(1)

Maritime safety, maritime security, pollution prevention and on-board living and working conditions may be effectively enhanced by means of a drastic reduction of substandard ships in the waters under the jurisdiction of Member States, by strictly applying relevant Conventions, international codes and resolutions.

(2)

While the primary responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with the international standards for safety, security, pollution prevention and on-board living and working conditions lies with the flag State, responsibility for maintenance of the condition of the ship and its equipment after survey to comply with the requirements of the Conventions applicable to the ship lies with the ship company. There has, however, been a serious failure on the part of a number of flag States to implement and enforce those international standards.

(3)

Therefore, as a second line of defence against substandard shipping, the monitoring of compliance with the international standards for safety, security, pollution prevention and on-board living and working conditions should also be ensured by port States, while recognising that port State control inspection is not a survey and the relevant inspection forms are not seaworthiness certificates. A harmonised approach to the effective enforcement of those international standards by coastal Member States of the Union in respect of ships sailing in the waters under their jurisdiction and using their ports should avoid distortions of competition.

(4)

Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) sets out the Union regime on port State control, reformulating and reinforcing the previous Union legislation in this field in force since 1995. The Union regime is based on the pre-existing structure of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (the ‘Paris MOU’), signed in Paris on 26 January 1982.

(5)

As regards the Union Member States, Directive 2009/16/EC effectively brings certain procedures, tools and activities of the Paris MOU within the scope of Union law. By virtue of that Directive, certain decisions taken by the appropriate competent body of the Paris MOU become binding on the Union Member States.

(6)

The Port State Control Committee (‘PSCC’) of the Paris MOU meets annually and during its deliberations decides on certain issues which have legal effects.

(7)

Pursuant to Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the position to be adopted on behalf of the Union in a body set up by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt acts having legal effects, is to be adopted by Council decision, on a proposal from the Commission.

(8)

As the internal rules of the Paris MOU make it difficult to establish a position to be adopted on behalf of the Union in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU in a timely manner for each individual meeting of the PSCC, it is efficient in this case to establish such a position on a multiannual basis, consisting of guiding principles and orientations, together with a framework for its year-to-year specification. At the same time, most of the topics discussed at the individual meetings of the PSCC concern port State control matters and are generally covered by a single Union legal act, namely Directive 2009/16/EC. In the particular circumstances that apply to the Paris MOU, it is therefore possible to establish a general position to be adopted on behalf of the Union for several of those meetings.

(9)

The Union is not a contracting party to the Paris MOU. It is therefore necessary for the Council to authorise the Member States to act in accordance with the position to be adopted on behalf of the Union and express their consent to be bound by the decisions taken by the PSCC.

(10)

The current method for drawing up the white, grey and black list of flag States has proven to have disproportionate and unintended consequences for flag States with small fleets. At the same time, progress on the development of an alternative calculation method has been slow. It is therefore important to rapidly develop an alternative method in order to ensure fairness.

(11)

Technical discussions and cooperation with third country members of the Paris MOU within the PSCC are of great importance in ensuring the effectiveness and the good functioning of the Paris MOU.

(12)

This decision should cover the period from 2016 to 2019,