal/initiative provides for the co-financing estimated below:

EUR million (to three decimal places)

3.3.Estimated impact on revenue 

–☑    The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

–◻    The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

on own resources

on other revenue

please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines

EUR million (to three decimal places)

For miscellaneous ‘assigned’ revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

Specify the method for calculating the impact on revenue.

(1)    OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 57

(2)    International rules include the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS 74), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW), the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 and the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREG 72).

(3)     www.parismou.org  

(4)    Following the invasion of Ukraine, Russian Federation membership of the Paris MoU was suspended in May 2022.

(5)    This is a system hosted and developed by EMSA which enables Member States to provide and receive information on ships and their hazardous cargoes. It provides, among others, the identification, position and status of a ship; times of departure and arrival; incidents reports, details on hazardous cargoes.

(6)    Directive 2013/38/EU of 12 August 2013 amending Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control (OJ L 218, 14.8.2013, p. 1)

(7)    Directive (EU) 2017/2110 of 15 November 2017 on a system of inspections for the safe operation of ro-ro passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC (OJ L 315, 30.11.2017)

(8)    Directive 2009/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.128)

(9)    Directive (EU) 2019/883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, amending Directive 2010/65/EU and repealing Directive 2000/59/EC (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 11)

(10)    Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC (OJ L 330, 10.12.2013, p. 1)

(11)    Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and amending Directive 2009/16/EC (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 55)

(12)    Directive (EU) 2016/802 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (codification) (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p.58)

(13)    OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 114

(14)    OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.132

(15)    Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10)

(16)    OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1

(17)    OJ L 34, 9.2.1998, p. 1

(18)    Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.11) and Directive 2009/15/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ L131, 28.5.2009, p.47)

(19)    OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19

(20)    Such as Directive 92/43/EEC (the “Habitats Directive”), Directive 2009/147/EC (the ‘EU Birds Directive’), Directive (EU) 2019/904 (Single use Plastics Directive) 

(21)    EMSA carries out such visits under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency as part of its core tasks; therefore, no additional costs are expected to arise.

(22)    As provided for in the EMSA Methodology for visits to Member States, http://emsa.europa.eu/implementation-tasks/visits-and-inspections/items.html?cid=89&id=3065

(23)    OJ C , , p. .

(24)    OJ C , , p. .

(25)    OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 57

(26)    Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 132).

(27)    OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.

(28)    Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

(29)    Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.11.)’;

(30)    Directive (EU) 2019/883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 116).’

(31)    As referred to in Article 58(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

(32)    Details of budget implementation methods and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the BUDGpedia site: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/corp/budget/financial-rules/budget-implementation/Pages/implementation-methods.aspx

(33)    Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations.

(34)    EFTA: European Free Trade Association.

(35)    Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans.

(36)    Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).

(37)    As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)…’

(38)    AC = Contract Staff; AL = Local Staff; END = Seconded National Expert; INT = agency staff; JPD = Junior Professionals in Delegations.

(39)    Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines).

(40)    Mainly for the EU Cohesion Policy Funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF).

(41)    See Articles 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2093/2020 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027.

(42)    As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20 % for collection costs.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.6.2023

COM(2023) 271 final

ANNEXES

to the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control

{SEC(2023) 202 final} - {SWD(2023) 148 final} - {SWD(2023) 149 final}

ANNEX I

‘I. Ship Risk profile

The risk profile of a ship shall be determined by a combination of the following generic, historical, and environmental parameters.

1. Generic parameters

(a)Type of ship

Passenger ships, oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers and bulk carriers shall be considered as posing a higher risk.

(b)Age of ship

Ships of more than 12 years old shall be considered as posing 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 which has ratified all of the mandatory IMO instruments listed in Article 2(1) shall be considered as posing a lower risk. As soon as the measures referred to in Article 10(3) are adopted, the flag State of such a ship shall demonstrate compliance with the Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments.

(iv)Ships flying the flag of a State which has furnished electronic versions of the statutory certificates set out in points 1-XX of Annex IV.

(d)Recognised organisations

(i)Ships which have been delivered certificates from recognised organisations having a low or very low performance level in relation with their detention rates within the Community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a higher risk.

