Brussels, 14/01/2004 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament wishes to impose disciplinary action on all those responsible for causing serious maritime pollution either intentionally or through negligence. Approving the report by Dutch Christian Democrat Peter Rex on Tuesday, it amended the proposal of directive to make it even stricter and called for the creation of a European coastguard (codecision, first reading). The Parliament also gave its go-ahead to the Commission's proposal on a framework decision concerning maritime pollution which completes the proposal of directive by specifying the severity of penalties (EUROPE of 3 May 2003, p.10).
In 2001, there were 390 oil spills in the Baltic Sea and 596 in the North Sea and, in 1999, there were 1638 occurrences of illegal discharge in the Mediterranean, the Commission states. Nonetheless, a low percentage of vessels which illegally practice spillage has in fact been detected, it adds. Hence this proposal which aims to bring international norms on pollution from ships at sea into Community law (Marpol Convention) and to impose penalties, including criminal punishment, on all those responsible for such discharge. The Parliament totally approves the proposal but considers that maritime safety would be more enhanced if existing legislation in this connection were properly applied, and above all Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities which puts ports under the obligation to have waste collection installations, which would deprive the owners of vessels and crews of a major argument to justify any illegal discharge. The Parliament includes among those who can be judged responsible for maritime pollution and hence punished the competent port authority (if, for example, it refuses access to a port or to a safe mooring for vessels in distress. Also, at the request of the Socialists, all persons who did not act when they should have done are also included. In order to ensure effective implementation of the directive, the Parliament calls on the Commission (392 in favour, 61 against and 33 abstentions) to present, six months after the entry into force of the directive, a proposal aimed at creating a common European coastguard body. The Parliament, moreover, invites the Commission to later take into account the possibility of extending the directive's scope to cover dangerous solid substances.
Furthermore, the Parliament considers that: - in the case of ships sailing under the flag of a Member State, the directive must apply irrespective of the place of discharge; - seizure of the vessel must be part of the possible penalties imposed; - and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) must play a role of coordinator in implementation of the directive (amendment by Greens: 309 for, 202 against and 2 abstentions). At a request from the Socialists, the EP foresees a progressive calendar for the installation of on-board equipment for vessels to ensure compliance with the aims of the directive. Finally, with a slim majority (247, 263 against and 3 abstentions), the Parliament rejected another amendment by the Greens calling for Member States to devote financial resources equal to the sum produced by fines imposed to measures to fight marine pollution or measures for regeneration of the marine environment.
With the adoption of the report by Italian national Giuseppe Di Lello (GUE), the Parliament gave its agreement for the most serious cases of maritime pollution to be liable to penalties of 5 to 10 years imprisonment as well as fines proportional to the turnover and to the gravity of the act (10-20% for the most serious cases, 1-10% for the others). Member States should undertake to: - carry out a criminal investigation in suspicious cases; - cooperate between themselves (especially with joint investigation teams); - determine in common the State responsible for judging infringement if several States are concerned, according to a series of criteria (place of infringement, place where the impact was felt …). The Parliament only suggests two amendments. On one hand, that the penalty of 5-10 years imprisonment be valid when violation has caused substantial damage to people and not only when it has brought about death or serious injury, as the Commission proposes. It also suggests that the text should apply specifically to the "protected environment". The EP only gives an advisory opinion and in no way forces the Council decision.
Battle over legal base
The proposal of directive aims to introduce the principle of punishing maritime pollution on the basis of Community competence in transport matters (EUROPE of 6 March, p.10). The proposal for a framework decision completes it by giving details of the level of disciplinary action and the procedures involved on the basis of provisions of the treaty relating to judiciary cooperation. This provision (the principle of penalties based on Community law, the penalties themselves being based on intergovernmental legal cooperation) was rejected by the Council first of all when relating to the environment, with a large majority of Member States demanding that any criminal harmonisation measure should be based on legal provisions. The European Commission referred the matter to the Court so that it would rule on this text (EUROPE of 2 April 2003, p.15). At the Transport Council in December, the Member States reaffirmed on the subject of the proposals for maritime pollution that they should reject the Commission's approach.