Projet de loi modifiant l'article 569 du Code judiciaire, concernant la compétence du tribunal de première instance en matière d'accueil de navires ayant besoin d'assistance.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- CD&V Leterme Ⅱ
- Submission date
- April 5, 2011
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- EC Directive vessel civil procedure maritime safety maritime transport maritime shipping
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
June 1, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Bert Wollants ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will give a brief explanation during the discussions on these bills in the committee.
What is ahead is the transposition of European Directive 2009/17, which came into effect as a result of the disaster with the Prestige. You remember that in 2002 this ship came into trouble off the coast of Galicia and urgently wanted to be picked up in one of the ports there. However, the ship was not allowed anywhere. It was transmitted from port to port, until it broke through the middle after six days, resulting in a severe ecological catastrophe for the coastal regions of Portugal, Galicia, Basque Country and so on.
This design ensures that, in accordance with the rules imposed by the European Union, we can find methods by which, depending on what is the best solution, we can either catch a ship in a port and take it there properly, or forward it to a port outside the territory of that country. This is regulated in this draft. Other ways to prevent such environmental disasters are also covered in the draft.
Furthermore, given that the competence already partially belongs to the provincial governor of West Flanders, this provincial governor is designated as the competent authority in this area. Obviously, the liability can sometimes be partly with the provincial governor, and partly with the federal state, given the fact that some matters are still a federal competence.
In the committee there are questions for clarification. I myself asked the Secretary of State whether it was appropriate to include windmills and natural gas pipelines in the definition of ‘ship’. Mr Veys has joined. He also congratulated the Secretary of State for his expert work, which helped to resolve this as quickly as possible.
Mr Kindermans has asked a number of questions regarding the specific liability scheme. After all, it is not always obvious that a provincial governor or a mayor would bear personal responsibility for this type of matters.
The Secretary of State has expanded and apparently also responded sufficiently, because the committee unanimously adopted both drafts.