(ii)Ships which have been delivered certificates from recognised organisations having a high performance level in relation with their detention rates within the Community and the Paris MOU region shall be considered as posing a lower risk.

(iii)Ships with certificates issued by organisations recognised under the terms of Regulation (EC) No 391/2009.

(e)Company performance

(i)Ships of 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 of 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.

(f)Historical parameters

(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 referred to in Annex II have had less than the number of deficiencies referred to in Annex II, shall be considered as posing a lower risk.

(iii)Ships which have not been detained during the period referred to in Annex II, shall be considered as posing a lower risk.

The risk parameters shall be combined by using a weighting which reflects the relative influence of each parameter on the overall risk of the ship in order to determine the following ship risk profiles:

–high risk,

–standard risk,

–low risk.

In determining these risk profiles greater emphasis shall be given to the parameters for type of ship, flag State performance, recognised organisations and company performance.

(g)Environmental parameters

(i)The Carbon Intensity Indicator of the ship, ships which are category D-E shall be considered as posing a higher risk.

(ii)Ships which, during inspection(s) carried out within the period referred to in Annex II have had less than the number of deficiencies relating to MARPOL, AFS, BWMC, CLC 92, Bunkers Convention and Nairobi Conventions referred to in Annex II, shall be considered as posing a lower risk.

ANNEX II

DESIGN OF SHIP RISK PROFILE

(referred to in Article 10(2))

				Profile
				High Risk Ship (HRS)		Standard Risk Ship (SRS)	Low Risk Ship (LRS)
Generic parameters				Criteria	Weighting points	Criteria	Criteria
1	Type of ship			Chemical tankship Gas carrier Oil tankship Bulk carrier Passenger ship	1	neither a high risk nor a low risk ship	All types
2	Age of ship			all types > 12 y	1		All ages
3a	Flag	Low performance			2		High performance
3b		All IMO instruments listed in Article 2 ratified		-	-		Yes
3c		E-Certificate		Statutory certificates are transmitted digitally to the information system
4a	Recognised organisation	Performance	H	-	-		High
			M	-	-		-
			L	Low	1		-
			VL	Very Low			-
4b		EU recognised		-	-		Yes
5	Company	Performance	H	-	-		High
			M	-	-		-
			L	Low	2		-
			VL	Very low			-
Historical parameters
6	Number of deficiencies recorded in each inspection within previous 36 months		Deficiencies	>6 in one of the inspections	-		≤ 5 in every individual inspection (and at least one inspection carried out in previous 36 months)
7	Number    of    detentions within previous 36 months		Detentions	≥ 2 detentions	1		No detention
Environmental parameters
8	Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII)		Rating	D-E	1
9	Number of deficiencies related to MARPOL, AFS, BWM, CLC 92, Bunkers and Nairobi Conventions recorded in each inspection within previous 36 months		Deficiencies	>3 in one of the inspections	1

HRS are ships which meet criteria to a total value of 5 or more weighting points. LRS are ships which meet all the criteria of the Low Risk Parameters.

SRS are ships which are neither HRS nor LRS

ANNEX III

‘Annex IV

LIST OF CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS

(referred to in Article 13(1))

Part A List of certificates and documents which to the extent applicable should be checked as a minimum during the inspection referred to in paragraph 2.2.3 (as appropriate):

1.International Tonnage Certificate;

2.Reports of previous port State control inspections;

3.Passenger Ship Safety Certificate (SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12);

4.Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate (SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12);

5.Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate (SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12);

6.Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12);

7.Cargo Ship Safety Certificate (SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12);

8.Exemption Certificate (SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12);

9.Minimum Safe Manning Document (SOLAS 1974, regulation V/14.2);

10.International Load Line Certificate (1966) (LLC 66/88, article 16.1);

11.International Load Line Exemption Certificate (LLC 66/88, article 16.2);

12.International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate (MARPOL Annex I, regulation 7.1);

13.International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk (NLS) (MARPOL, Annex II, regulation 9.1);

14.International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate (ISPPC) (MARPOL, Annex IV, regulation 5.1, MEPC.1/Circ.408);

15.International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPPC) (MARPOL, Annex VI, regulation 6.1);

