Current MSW 2010/65/EU policy issues

on .

Some relevant policy developments are identified


  1. As of 1 May 2014, Ms Magdalena Kopczynska has taken up a new responsibility in DG MOVE: Director for innovative and sustainable transport; - leaving her job as DG MOVE Head of Maritime Affairs and Logistics Unit.
  2. On 7 May, during the Informal Transport Council, the EU Ministers of Transport agreed on the Athens Declaration -“Mid-Term Review of the EU’s Maritime Transport Policy until 2018 and Outlook to 2020” click on also stating that the Eu Ministers of Transport:
    "20. URGE the Commission and the Member States to continue work on further digitalisation and simplification of administrative and operational procedures and the consequent reduction of administrative burden for the facilitation of maritime traffic, especially through the full and swift implementation of the Blue Belt including e-Manifest, the related e-Maritime services, and the development and deployment of national single windows in accordance with Directive 2010/65/EU, taking also into account the relevant IMO developments, in order to set up a European maritime transport space without barriers and to improve competitiveness; "
  3.  An external study on article 15 of Directive 2010/65/EU - commissioned by the EC - has been released, also indicating that AnNa products should preferably be made available for all countries and the procedures applied in the eMS leave room for improvement:
  4. The EC has articulated an opinion on the (to be revised)  SafeSeaNet Interface and Functionalities and Control Document (IFCD) and relevant article of Directive 2010/65/EU in a document concerning the 21st working group on Safe Sea Net, held on 8 May 2014 in Lisbon. See the attached document - nr 4 in yellow. It is not unlikely that the opinion of some EU Member States differs from the EC opinion: 

"Some questions were raised regarding the inclusion of the “National Single Window” role and the associated access rights in the IFCD. The Commission, was consulted on this issue and provided the following clarification:

 The purpose and spirit of Directive 2010/65/EU is to interlink both systems (SSN and NSW) and to have in the end an interoperable SSN-NSW system (not alternative point-to-point systems). This is clear from Article 5.3:

 “(...) for the good functioning of the single window (...) the electronic systems referred to in paragraph 1 [SSN, Customs or other electronic systems] must be interoperable, accessible and compatible with the SafeSeaNet system established in accordance with Directive 2002/59/EC (...)”.

 The architecture of SSN is to cater for electronic messages exchanged in accordance with this Directive [VTMIS Directive] and relevant Community legislation [in this case Directive 2010/65/EU] shall be distributed through SafeSeaNet. To this end MS shall develop and maintain the necessary interfaces for automatic transmission of data by electronic means to the SafeSeaNet(Annex III to the VTMIS Directive).

 In Directive 2010/65/EU there are three categories of exchange:

 1) Those that shall be exchanged using SSN;
2) Those which shall be exchanged via SSN, if required by a Member State; and 
3) Those that may not be shared (information required by national legislation for national purpose).

 This does not, however, mean that Member States can establish direct connections between NSWs of the different Member States. This is not the intent of the legislation which requires interoperability between the NSW and SSN. It would neither contribute to the reporting once principle established in Directive 2010/65/EU and therefore the good functioning of the NSW.

 The Union maritime information and exchange system, SSN, should be the sole system for the exchange of information on maritime traffic and transport. The establishment of parallel or bilateral exchange channels would lead to costly non- optimised technical developments which are incompatible with the requirements and the overall transport and maritime transport policy.

 The inclusion of the aspects related to the interoperability between the NSW and SSN in the IFCD is therefore inherent to this ongoing revision process and conform to the HLSG decision for SSN v.3.

 As regards the NSW and its direct connection to central SSN, depending on the way a Member State decides to establish the NSW, the IFCD should not rule out that the national SSN is an integral part of the NSW and therefore the NSW connects directly to the central SSN.

 In view of this explanation the “National Single Window” role and corresponding access rights are retained in the draft IFCD. "

On 14 May, start between18.30hrs/19.00hrs, AnNa will host a preparatory eMS meeting - supper will be provided for AnNa partners and AnNa EU observer countries. The goal is to possibly develop a concerted Member States input during the eMS meeting of 15 May to assist the 2010/65/EU implementation progress.
Venue: AnNa Project Office - 223, rue de la Loi, Brussels. Please confirm your presence.