Norman Atlantic accident

20 January 2015
E-000687-15
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
Daniela Aiuto (EFDD) , Notis Marias (ECR) , Marco Valli (EFDD) , Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD) , Ignazio Corrao (EFDD) , Rosa D’Amato (EFDD) , Laura Agea (EFDD) , Marco Affronte (EFDD) , Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD) , Tiziana Beghin (EFDD) , Marco Zanni (EFDD) , Dario Tamburrano (EFDD)

On 29 December 2014 the Norman Atlantic ferry (IMO: 9435466) suffered a big fire as a result of which 13 people have died and several more are missing or injured. Two people died during rescue operations after a rope broke. A port state control inspection carried out by Paris MoU (an international organisation) on 19 December 2014 in Patras harbour in Greece found six different deficiencies affecting the ship, including malfunctioning fire doors, missing emergency lights and equipment, faulty lifesaving devices and inadequate documentation. Visemar (the shipowner) alleged that the worst deficiencies had been fixed.

We ask the Commission to clarify:

1. whether inspection procedures and other obligations have regularly been respected in accordance with Directives 2009/16/CE, 2009/15/CE and 2009/21/CE and Regulation (EC) No 391/2009, and whether the provisions concerning safety measures are compatible with current legislation;
2. whether the European Maritime Safety Agency has fulfilled its duty to reduce the risk of maritime accidents, and whether the Commission plans to give the agency more control powers with respect to inspection procedures;
3. whether and how the Commission will cooperate with Member States in the investigation into the accident, and what measures it plans to adopt in order to avoid similar accidents in the future.

Source: European Parliament

Answer given by Ms Bulc on behalf of the Commission

1. A safety investigation(1) of the incident is ongoing. It is too early to conclude how the incident occurred or to what extent the minor deficiencies identified during the port state control inspection(2) in Patras were relevant, as they were not considered to be serious enough to prevent the vessel departing the port. An interim investigation report should be published within 12 months from the incident. The periodic assessments the Commission carries out with the help of EMSA’s(3) fact finding inspections(4) have not revealed any systemic problems with the recognised organisation (RO) undertaking statutory and class tasks for this ship. Italy, as flag State, has to take the measures it deems appropriate to ensure that the ship in question complies with the applicable international rules and regulations. This also implies monitoring/reporting obligation of their authorised EU ROs, which is now subject to pre-infringement proceedings(5). Italy underwent an IMO audit(6) in 2007, and its maritime authorities currently hold a valid quality management certificate(7). 2. EMSA contributes to reducing the risk of maritime accidents(8). The Agency carries out visits to Member States helping the Commission to assess the effective implementation of relevant Union law. There are no plans currently to give the agency more control powers with respect to inspection procedures. 3. The Commission and EMSA are at the disposal of the competent authorities for any assistance. Lessons from this accident need to be taken into account to improve passenger ship safety regulations both at EU and international level. The Commission is currently undertaking a Fitness Check of the EU legislation on passenger ship safety to assess if the current legislative framework is fit for purpose.

(1) Pursuant to Directive 2009/18/EC.
(2) Pursuant to Directive 2009/16/EC.
(3) The European Maritime Safety Agency.
(4) Pursuant to Regulation 391/2009/EC.
(5) Pursuant to Art.9.2 of Directive 2009/15/EC.
(6) Pursuant to Directive 2009/21/EC.
(7) Pursuant to Directive 2009/21/EC.
(8) In accordance with its founding Regulation 1406/2002, as amended.

Source: European Parliament

You may also like...

GreekGermanfrenchitalySpainrussiapoland