16.International Energy Efficiency Certificate (MARPOL, Annex VI regulation 6);

17.International Ballast Water Management Certificate (IBWMC) (BWMC Art 9.1(a) and regulation E-2);

18.International Anti-Fouling System Certificate (IAFS Certificate) (AFS 2001 Annex 4 regulation 2);

19.Declaration on AFS (AFS 2001 Annex 4 regulation 5);

20.International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) or Interim International Ship Security Certificate (ISPS Code part A/19 and appendices);

21.Certificates for masters, officers or ratings issued in accordance with STCW Convention (STCW art. VI, regulation I/2 and STCW Code section A-I/2);

22.Copy of Document of Compliance or a copy of the Interim Document of Compliance issued in accordance with the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (DoC) ISM Code (SOLAS regulation IX/4.2, ISM Code, paragraph 13 and 14);

23.Safety Management Certificate or an Interim Safety Management Certificate issued in accordance with the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (SMC) (SOLAS 1974, regulation IX/4.3, ISM Code, paragraph 13 and 14);

24.International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk, or the Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk, whichever is appropriate (IGC Code regulation 1.5.4 or GC Code regulation 1.6);

25.International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, or the Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, whichever is appropriate (IBC Code regulation 1.45.4 and BCH Code regulation 1.6.3); 26 INF (International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships) Certificate of Fitness (SOLAS regulation VII/16 and INF Code reg .1.3);

26.INF (International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships) Certificate of Fitness (SOLAS regulation VII/16 and INF Code reg .1.3);

27.Certificate of insurance or any other financial security in respect of civil liability for oil pollution damage (CLC 69/92 art. VII.2);

28.Certificate of insurance or any other financial security in respect of civil liability for Bunker oil pollution damage (BUNKERS 2001 art. 7.2);

29.Certificate of Insurance or other Financial Security in respect of Liability for the Removal of Wrecks (Removal of Wreck Article 12);

30.High-Speed Craft Safety Certificate and Permit to Operate High-Speed Craft (SOLAS 1974, regulation X/3.2 and HSC Code 94/00 regulations 1.8.1 and 1.9);

31.Document of compliance with the special requirements for ships carrying dangerous goods (SOLAS 1974, regulation II-2/19.4);

32.Document of authorization for the carriage of grain and grain loading manual (SOLAS 1974, regulation VI/9; International Code for the Safe Carriage of Grain in Bulk, section 3);

33.Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) Statement of Compliance, CAS Final Report and Review Record (MARPOL Annex I, regulations 20 and 21; resolution MEPC.94(46), as amended by resolutions MEPC.99(48), MEPC.112(50), MEPC.131(53), resolution MEPC.155(55), and MEPC.236(65);

34.Continuous Synopsis Record (SOLAS 1974, regulation XI-1/5);

35.Oil Record Book, parts I and II (MARPOL, Annex I, regulations 17 and 36);

36.Cargo Record Book (MARPOL, Annex II, regulation 15);

37.Garbage Record Book, parts I and II (MARPOL, Annex V, regulation 10.3); (MARPOL, Annex V, regulation 10);

38.Garbage Management Plan (MARPOL, Annex V, regulation 10; resolution MEPC.220(63));

39.Logbook and the recordings of the tier and on/off status of marine diesel engines (MARPOL, Annex VI, regulation 13.5.3);

40.Logbook for fuel oil changeover (MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 14.6);

41.Ozone-depleting Substances Record Book (MARPOL, Annex VI, regulation 12.6);

42.Ballast Water Record Book (BWRB) (BWMC Art 9.1 (b) and regulation B-2);

43.Fixed gas fire-extinguishing systems – cargo spaces Exemption Certificate and any list of cargoes (SOLAS 1974, regulation II-2/10.7.1.4);

44.Dangerous goods manifest or stowage plan (SOLAS 1974, regulations VII/4 and VII/7-2; MARPOL, Annex III, regulation 54);

45.For oil tankers, the record of oil discharge monitoring and control system for the last ballast voyage (MARPOL, Annex I, regulation 31.2);

46.Search and Rescue cooperation plan for passenger ships trading on fixed routes (SOLAS 1974, regulation V/7.3);

