This corrigendum does not concern the English version.

The Commission can accept in their entirety the 16 amendments adopted by the Parliament as negotiated during the trialogue meetings in which it fully participated.

The Commission notes that the European Parliament and the Council have not wished to make it mandatory, under this Directive, to establish a system of criminal sanctions for illegal discharges of polluting substances at sea. On this point, the Commission expresses in its statement its regret regarding the ambition levels attained by the future Directive. This apart, the Commission recognises that the result achieved changes neither the aims nor the spirit of its proposal, and it can therefore support it.

The European Parliament adopted the report by Corien WORTMANN-KOOL (EPP-ED, NL) amending the Council's common position. (Please refer to the summary dated 19/01/2005).

In the near future, ship-source discharges of polluting substances committed with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence will be regarded as criminal offences. Parliament voted strongly in favour of an agreement, reached last week at an informal trilogue between Parliament and Council delegations on the common position regarding pollution from ships. Until now, Council had been reluctant to accept such Parliament's proposals, arguing that criminal sanctions were a competence of the Member States.

All the 13 compromise amendments were adopted following the agreement with Council. Criminal sanctions could, in the most serious cases, even include imprisonment or heavy fines. The new directive will be supplemented by detailed rules on criminal offences and sanctions in order to strengthen the legal framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. Under the new law, all those responsible in the pollution chain could be prosecuted, not only captain and crew.

Another success for the EP Delegation was the agreement on the setting up of a European coastguard, opposed by some Member States. The Commission will now undertake a feasibility study on the coastguard dedicated to pollution prevention and response, making clear the costs and benefits. This study should be followed by a proposal on a coastguard by 2006. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) will assist.

Another compromise amendment was adopted setting out a number of tasks for the EMSA regarding this directive. It is intended that the EMSA would work with the Member States in developing technical solutions and providing technical assistance in relation to this directive, such as tracing discharges by satellite monitoring and surveillance. The agency should assist the Commission in implementation, including visits to Member States if appropriate.

Lastly, every three years, Member States shall transmit a report to the Commission on the application of this Directive by the competent authorities. In this report, the Commission shall assess, inter alia, the desirability of revising or extending the scope of this Directive. It shall also describe the evolution of relevant case-law in the Member States and shall consider the possibility of creating a public database containing such relevant case-law.

The European Parliament adopted the report by Corien WORTMANN-KOOL (EPP-ED, NL) amending the Council's common position. (Please refer to the summary dated 19/01/2005).

In the near future, ship-source discharges of polluting substances committed with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence will be regarded as criminal offences. Parliament voted strongly in favour of an agreement, reached last week at an informal trilogue between Parliament and Council delegations on the common position regarding pollution from ships. Until now, Council had been reluctant to accept such Parliament's proposals, arguing that criminal sanctions were a competence of the Member States.

All the 13 compromise amendments were adopted following the agreement with Council. Criminal sanctions could, in the most serious cases, even include imprisonment or heavy fines. The new directive will be supplemented by detailed rules on criminal offences and sanctions in order to strengthen the legal framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution. Under the new law, all those responsible in the pollution chain could be prosecuted, not only captain and crew.

Another success for the EP Delegation was the agreement on the setting up of a European coastguard, opposed by some Member States. The Commission will now undertake a feasibility study on the coastguard dedicated to pollution prevention and response, making clear the costs and benefits. This study should be followed by a proposal on a coastguard by 2006. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) will assist.

Another compromise amendment was adopted setting out a number of tasks for the EMSA regarding this directive. It is intended that the EMSA would work with the Member States in developing technical solutions and providing technical assistance in relation to this directive, such as tracing discharges by satellite monitoring and surveillance. The agency should assist the Commission in implementation, including visits to Member States if appropriate.

Lastly, every three years, Member States shall transmit a report to the Commission on the application of this Directive by the competent authorities. In this report, the Commission shall assess, inter alia, the desirability of revising or extending the scope of this Directive. It shall also describe the evolution of relevant case-law in the Member States and shall consider the possibility of creating a public database containing such relevant case-law.

The committee adopted the report by Corien WORTMANN-KOOL (EPP-ED, NL) amending the Council's common position under the 2nd reading:

- the wording of the original Commission proposal relating to the purpose of the directive, which had been deleted by the Council, should be reinstated (incorporation of international standards into Community law and provision for "criminal sanctions");

- whereas the Council text stated that ship-source discharges of polluting substances should be regarded as "infringements" if committed with intent, recklessly or by "serious" negligence, the committee went back to some of the wording in parts of the Commission proposal, thereby reflecting Parliament's position at 1st reading. It therefore proposed that such discharges should be regarded as "criminal offences" if committed with intent, recklessly or by "gross" negligence;

- the Commission text (as amended by Parliament at 1st reading) setting out guidelines for imposing sanctions should be reinstated. MEPs argued that the text made it clear that anyone in the logistical chain (i.e. not only the shipowner but also the owner of the cargo, the classification society and even the competent port authority) could be prosecuted;

- the role of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) should be strengthened: it should assist the Member States in tracing illegal discharges by providing satellite monitoring and surveillance and should carry out audits in the Member States;

- finally, the Commission should compile a feasibility study on setting up a European coastguard service.

