52012DC0660

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Report assessing the implementation and the impact of the measures taken according to the Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.           INTRODUCTION

One of the most important elements of maritime safety is Port State Control (PSC) which may be defined as the inspection of foreign ships in other national ports for the purpose of verifying that the competency of the master and officers on board, the condition of a ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international Conventions and that the vessel is manned and operated in compliance with applicable international law.

The EU regime on PSC is based on Directive 2009/16/EC[1], which re-casted and reinforced the previous legislation in this field introduced in 1995. The EU regime is based on the pre-existing structure of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (PMoU). All EU coastal Member States as well as Canada, Russia, Croatia, Iceland and Norway are members of the PMoU. The Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) work closely with the PMoU.

Direcive 2009/16/EC introduced a new inspection regime (NIR) for PSC from 1 January 2011. In addition to the actions taken by the Member States, the Directive has been implemented at EU level through the establishment of a system for reporting of results of PSC inspections (the THETIS database). The THETIS system has been developed by the Commission in close cooperation with EMSA, EMSA operates the THETIS system on behalf of the Commission.

Directive 2009/16/EC provides for several new requirements in the field of PSC as well as for common criteria and harmonised procedures for control of ships and aims at the inspection of all ships, depending on their risk profile, with ships posing a higher risk being inspected more often.

Article 35 provides that the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 30 June 2012, on the implementation of the Directive and in particular on the fulfilment of the overall Community inspection commitment and the commitment by each Member State (Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8). Article 35 also requires the Commission to report on the number of PSC inspectors in each Member State, the number of inspections carried out and whether it is considered necessary by the Commision to propose an amending Directive or further legislation in this area.

2.           METHOD OF EVALUATION

The implementation of the Directive by Member States consists of legal, operational and technical elements:

· Legal implementation is achieved through formal transposition of the Directive and enforcement of the ensuing national legislation.

· Operational implementation is achieved by ensuring that all ships calling at ports and anchorages within the EU are regularly inspected and by following the procedures and requirements of the Directive.

· Technical implementation involves establishing and operating the THETIS database and the necessary computer infrastructure for recording ship call information[2] required by Article 24 of the Directive.

To draft this report, the Commission requested Member States to provide information on the transposition and implementation of the Directive. In addition, the Commission tasked EMSA to carry out a series of inspections in Member States to assist it in assessing implementation of the Directive.

3.           Changes introduced by Directive 2009/16/EC

Directive 2009/16/EC introduced the following key changes into the EU PSC regime:

3.1.        Full inspection coverage

Directive 2009/16/EC provides that all qualifying vessels visiting EU ports are inspected, this departs from the previous requirement (under Directive 95/21/EC as amended) which required that national PSC authorities inspect 25% of the individual ships visiting their ports. Under the NIR targeting is done via an elaborate scheme of individual Ship Risk Profiles (SRPs). Each ship is designated “high risk”, “low risk” or “standard risk”.

The frequency of inspection depends on the SRP:

· “high risk” ships becoming due for periodic inspections every 5-6 months,

· “standard risk” ships every 10-12 months and

· "low risk” ships every 24-36 months.

When a particular ship becomes eligible for inspection (for example in the case of a standard risk ship, 10 months after the last inspection) in accordance with the frequencies set out above, the ship is designated a Priority II status and may be inspected. When the time frame based on the SRP expires (in the case of a standard risk ship, 12 months after the last inspection), it becomes a Priority I ship and must be inspected.

The SRP is established taking into account 7 criteria, these are (i) ship type, (ii) age of ship, (iii) flag (Black, Grey or White list as defined by the PMoU) (iv) recognised organisation, (v) company performance, (vi) number of deficiencies recorded in each inspection involving the ship in the previous 36 months and (vii) the number of detentions in the previous 36 months.

Three types of inspection, “initial”, “more detailed” or “expanded” can be carried out. As a rule, high risk ships undergo an expanded inspection while standard risk and low risk ships undergo an initial or more detailed inspection.