47.For passenger ships, List of operational limitations (SOLAS 1974, regulation V/30.2);

48.Nautical charts and nautical publications (SOLAS 1974, regulations V/19.2.1.4 and V/27);

49.Records of hours of rest and table of shipboard working arrangements (STCW Code section A-VIII/1.5 and 1.7, ILO Convention No.180 art. 5.7, art. 8.1 and MLC, 2006 Standard A.2.3.10 and A.2.3.12);

50.Unattended machinery spaces (UMS) evidence (SOLAS 1974, regulation II-I/46.3);

51.Certificates required under Directive 2009/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims;

52.Certificate required under Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents;

53.A certificate on the inventory of hazardous materials or a statement of compliance as applicable pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council; and

54.Document of Compliance issued under Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and amending Directive 2009/16/EC.

Part B List of other certificates and documents which to the extent applicable are required to be on board (as appropriate):

1.Construction drawings (SOLAS reg. II-1/3-7);

2.Ship Construction File (SOLAS reg. II-1/3-10);

3.Manoeuvring Booklet and information (SOLAS reg. II-1/28);

4.Stability information (SOLAS regs. II-1/5 and II-1/5-1 and LLC 66/88 reg. 10);

5.Subdivision and stability information (MARPOL Annex I reg. 28);

6.Damage control plans and booklets (SOLAS reg. II-1/19; MSC.1/Circ.1245)

7.Ship Structure Access Manual (SOLAS reg. II-1/3-6);

8.Enhanced Survey Report Files (in case of bulk carriers or oil tankers) (SOLAS reg. XI-1/2 and 2011 ESP Code paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of annex A, part A and part B, and annex B, part A and part B);

9.Cargo Securing Manual (SOLAS reg. VI/5.6 and VII/5; MSC.1/Circ.1353/Rev.1);

10.Bulk Carrier Booklet (SOLAS reg. VI/7.2 and XII/8, BLU Code);

11.Loading/Unloading Plan for bulk cargoes (SOLAS reg. VI/7.3);

12.Cargo Information (SOLAS reg. VI/2 and XII/10, MSC/Circ.663);

13.Fire control plan/booklet (SOLAS reg. II-2/15.2.4 and II-2/15.3.2);

14.Fire safety operational booklet (SOLAS reg. II-2/16.2);

15.Fire safety training manual (SOLAS reg. II-2/1 5.2.3);

16.Training manual (SOLAS reg. III/35);

17.Onboard training, drills and maintenance records (SOLAS reg.II-2/15.2.2.5 and reg. III/19.3 and III/19.5 and III/20.6 and III/20.7);

18.Ship-specific Plans and Procedures for Recovery of Persons from the Water (SOLAS reg. III/17-1; MSC.346(91); MSC.1/Circ.1447);

19.Decision support system for masters (Passenger ships) (SOLAS reg. III/29);

20.International Code of Signals and a copy of Volume III of IAMSAR Manual (SOLAS reg. V/21);

21.Records of navigational activities (SOLAS reg. V/26 and V/28.1);

22.Ship Security Plan and associated records (SOLAS reg. XI-2/9 and ISPS Code part A/9 and 10);

23.Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (EIAPPC) (NOX Technical Code 2008 reg. 2.1.1.1);

24.EEDI Technical File (MARPOL Annex VI, reg. 20);

25.Technical files (NOX Technical Code 2008 reg. 2.3.4);

26.Record book of engine parameters (NOX Technical Code reg. 2.3.7);

27.Type approval certificate of incinerator (MARPOL Annex VI reg. 16.6);

28.Manufacturer's Operating Manual for Incinerators (MARPOL Annex VI reg. 16.7);

29.Fuel oil Changeover Procedure for fuel oil changeover (MARPOL Annex VI reg. 14.6);

30.30 Bunker delivery notes and Representative Sample (MARPOL Annex VI reg. 18.6 and 18.8.1); 

31.Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (MARPOL Annex I reg. 37.1; resolution MEPC.54(32), as amended by resolution MEPC.86(44));

32.Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan for Noxious Liquid Substances (MARPOL Annex II reg. 17);

33.Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (MARPOL Annex VI reg. 22, MEPC.1/Circ795);