The Commission notes that the Council did not wish to make it mandatory to establish a system of criminal sanctions for illegal discharges of polluting substances at sea. On this point, the Commission expressed in its statement to the Transport Council its regret regarding the ambitions achieved by the common position. This apart, the Commission recognises that the common position changes neither the aims nor the spirit of the proposal, and it can therefore support it. This support is justified more particularly in order to see the co-decision procedure continue and to enable this Directive to be adopted as soon as possible.

The Council adopted its common position with the Greek and Maltese delegations voting against the draft Directive. The Council considers that the transposition of the MARPOL regime regarding ship-source pollution into Community law will ensure a stricter and more harmonised application and enforcement in the Member States. It shares the view that it is necessary to establish that all discharges of polluting substances are considered infringements if they are committed with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence.

Following the principle of respecting the MARPOL provisions, exceptions are provided in the case when a discharge is made in order to save lives or the ship itself. The exception under the MARPOL Convention concerning the owner and the master in cases of discharges resulting from accidents applies in international sea areas and the exclusive economic or equivalent zone of Member States. In these cases, as a logical consequence of the MARPOL provisions, the crew is protected when acting under the master's responsibility. In Member States' internal waters and territorial sea, on the other hand, the Council deems it appropriate to exercise the Community's rights under Article 211(4) of UNCLOS, in order to enhance the protection of the coastline, and to lift the exception provided for discharges resulting from accidents.

The Council considers that sanctions against infringements of ship-source pollution have to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and may include criminal or administrative sanctions. It also agrees that these sanctions have to apply to any person found responsible for marine pollution, i.e. shall cover the whole chain of responsibility. Whilst the infringements are defined in the Directive, the Council is of the view that the minimum binding rules for criminal penalties, liability and jurisdiction should be established in the parallel Framework Decision proposed by the Commission and examined by the Council in its "Justice and Home Affairs" formation.

The Council welcomes the streamlining of strict enforcement measures against ships calling at any port of a Member State in line with the relevant international guidelines. It endorses the enhanced information sharing on suspected discharges between Member States and third countries, either as port or as flag States, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the appropriate measures.

Finally, the Council is of the view that all possibilities under the UNCLOS Convention to protect the coastline and the resources of this area shall be used, including enforcement measures by coastal States with respect to ships in transit navigating in the territorial sea or exclusive economic or equivalent zone in accordance with Article 220(6) of UNCLOS, when there is clear objective evidence of a discharge causing major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline or any resources of the territorial sea or the exclusive economic or equivalent zone. In this case, the Member State concerned shall submit the matter to its competent authorities with a view to instituting proceedings, including detention of the ship, in accordance with its national law.

More specifically, concerning the amendments made by the Council, the common position states that considering the fact that the Council follows a considerably different approach to this draft Directive compared to the originally proposed text, it was not possible to reflect the major part of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in first reading in the common position.

- The concept of setting up a European coastguard was not part of the original Commission proposal. Whilst the Council considers it important to address means enhancing the protection of the European coastline, it does not want to prejudge any Commission initiative to that effect, possibly leading to a separate legislative act, which the Council will consider with interest.

- Although the Council shares the EP's concerns with regard to the implementation of Community legislation on maritime safety, it feels that the enforcement of existing legislative acts, like Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities, falls into the competence of the Member States and its monitoring is one of the tasks of the Commission under the Treaty.

- As the objective of this Directive is to clearly define discharges of polluting substances from ships as infringements under Community law, the Council is of the opinion that other technical provisions like onboard monitoring equipment or oil registers go beyond the scope of this proposal.

- According to the basic principle of the Council's approach laid out above, the MARPOL provisions for discharges, including the exception concerning the owner and the master in cases of discharges resulting from accidents, apply in international sea areas and the exclusive economic or equivalent zone of Member States. In these cases, the crew is also explicitly excluded when acting under the master's responsibility. In the internal waters and territorial sea of the Member States, on the contrary, this exception is not granted in accordance with the possibilities under Article 211(4) of UNCLOS.

- Concerning the scope of the Directive, the Council considers it appropriate to treat all ships, regardless of their flag, in a certain sea area on an equal footing with a view to avoiding a disadvantageous position for ships sailing under the flag of a Member State.