3.2.        Flag State performance

One of the criteria for determining the SRP of a vessel is the performance of the Flag State. Commission Regulation (EU) 801/2010[3] of 13 September 2010 implements Article 10(3) of Directive 2009/16/EC as regards the flag State criteria. Under this system, flag States are classified into black, grey or white lists, on the basis of the total inspections and detentions of ships flying their flag and operating in the PMoU region over a three year period. The classification is updated yearly.

3.3.        Company performance

The company performance parameter (which was not taken into account under the previous inspection regime) is based on the number of inspections, detentions and deficiencies recorded against ships belonging to the same company (responsible for the International Safety Management (ISM) of the ship). Companies may be ranked: “High”, “Medium”, “Low” and “Very low”. Commission Regulation (EU) 802/2010[4] of 13 September 2010 was adopted in order to set out the criteria by which company performance is determined. The operational effectiveness of this Regulation is currently under assessment.

3.4.        Information on actual times of arrival and departure of ships calling at their ports and anchorages

The Directive provides that the THETIS database receives ship call information from the SafeSeaNet system allowing for the planning and programming of PSC inspections. This feature was not provided by the previous inspection database (SIRENAC). SafeSeaNet was established[5] as a centralised European platform for maritime data exchange enabling EU Member States, Norway, and Iceland, to provide and receive information on ships, ship movements, and hazardous cargoes.

The importance of this feature for the new PSC regime is critical as planning for and compliance with their inspection commitment by Member States is based on immediate and complete knowledge of the SRP information of ships calling at their ports.

3.5.        Inspections at anchorages

A further new element introduced by Directive 2009/16/EC is that ships may be inspected at an anchorage where a “ship/port interface” takes place. This requires additional inspection arrangements and resources.

3.6.        Refusal of access

Under Directive 2009/16/EC the refusal of access (banning) rule for multiple detentions has been widened to include grey listed flag States and all ship types. The NIR provides that if a "black listed" flagged ship has been detained more than twice in the preceding 36 months, it will be banned. In the case of a "grey listed" flagged ship, more than two detentions in the previous 24 months will also lead to banning. Under the new PSC arrangements, minimum banning terms are introduced: 3 months for the first ban, 12 months for a second ban and 24 months for a third ban. The third ban can only be lifted if certain conditions are complied with and a re-inspection is carried out during the ban period of 24 months. Any detention following the third ban leads to the ship being permanently banned from any port within the EU.

4.           IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE

4.1.        Legal implementation - Transposition into national legislation

Directive 2009/16/EC came into force on 17 June 2009; Member States had to transpose the Directive into their national legislation by 1 January 2011.

Non-coastal Member States were not obliged to transpose the Directive. Only Slovakia implemented the Directive[6], four Member States (Hungary, Luxemburg, Austria and Czech Republic) formally declared that they would not transpose it.

Among the 23 Member States, only about half notified all their transposition measures roughly on time - i.e. within 3 months of the transposition deadline. The result was that the NIR could not produce its full effects from  1 January 2011. The Commission opened infringement procedures against all Member States not having complied with the transposition deadline and full transposition is now almost achieved.

The Commission services are currently analysing the measures notified for compliance with EU law. In addition, EMSA has begun to carry out further visits to Member States to verify implementation (some 5 visits a year).

4.2.        Transpostion measures, EU legislation

In addition to the Commission Regulations[7] adopted in respect of the flag State performance and company performance criteria of the Ship Risk Profile, Commission Regulation (EU) 428/2010[8] of 20 May 2010 implementing Article 14 of Directive 2009/16/EC on the items to be verified during the course of an expanded inspection was also adopted.

