Brussels, 27/11/2008 (Agence Europe) - The next conciliation trialogue on the third maritime safety package (Erika III) will take place on 2 December. A few days before the meeting, which could prove decisive for the adoption of the package, the European Parliament fears a watering down of measures. Despite making great progress since the political agreement reached by the Council in October on the last two texts of the package (see EUROPE 9758), Council and Parliament delegations still have to agree on: 1) the scope of the regulation with regard to the liability of maritime transporters (Council wants it to apply only to Class A vessels, while the Parliament wants to extend it to Classes B and C sailing closer to the shore; 2) extending the arrangements of the Athens Convention to domestic maritime transport; and 3) ratifying the Athens Convention that has been deadlocked in Council since 2003. “The justification for this maritime safety package was -and still is - that, if Europe wants to encourage a modal shift from road to sea, a series of conditions need to be guaranteed,” states Chairman of the European Parliament transport and tourism committee Paolo Costa (ALDE, Italy) in a communiqué sent to EUROPE.
The package, proposed by the European Commission in 2005, seeks to provide a better framework for the transport of dangerous materials, and the training of crews, ensuring independent investigations of accidents and providing appropriate protection for passengers in the event of accidents. These aims have almost been achieved, with the exception of the last, which leads Costa to say, on behalf of the transport committee, that despite the progress made, “the European Union looks still to be at a crossroad”. “It has a historical opportunity to significantly improve maritime safety. However, some actors are still trying to maintain the status quo,” he rails. Most of the contentious points relate to the draft regulation on maritime passenger transporters' liability in the event of accidents. The aim of this text is to harmonise compensation for victims of maritime accidents on the basis of the 2002 Athens Convention, which raises financial liability ceilings. In reaching political agreement on this issue in November 2007, the Council severely limited its scope, restricting it only to Class A vessels (passenger vessels sailing on the high seas) and granting vessels that sail within a single country a four-year transition period (see EUROPE 9555). “Until now, this liability has been fixed at different levels in member states according to their national legislation or the international commitments generally protecting only international passengers on board large ships,” Costa says, before pointing out that the proposal seeks not only to “remove those national differences,” but also to “extend this protection to all ship passengers in the Union, both in international and domestic waters”. “While both legislative institutions agree that a suitable regulation must be negotiated, the discussions remain blocked. Parliament continues to have strong concerns that Council is seeking to limit and delay the regulation,” Costa says. “Parliament maintains that passengers by sea must have the certainty that they will be protected in the event of accidents on board any kind of ship, international or national, small or large,” he stresses. “A distinction between passengers on international lines, who are mainly tourists, and passengers on domestic maritime transport services, would be neither accepted nor understood by European citizens,” he argues, stating that the Parliament is particularly concerned that the broad scope of the future regulation should include “all domestic carriage by sea”. As the latest discussions on the civil liability of ship owners has shown, some member states (Germany, United Kingdom, Italy) and the transport industry would prefer the scope of European legislation to be limited. This is all the more surprising since, in coming to a joint position in the spring, the Council decided that there should be no difference in liability rate at both international and national levels, Costa points out.
Another bone of contention which has to be settled in conciliation relates to the date when the regulation comes into effect. The Council common position provides for the regulation to be applied from the time when the whole EU belongs to the Athens Convention. The EP wants a precise date (there has been talk of the end of 2010), especially since the Athens Convention has still not come into force. “It is now time for the European maritime industry to catch up and offer the same rights to passengers as they already enjoy in other modes of transport. This is the choice, between ambition and reticence, which the European Union faces,” says Costa. All the other points seem to have been resolved, apart from the issue of a compensation fund for ports as proposed by Parliament in the report by Dirk Sterckx (ALDE, Belgium) on the vessels monitoring system. (A.By./transl.rt)