34.STS Operation Plan and Records of STS Operations (MARPOL Annex I reg. 41);

35.Procedures and Arrangements Manual (chemical tankers) (MARPOL Annex II reg. 14.1; resolution MEPC.18(22), as amended by resolution MEPC.62(35));

36.VOC Management Plan (MARPOL Annex VI reg. 15.6);

37.Ballast Water Management Plan (BWMP) (BWMC reg. B-1, resolution MEPC.127(53))

38.LRIT Conformance Test Report (SOLAS reg. V/19-1.6; MSC.1/Circ.1307);

39.Copy of the Certificate of compliance issued by the testing facility, stating the date of compliance and the applicable performance standards of VDR (voyage data recorder) (SOLAS reg. V/18.8);

40.AIS test report (SOLAS reg. V/18.9, MSC.1/Circ.1252);

41.Noise Survey Report (SOLAS reg. II-1/3-12);

42.Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control (ODMC) Operational Manual (MARPOL Annex I reg. 31; resolution A.496(XII); resolution A.586(14), as amended by resolution MEPC.24(22); resolution MEPC.108(49), as amended by resolution MEPC.240(65));

43.Crude Oil Washing Operation and Equipment Manual (MARPOL Annex I reg. 35, resolution MEPC.81(43));

44.Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) (SOLAS reg. VI/5-1, MSC.286(86));

45.Record of AFS (AFS 2001 Annex 4 reg. 2);

46.Coating Technical File (SOLAS reg. II-1/3-2); and

47.Maintenance plans (SOLAS reg. II-2/14.2.2, II-2/14.3 and II-2/14.4).

For reference:

1.Certificate of Registry or other document of nationality (UNCLOS art. 9.1.2);

2.Certificates as to the ship's hull strength and machinery installations issued by the classification society in question (only to be required if the ship maintains its class with a classification society);

3.Cargo Gear Record Book (ILO Convention No.32 art. 9.2(4) and ILO Convention No.152 art. 25);

4.Certificates loading and unloading equipment (ILO Convention No.134 art. 4.3(e) and ILO Convention No.32 art. 9(4));

5.Medical certificates (ILO Convention No.73 or MLC, 2006 Standard A1.2);

6.Records of hours of work or rest of seafarers (ILO Convention No.180 part II art. 8.1 or MLC, 2006, Standard A.2.3.12);

7.Maritime Labour Certificate (MLC, 2006, Regulation 5.1.3);

8.Declaration of Maritime Labour Certificate (MLC, 2006, Regulation 5.1.3);

9.Declaration of Maritime Labour compliance (DMLC) on board (parts I and II) (MLC, 2006, Regulation 5.1.3);

10.Seafarer's employment agreements (MLC, 2006, Standard A 2.1);

11.Certificate of Insurance or Financial Security for Repatriation of Seafarers (MLC, 2006, Regulation 2.5); and

12.Certificate of Insurance or Financial Security for Shipowners liability (MLC, 2006, Regulation 4.2).’

ANNEX IV

‘ANNEX VI

PROCEDURES FOR THE CONTROL OF SHIPS

(referred to in Article 15(1))

Annex I, ‘Port State Control Procedures’, to the Paris MOU and the following instructions from the Paris MOU, in their up-to-date version:

PSCC Technical instructions

–PSCC41-2008-07 Code of Good Practice

–PSCC53-2020-08 Definitions and Abbreviations

General Paris MoU

–PSCC54-2021-03 Type of inspection

–PSCC55-2022-10 Detention and Action Taken

–PSCC55-2022-08 Model forms

–PSCC52-2019-05 Operational control

–PSS43-2010-11 Flag State Exemptions

–PSCC48-2015-09 RO responsibility

–PSCC51 Stopping an operation

–PSCC49-2016-11 Black-out test

–PSCC53-2020-06 Refusal of Access (Banning)

–PSCC50-2017-12 Structure bulk carriers/oil tankers

–PSCC43-2010-06 Dry Docking

–PSCC53-2020-11 Allowing for a single voyage to a repair yard for "accidental damage" deficiencies