- While the common position does not include any detailed provision on the nature of penalties given that the minimum rules towards a harmonisation of criminal penalties are subject of the parallel Framework Decision, Article 7 paragraph 2 refers to enforcement measures by coastal States in accordance with UNCLOS 220(6), including the detention of the ship, in the specific cases referred to in this Article.

Furthermore, the common position includes some other smaller modifications and clarifications to the

Commission proposal. On a few points, amendments proposed by the European Parliament were partially or totally integrated with a view to ensuring a consistent legislative text.

The Council adopted its common position with the Greek and Maltese delegations voting against the draft Directive. The Council considers that the transposition of the MARPOL regime regarding ship-source pollution into Community law will ensure a stricter and more harmonised application and enforcement in the Member States. It shares the view that it is necessary to establish that all discharges of polluting substances are considered infringements if they are committed with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence.

Following the principle of respecting the MARPOL provisions, exceptions are provided in the case when a discharge is made in order to save lives or the ship itself. The exception under the MARPOL Convention concerning the owner and the master in cases of discharges resulting from accidents applies in international sea areas and the exclusive economic or equivalent zone of Member States. In these cases, as a logical consequence of the MARPOL provisions, the crew is protected when acting under the master's responsibility. In Member States' internal waters and territorial sea, on the other hand, the Council deems it appropriate to exercise the Community's rights under Article 211(4) of UNCLOS, in order to enhance the protection of the coastline, and to lift the exception provided for discharges resulting from accidents.

The Council considers that sanctions against infringements of ship-source pollution have to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and may include criminal or administrative sanctions. It also agrees that these sanctions have to apply to any person found responsible for marine pollution, i.e. shall cover the whole chain of responsibility. Whilst the infringements are defined in the Directive, the Council is of the view that the minimum binding rules for criminal penalties, liability and jurisdiction should be established in the parallel Framework Decision proposed by the Commission and examined by the Council in its "Justice and Home Affairs" formation.

The Council welcomes the streamlining of strict enforcement measures against ships calling at any port of a Member State in line with the relevant international guidelines. It endorses the enhanced information sharing on suspected discharges between Member States and third countries, either as port or as flag States, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the appropriate measures.

Finally, the Council is of the view that all possibilities under the UNCLOS Convention to protect the coastline and the resources of this area shall be used, including enforcement measures by coastal States with respect to ships in transit navigating in the territorial sea or exclusive economic or equivalent zone in accordance with Article 220(6) of UNCLOS, when there is clear objective evidence of a discharge causing major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline or any resources of the territorial sea or the exclusive economic or equivalent zone. In this case, the Member State concerned shall submit the matter to its competent authorities with a view to instituting proceedings, including detention of the ship, in accordance with its national law.

More specifically, concerning the amendments made by the Council, the common position states that considering the fact that the Council follows a considerably different approach to this draft Directive compared to the originally proposed text, it was not possible to reflect the major part of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in first reading in the common position.

- The concept of setting up a European coastguard was not part of the original Commission proposal. Whilst the Council considers it important to address means enhancing the protection of the European coastline, it does not want to prejudge any Commission initiative to that effect, possibly leading to a separate legislative act, which the Council will consider with interest.

- Although the Council shares the EP's concerns with regard to the implementation of Community legislation on maritime safety, it feels that the enforcement of existing legislative acts, like Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities, falls into the competence of the Member States and its monitoring is one of the tasks of the Commission under the Treaty.

- As the objective of this Directive is to clearly define discharges of polluting substances from ships as infringements under Community law, the Council is of the opinion that other technical provisions like onboard monitoring equipment or oil registers go beyond the scope of this proposal.

- According to the basic principle of the Council's approach laid out above, the MARPOL provisions for discharges, including the exception concerning the owner and the master in cases of discharges resulting from accidents, apply in international sea areas and the exclusive economic or equivalent zone of Member States. In these cases, the crew is also explicitly excluded when acting under the master's responsibility. In the internal waters and territorial sea of the Member States, on the contrary, this exception is not granted in accordance with the possibilities under Article 211(4) of UNCLOS.

- Concerning the scope of the Directive, the Council considers it appropriate to treat all ships, regardless of their flag, in a certain sea area on an equal footing with a view to avoiding a disadvantageous position for ships sailing under the flag of a Member State.

- While the common position does not include any detailed provision on the nature of penalties given that the minimum rules towards a harmonisation of criminal penalties are subject of the parallel Framework Decision, Article 7 paragraph 2 refers to enforcement measures by coastal States in accordance with UNCLOS 220(6), including the detention of the ship, in the specific cases referred to in this Article.

Furthermore, the common position includes some other smaller modifications and clarifications to the

Commission proposal. On a few points, amendments proposed by the European Parliament were partially or totally integrated with a view to ensuring a consistent legislative text.