4.3.        Operational implementation

The NIR aims at eliminating substandard shipping by increasing the frequency of inspection of sub-standard ships, while reducing the frequency of inspection of quality ships. This requires an information support system (THETIS) that not only collects and disseminates PSC-related data but also includes a capability to calculate the criteria necessary to guide PSC targeting in Member States from such data. The SafeSeaNet system provides THETIS with all ship arrival and departure information in all EU ports and anchorages.

4.4.        Technical implementation

Prior to 1 January 2011, EMSA organised an awareness campaign to increase familiarity with the new reporting obligations within Member States and with industry.

A technical interface between the two systems (THETIS and SafeSeaNet), allowing for the recording of ship call information in THETIS, was in place by November 2010. THETIS was fully operational on 15 December 2010. Prior to this date, EMSA provided training to THETIS users.

Following the start of THETIS operations (1 January 2011), a helpdesk was set up and is providing support and technical assistance to THETIS users ever since. In 2011, a total of 2331 requests were received with an average “time to close” of 1.3 hours.

During the first trimester of 2011, most Member States completed their national implementation of port call systems. In order to assess the completeness of the ship call information recorded in THETIS in 2011, EMSA carried out a ship call comparison exercise comparing the number of calls recorded in THETIS, in SafeSeaNet and in Lloyd’s List Intelligence (a commercial service provider). The following findings were noted:

· Most Member States completed their national implementation of the THETIS – SafeSeaNet interface during the first trimester of 2011. Therefore from April 2011 onwards, a more consistent performance on transfer of information to THETIS from SafeSeaNet was noted for most Member States;

· Finland completed the national implementation of the THETIS-SafeSeaNet interface in mid-June 2011;

· By the end of 2011, the UK had not yet completed its national implementation of the THETIS–SafeSeaNet interface. Consequently, UK ship call information in THETIS for 2011 is limited only to entries that were inserted manually and does not reflect the real situation.

5.           KEY ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE

This report analyses and evaluates the following issues in more depth.

5.1.        The overall EU inspection commitment

According to Article 5 of Directive 2009/16/EC, each Member State shall comply with its annual inspection commitment by:

(a) inspecting all Priority I ships calling at its ports and anchorages; and

(b) carrying out a number of inspections (Priority I and Priority II) every year, corresponding at least to its share of the total number of inspections to be carried out annually within the EU and the PMoU region.

The number of inspections to be carried out by national authorities (the fair share) is arrived at in accordance with an interim mechanism established by the PMoU. From 1 January 2014 this information will be based entirely on the information in the THETIS database. Table 1 in Annex sets out the inspection share of each PMoU State for 2011.

On the basis of the information in the THETIS database the Commission can conclude that on an overall basis the inspection commitment has been met.

5.2.        Member State’s compliance with the annual inspection commitment and analysis of the implementation of Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2009/16/EC

While Article 5 of Directive 2009/16/EC sets out the inspection commitment, Articles 6, 7 and 8 provide for modalities of compliance for Member States.

5.2.1      Inspection commitment and missed Priority I inspections (Article 6)

Article 6 of the Directive contains provisions applicable to Member States which fail to carry out the inspections required by Article 5(2)(a) (the inspection of all Priority I ships calling at its ports and anchorages). A Member State in this situation will comply with its commitment so long as such missed inspections do not exceed:

(a) 5% of the total number of inspections of Priority I High Risk Ships (HRS) and

(b) 10% for other Priority I ships calling at ports and anchorages.

In 2011, 12[9] (out of 22) EU Member States[10] were in this situation. Table 2 sets out the commitment and the number of inspections carried out by Member States to which Article 6 applies.

As a preliminary observation the Commission notes that while the overall inspection commitment has been achieved, a number of implementation problems appear to exist in some Member States which need to be addressed. The number of missed Priority I inspections in some Member States gives rise to particular concern.