SOLAS Convention

–PSCC55-2022-09 ISM Code

–PSCC54-2021-02 ISPS Code

–PSCC51-2018-12 ECDIS

–PSCC43-2010-32 VDR (Voyage Date Recorders)

–PSCC43-2010-09 Material Safety Data Sheets

–PSCC43-2010-21 GMDSS

–PSCC44-2011-16 Lifeboat on-load release hooks

–PSCC45-2012-10 Damage stability on tankers

–PSCC55-2022-05 LRIT

–PSCC43-2010-28 Thickness measurements ESP/CAS

–PSCC43-2010-29 Thickness measurement

–PSCC51-2018-11 Polar Code

–PSCC55-2022-02 IGF Code

MARPOL Convention

–PSCC46-2013-18 MARPOL Annex I OWS

–PSCC43-2010-39 MARPOL Annex II Stripping

–PSCC47-2014-08 MARPOL Annex III IMDG

–PSCC55-2022-07 MARPOL Annex IV Sewage

–PSCC52-2019-07 MARPOL Annex V Garbage

–PSCC55-2022-11 MARPOL Annex VI Air Pollution

–PSCC43-2010-38 Crude oil washing

–PSCC44-2011-20 MARPOL Investigation

–International Load Line Convention

–PSCC54-2021-06 International Load Line Convention

AFS Convention

–PSCC47-2014-13 Anti Fouling Systems

Bunkers Convention

–PSCC43-2010-08 Bunker Convention

–Certification of Seafarers and Manning

–PSCC54-2021-04 Certification of Seafarers and Manning (STCW, MLC and SOLAS)

–Ballast Water Management Convention

–PSCC51-2018-09 Ballast Water Management Convention

ILO Conventions

–PSCC52-2019-10 Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC)

–PSCC53-2020-14 Hours of Work or Rest and fitness for duty’

ANNEX V

‘ANNEX VIII

PROVISIONS CONCERNING REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO PORTS AND ANCHORAGES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY

(referred to in Article 16)

(1)If the conditions described in Article 16(1) are met, the competent authority of the port in which the ship is detained for the third time shall inform the master of the ship in writing that a refusal of access order will be issued which will become applicable immediately after the ship has left the port. The refusal of access order shall become applicable immediately after the ship has left the port after the deficiencies leading to the detention have been remedied.

(2)The competent authority shall send a copy of the refusal of access order to the flag State administration, the recognised organisation concerned, the other Member States, and the other signatories to the Paris MOU, the Commission and the Paris MOU Secretariat. The competent authority shall also update the inspection database with information on the refusal of access without delay.

(3)In order to have the refusal of access order lifted, the owner or the operator must address a formal request to the competent authority of the Member State that imposed the refusal of access order. This request must be accom­ panied by a document from the flag State administration issued following an on-board visit by a surveyor duly authorised by the flag State administration, showing that the ship fully conforms to the applicable provisions of the Conventions. The flag State administration shall provide evidence to the competent authority that a visit on board has taken place.

(4)The request for the lifting of the refusal of access order must also be accompanied, where appropriate, by a document from the classification society which has the ship in class following an on-board visit by a surveyor from the classification society, showing that the ship conforms to the class standards stipulated by that society. The classification society shall provide evidence to the competent authority that a visit on board has taken place.

(5)The refusal of access order may be lifted only after the period referred to Article 16 of this Directive has elapsed and the company must address a formal request to the port State authority of the Member State that imposed the ban and provide the documents requested in paragraphs 3 and 4

(6)Such a request including the required documents must be submitted to the banning State at least one month before the end of the ban period. If this deadline is not met, then a delay may occur of up to one month after the banning State received the request

(7)The information system will add an overriding factor to the ship and the ship will be indicated liable for the inspection type “Expanded inspection” at next call at port/anchorage in the region.

(8)The competent authority shall also notify its decision in writing to the flag State administration, the classification society concerned, the other Member States, the other signatories to the Paris MOU, the Commission and the Paris MOU Secretariat. The competent authority must also update the inspection database with information on the removal of the access without delay.

(9)Information relating to ships that have been refused access to ports within the Community must be made available in the inspection database and published in conformity with the provisions of Article 26 and of Annex XIII.’