20.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/17

1.

Is the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC (1) to be interpreted by reference to the definition of the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ contained in Article II(4) of the 1969 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties?

2.

In accordance with the definition contained in Article II(4)(c) of the 1969 Convention referred to in Question 1, ‘related interests’ means, inter alia, the well-being of the area concerned, including conservation of living marine resources and of wildlife. Does that provision also apply to the conservation of living resources and wildlife in the exclusive economic zone, or is that provision of the Convention concerned only with conservation of the interests of the coastal area?

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, what meaning is to be ascribed to the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC?

4.

What meaning is to be ascribed to the expression ‘resources of its territorial sea or exclusive economic zone’ as it is used in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC? Are living resources to be taken to mean only exploitable species or does that term also include species associated with or dependent upon exploitable species within the meaning of Article 61(4) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, such as, for example, species of flora and fauna which are used by exploitable species as food?

5.

What definition is to be adopted of the expression ‘causing … [a] threat’ in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC? Is the threat of damage being caused to be determined by reference to the concept of abstract or specific risk or in some other way?

6.

In the assessment of the conditions governing the exercise of power by the coastal State, laid down in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC, must it be assumed that major damage or the threat of major damage is a more serious consequence than significant pollution of the marine environment or the threat of such pollution within the meaning of Article 220(5)? What definition is to be adopted of ‘significant pollution of the marine environment’ and how is account to be taken of such pollution in the assessment of major damage or the threat of major damage?

7.

What factors are to be taken into account in the assessment of whether damage or the threat of damage is major? Is account to be taken, for example, of the duration and geographical extent of the adverse effects that manifest themselves as damage? If so, how are the duration and the extent of the damage to be assessed?

8.

Directive 2005/35/EC is a directive laying down minimum standards and does not prevent Member States from taking more stringent measures against ship-source pollution in conformity with international law (Article 2). Does the possibility of applying more stringent rules apply to Article 7(2) of that directive, which governs the power of the coastal State to take action against a vessel in transit?

9.

May any account be taken of the specific geographical and ecological characteristics and sensitivity of the Baltic Sea Area in the assessment of the conditions governing the exercise of power by the coastal State which are laid down in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of the Directive?

10.

Does ‘clear objective evidence’ within the meaning of Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC include not only evidence that a vessel has committed the infringements to which the aforementioned provisions refer but also evidence of the consequences of the spill? What form of evidence is to be required to show that there is a threat of major damage to the coastline or related interests or to any resources of the territorial sea or of the exclusive economic zone, such as the bird and fish stocks and the marine environment in the area? Does the requirement of clear objective evidence mean, for example, that the assessment of the adverse effects of the oil spillage on the marine environment must always be based on specific surveys and studies relating to the impact of the oil spill that has occurred?