5.2.2      The Total number of Priority I calls exceeds the Member State's inspection share (Article 7.1)

Article 7(1) of the Directive relates to so called “over-burdened” Member States, where the number of Priority I calls exceeds the inspection share. In 2011, 5[11] EU Member States were in this situation. In this case the Article provides that a Member State is regarded as complying with its commitment if:

(a) the number of Priority I inspections carried out by that Member State corresponds at least to the inspection share, and;

(b) the Member State does not miss more than 30 % of the total number of Priority I ships calling at its ports and anchorages.

Table 3 sets out the commitment and the number of inspections carried out by these "over-burdened" Member States. In this regard the Commission notes again the number of missed Priority I inspections.

5.2.3      The total number of Priority I and Priority II calls is less than the Member State’s inspection share (Article 7.2)

Article 7(2) relates to so-called “under-burdened” Member States, where the total number of Priority I and Priority II calls is less than the inspection share. In 2011, 5[12] EU Member States were in this situation. In this case the Member State shall be regarded as complying with its commitment when:

(a) it inspects all Priority I ships, and

(b) it inspects at least 85% of Priority II ships.

Table 4 sets out the commitment and the number of inspections carried out by these "under-burdened" Member States. In this regard the Commission notes that these Member States carried out the required commitment of Priority I inspections and that almost all undertook the required number of Priority II inspections.

As regards the missed Priority I inspections identified above, the Commission/EMSA will work with the Member States concerned to analyse the reasons for these problems taking into account the adaptation to the NIR. Each Member State must carry out the number of inspections assigned to it, otherwise the principle of the fair share is jeopardised.

5.2.4      Postponement of inspections and exceptional circumstances (Article 8)

Article 8(1) provides that Member States are allowed to postpone the performance of a Priority I inspection either to the next arrival of the ship in the same Member State (provided that the call is within 15 days and that the ship does not call at any other port in the EU) or to another EU port (provided that the call is within 15 days, and that the State where the next port is located has agreed to perform the inspection).

In 2011, 190 such requests were recorded in THETIS by 18 Member States. 153 (80.5%) of these requests were accepted by the receiving Member States and the inspection completed.

In addition, Article 8(2) provides for exceptional circumstances where a missed Priority I inspections can be justified. These circumstances occur when, in the judgement of the competent authority, the conduct of the inspection would create a risk to the safety of inspectors, the ship, the crew, the port and the marine environment, and when the ship call takes place only during night time.

Of the 1614 justified missed Priority I inspections recorded in THETIS in 2011 by PMoU Member States, 121 (7.5%) were attributed to risk, 582 (36%) were related to night time ship calls, 799 (49.5%) were attributed to short duration calls at an anchorage and 112 (7.0%) to “technical incorrectness”. The “technical incorrectness” was introduced in the initial phase of THETIS operation for problems related to the phasing in of the system and/or other not established reasons. This option no longer exists.

5.3.        The number and type of Inspections carried out

Table 5 provides a graphical representation of the trends on the types of inspections (Initial – More detailed – Expanded) in the PMoU region over the period 2009-2011. The higher number of expanded inspections suggests that more in depth controls are carried out under the NIR.

5.4.        The number of PSC Inspectors in each Member State

Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to maintain appropriate competent authorities with the requisite number of qualified inspectors for the inspection of ships. Table 6 shows the number of PSC inspectors in each Member State. The figures vary between Member States as not all are full time equivalent posts. The Commission notes that in general, Member States maintain an appropriate number of inspectors to carry out the inspections required.

5.5.        Refusal of access

During 2011, 18 refusal of access orders were imposed by EU Member States. Out of the 18, 16 were imposed for multiple detentions, 1 for failure to call at indicated repair yards, and 1 due to jumping detention.[13]

5.6.        Inspections at anchorages

Directive 2009/16/EC provides that a ship may be inspected at an anchorage within the port jurisdiction. Table 7 in Annex provides information regarding the implementation of this requirement in 2011. Of particular concern in certain States is a high level of missed Priority I inspections at anchorages. This issue will have to be clarified with Member States.

