Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.





Login
Twitter LinkedIn




Login
  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
Forward Share Print
Dardani Studio Legale

ECJ answers Italian court's questions on marine fuel sulphur limits

Newsletters

30 July 2014

Shipping & Transport Italy

Facts
Decision


The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently issued an interesting decision (C-537/11) regarding marine fuel emissions in response to a preliminary question submitted by the Court of Genoa.

Facts

In July 2008 the Genoa Port Authority found the Panamanian-flagged MSC Orchestra to be burning, within the port, marine fuel with a sulphur content exceeding 1.5% by mass. The port authority subsequently issued an administrative penalty against the captain and owner of the vessel. The penalty order was based on the infringement of Articles 295 and 296 of the Environmental Code (Decree-Law 152/2006). These two articles transpose into Italian law EU Directive 1999/32/EC, as amended by EU Directive 2005/33/EC, concerning the maximum sulphur content allowed in marine fuels, which applied at the time.

The captain and owner appealed the order to the Court of Genoa, claiming that the sulphur limits on marine fuels set out in the Marpol Convention and its Annex VI (contained in the 1997 protocol) – 4.5 % by mass outside the emission control area – applied to the vessel. The Italian court stayed the proceedings in order to refer three questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The three questions concerned the following issues:

  • the impact of Annex VI of the Marpol Convention on Article 4(a) of EU Directive 1999/32/EC, bearing in mind the principles of international law that require international agreements to be implemented and interpreted in good faith;
  • whether the validity of Article 4(a) of EU Directive 1999/32/EC must be assessed in light of Annex VI of the Marpol Convention while observing international law and the pacta sunt servanda principle (ie, that all agreements are binding), including with regard to provisions encompassing customary rules of general international law; and
  • whether a cruise ship satisfies the criterion of 'regular services' (defined in Article 2(3g) of EU Directive 1999/32/EC) and thus falls within the scope of Article 4a(4) of EU Directive 1999/32/EC.

Decision

The ECJ first answered the third question. Article 2(3g) of EU Directive 1999/32/EC defines 'regular service' as:

"a series of passenger ship crossings operated so as to serve traffic between the same two or more ports, or a series of voyages from and to the same port without intermediate calls, either: (i) according a published timetable, or (ii) with crossings so regular or frequently that they constitute a recognisable schedule."

The ECJ ruled that a cruise ship is a passenger ship, as the purpose of the transport is irrelevant. The ECJ also observed that a normal cruise itinerary – such as that of the ship in question – can be considered as operating crossings "between the same two or more ports", as it always involves calling at a minimum of two ports: the port of departure and the port of arrival (even if these two ports coincide). Further, the ECJ stated that even if a cruise ship ends its voyage at the same port from which it departed, this does not alter the rate of sulphur dioxide emitted from the ship.

As for the second question, the ECJ ruled that as the European Union is not a contracting party to the Marpol Convention, it cannot be bound by the convention and the pacta sunt servanda principle therefore did not apply in this case. Further, the ECJ held that the principles derived from the Intertanko decision (C-308/06) cannot be overcome by relying on the principle of cooperation in good faith between the European Union and EU member states (set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union).

Finally, in answering the first question, the ECJ held that EU Directive 1999/32/EC cannot be interpreted in light of the Marpol Convention, as it – in particular, its 1997 protocol – does not bind all EU member states.

As obiter dicta, the ECJ concluded by noting that even if the validity of EU Directive 1999/32/EC could have been assessed in light of the Marpol Convention, the directive is compatible with the aims and objectives of Annex VI of the Marpol Convention, as it sets a lower limit on the maximum sulphur content of marine fuels than the convention.

For further information on this topic please contact Marco Manzone at Dardani Studio Legale by telephone (+39 010 576 1816), fax (+39 010 595 7705) or email (marco.manzone@genoachambers.it). The Dardani Studio Legale website can be accessed at www.dardani.it.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

Forward Share Print

Author

Marco Manzone

Marco Manzone

Register now for your free newsletter

View recent newsletter

More from this firm

  • Exercise of maritime liens on cargo to secure credits for freight and demurrages
  • Supreme Court rules on defence of lack of jurisdiction due to state immunity
  • Supreme Court rules on apportionment of salvage reward among shipowner and cargo interests
  • Immunity of jurisdiction defence rejected in compensation claim
  • Ship sale and purchase transactions and acquisition of business assets: recent developments

More articles

  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • My account
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Terms
  • Cookie policy
Online Media Partners
Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) International Bar Association (IBA) European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) American Bar Association Section of International Law (ABA)

© 1997-2021 Law Business Research

You need to be logged in to make a comment. Log in here.
Many thanks. Your comment has been sent.

Your details



Your comment or question *