5.7.        Problems/issues raised by Member States

As part of its evaluation the Commission sent a questionnaire to Member States in which it invited national authorities to indicate shortcomings or possible improvements in the Directive. Several Member States availed of this possibility.

The main points raised were:

· The Directive allows for Priority I inspections to be postponed in exceptional circumstances; this possibility does not exist for Priority II inspections which are not mandatory. However if a Member State is "under burdened" within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Directive it has (in effect) to treat Priority II inspections as mandatory. Several Member States request that the possibility of postponing inspections be applied also to "mandatory" Priority II inspections.

· Article 8(3)(b) allows an inspection at an anchorage to be missed if the visit of the ship is "too short". Member States requested that this possibility be extended to ports.

· Article 15 of Directive 2002/59/EC allows Member States to exempt scheduled services performed between ports located on their territory from the requirement to notify dangerous or polluting goods carried on board, Member States suggested that this exemption should be extended to PSC.

· Member States indicated that the requirements of Directives 2002/59/EC and 2009/20/EC on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims are not included within THETIS and that this should be taken into account.

· In the situation where the priority status of vessels changes while it is in the port Member States proposed THETIS to warn the State concerned and the State should have a period of grace in order that this missed inspection not be counted against it.

· Annex III of the Directive includes a list of information to be provided in the notification of the arrival of a ship. Member States proposed that requirement (f) "date of last expanded inspection in the Paris MOU region" to be deleted as this information is already included in THETIS.

The Commission is currently examining the problems identified during implementation as well as issues highlighted by Member States and whether amendments to Directive 2009/16/EC are required. In particular, the Commission (with EMSA) will look at whether these are statistical anomalies related to the first year of implementation or are inherent to the system and whether they will impact on the same Member States each year.

6.           CONCLUSIONS

6.1.        The outcome of the implementing actions

The implementation of the Directive has required work and substantial financial resources from the Member State and at EU level. As a result of this work, the Directive was largely implemented early in 2011. The general impression of the Commission is that the Directive is being substantially implemented. Any legal, technical and operational shortcomings identified will be addressed by the Commission in due course.

6.2.        Impact on maritime safety, efficiency of maritime transport and pollution prevention

The NIR establishes full inspection coverage on ships visiting EU ports and anchorages and a more risk-based system of targeting ships for inspection while real-time ship call information provides improved capabilities for decision making on the ships to be inspected.

On an overall basis the inspection commitment for the EU Member States was reached. In 2011 as compared with previous years the total number of inspections to be carried out decreased. As a result, higher quality inspections were carried out, concentrated on substandard ships. This means that PSC resources are concentrated on inspecting poorer quality vessels and that the inspctions carried out are more in-depth.

6.3.        Future developments

As previouly mentioned, in the light of the issues identified during implementation and communicated to the Commission by Member States the Commission is currently evaluating whether changes to the Directive are necessary.

In the coming years it is expected that the EU PSC regime will adapt to future requirements which may arise inter alia from international conventions as these enter into force and become relevant instruments for the purposes of Directive 2009/16/EC.

The forthcoming entry into force of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006) and the related Directive 2009/13/EC[14] will have to be supported by THETIS. A Commission proposal to modify Directive 2009/16/EC in this regard is currently being discussed in the European Parliament and the Council[15].

In addition, with the entry into force of the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM 2004) it is expected that enforcement will be carried out in the context of Directive 2009/16/EC and THETIS.

Annex

Tables referred to in the report*

Since the Directive refers to the PMoU region details relating to non-EU States are included in this tables as appropriate.

Table 1 – PMoU Member States inspection commitments

|| 2011 Total ship calls in THETIS || 2011 THETIS Individual ships 2011 || 2011 Ratio || 2011 Commitment according Art5.2b

Belgium || 23233 || 5255 || 6.30% || 1168

Bulgaria || 2909 || 1277 || 1.69% || 313

Canada || 913 || 872 || 3.48% || 645

Croatia || 1927 || 624 || 1.10% || 203

Cyprus || 2410 || 800 || 1.20% || 223

Denmark || 8387 || 2053 || 3.18% || 588

Estonia || 5096 || 1507 || 1.77% || 328

Finland || 12727 || 1170 || 1.75% || 324

France || 27654 || 5447 || 7.04% || 1305

Germany || 27503 || 4941 || 6.35% || 1177

Greece || 20314 || 3295 || 3.18% || 590

Iceland || 1935 || 322 || 0.31% || 58

Ireland || 9528 || 1139 || 1.45% || 268

Italy || 31810 || 5049 || 6.49% || 1203

Latvia || 7149 || 1965 || 2.32% || 430

Lithuania || 4080 || 1605 || 1.87% || 347

Malta || 2607 || 819 || 1.80% || 333

Netherlands || 42686 || 7235 || 8.24% || 1527

Norway || 14391 || 1514 || 3.08% || 570

Poland || 11034 || 2380 || 2.86% || 531

Portugal || 3683 || 1536 || 3.10% || 574

Romania || 4087 || 1703 || 2.32% || 430

Russian Federation || 16728 || 3403 || 3.34% || 618

Slovenia || 1417 || 612 || 0.88% || 163

Spain || 31865 || 6234 || 10.58% || 1960

Sweden || 24680 || 2567 || 3.28% || 608

United Kingdom || 4266 || 2231 || 11.04% || 2046

Total || 345019 || 67555 || 100% || 18530

*(Source all tables EMSA)

Table 2 Commitment and inspections in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2009/16/EC

|| 2011 Commitment || Calls PI || PI inspected || Calls PII || PII inspected || PI+PII inspected ||

Belgium || 1168 || 521 || 475 || 1082 || 496 || 971 ||

Bulgaria || 313 || 290 || 273 || 310 || 255 || 528 ||

Cyprus || 223 || 207 || 52 || 232 || 73 || 125 ||

Finland || 324 || 94 || 78 || 527 || 238 || 316 ||

Germany || 1177 || 559 || 517 || 964 || 887 || 1404 ||

Iceland || 58 || 22 || 19 || 55 || 43 || 62 ||

Malta || 333 || 194 || 185 || 303 || 45 || 230 ||

Netherlands || 1527 || 1456 || 1026 || 1964 || 557 || 1583 ||

Norway || 570 || 374 || 234 || 811 || 360 || 594 ||

Portugal || 574 || 263 || 239 || 397 || 206 || 445 ||

Romania || 430 || 374 || 339 || 467 || 437 || 776 ||

Slovenia || 163 || 98 || 97 || 149 || 143 || 240 ||

Sweden || 608 || 166 || 130 || 650 || 226 || 356 ||

United Kingdom || 2046 || 1634 || 765 || 1773 || 776 || 1541 ||

Totals || 9514 || 6252 || 4429 || 9684 || 4742 || 9171 ||

Table 3 Commitment and inspections in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/16/EC

|| 2011 Commitment || Calls PI || PI inspected || Calls PII || PII inspected || PI+PII inspected ||

France || 1305 || 1314 || 492 || 2300 || 733 || 1225 ||

Greece || 590 || 1469 || 656 || 2836 || 334 || 990 ||

Ireland || 268 || 562 || 81 || 475 || 153 || 234 ||

Italy || 1203 || 1464 || 1084 || 3440 || 622 || 1706 ||

Spain || 1960 || 2513 || 1216 || 3537 || 511 || 1727 ||

Totals || 5326 || 7322 || 3529 || 12588 || 2353 || 5882 ||

Table 4 Commitment and inspections in accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 2009/16/EC

|| 2011 Commitment || Calls PI || PI inspected || Calls PII || PII inspected || PI+PII inspected ||

Denmark || 588 || 196 || 173 || 320 || 209 || 382 ||

Estonia || 328 || 68 || 65 || 134 || 120 || 185 ||

Latvia || 430 || 71 || 66 || 187 || 180 || 246 ||

Lithuania || 347 || 66 || 62 || 125 || 120 || 182 ||

Poland || 531 || 156 || 139 || 324 || 293 || 432 ||

Totals || 2224 || 557 || 505 || 1090 || 713 || 1427 ||

Table 5 Overall trend of inspections and changes in the types of inspections in the PMoU region

Table 6 – Number of PSC inspectors in each State

|| Number of PSC inspectors

Belgium || 9

Bulgaria || 14

Cyprus || 11

Denmark || 27

Estonia || 9

Finland || 23

France || 84

Germany || 40

Greece || 51

Iceland || 2

Ireland || 22

Italy || 111

Latvia || 9

Lithuania || 12

Malta || 3

Netherlands || 29

Norway || 79

Poland || 16

Portugal || 11

Romania || 13

Slovenia || 4

Spain || 96

Sweden || 44

UK || 113

Total || 832

Table 7 - Calls and inspections at anchorages

|| Total calls || Calls at anchorage || Inspections at anchorage || PI calls at anchorage || PI inspections at anchorages || PI detentions at anchorage

Belgium || 18649 || - || || - || - || -

Bulgaria || 2633 || 283 || 62 || 18 || 13 || -

Cyprus || 2304 || 147 || 3 || 25 || - ||

Denmark || 8920 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || -

Estonia || 3754 || - || || - || - || -

Finland || 18229 || 17 || 1 || 1 || - || -

France || 29204 || 148 || 10 || 14 || - || -

Germany || 23330 || - || || - || - || -

Greece || 18080 || 2446 || 210 || 294 || 47 || -

Iceland || 1567 || 3 || || - || - || -

Ireland || 7450 || 5 || || - || - || -

Italy || 73290 || 15541 || 421 || 5682 || 53 || -

Latvia || 5318 || - || || - || - || -

Lithuania || 3439 || 22 || || - || - || -

Malta || 2942 || - || || - || - || -

Netherlands || 47686 || 382 || 17 || 26 || 2 || -

Norway || 14201 || 130 || 82 || 12 || 11 || -

Poland || 8570 || 294 || 23 || 3 || 1 || -

Portugal || 3189 || 7 || 4 || 3 || 1 || -

Romania || 3886 || 829 || 113 || 15 || 4 || -

Slovenia || 1248 || 22 || 11 || - || - || -

Spain || 38490 || 1916 || 113 || 363 || 29 || 1

Sweden || 30168 || 2 || || - || - || -

U.K. || 3851 || 245 || 36 || 182 || 13 || -

[1]               Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control (Recast) (OJ L 136, 28.05.2009, p 57)

[2]               Article 24(2) of Directive 2009/16/EC provides that Member States shall ensure that port call information is transferred within a reasonable time to the THETIS database by means of the Community maritime information exchange system ‘SafeSeaNet’ referred to in Article 3(s) of Directive 2002/59/EC in order to allow the PSC authority to select ships for inspection.

[3]               OJ L 241 of 14.09.2010, p.1

[4]               OJ L 241 of 14.09.2010, p.4

[5]               By Directive 2002/59/EC of 27.06.2002, as amended

[6]               Although Slovakia has transposed the Directive, since it does not have any maritime ports there is no implementation information. This report therefore refers to implementation by the 22 coastal EU Member States and/or (where appropriate) to the 27 PMoU States.

[7]               Regulations (EU) 801/2010 and 802/2010

[8]               OJ L125 of 21.05.2010, p.2

[9]               Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

[10]             It also applies to Croatia, Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation

[11]             France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain

[12]             Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

[13]             Article 21(4) of the Directive

[14]             OJ L124 of 20.05.2009, p.30

[15]             COM(2012)129 of 23.3.2012.