The European Commission announced yesterday that it is to bring Malta before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to answer for its failure to respect European Union legislation on port state control of shipping, but the government has said that it is to defend its position on the issue.

The legislation, ironically, was brought into being in 1995 and was significantly strengthened in the wake of the disastrous oil spill wreaked by the Malta-flagged Erika oil tanker.

Malta, however, is the only EU member state to be brought before the European court for failing to adequately transpose the directive.

The European Directive 95/21/EC on Port State Control establishes common criteria for the control of ships by the port state and harmon-ises procedures dealing with the inspection and detention of substandard ships.

The aim of the directive is to reduce substandard shipping practices in member state waters through increased compliance with international and relevant EU legislation on maritime safety, protection of the marine environment and living and working conditions on board ships of all flags.

Malta is being accused of a single non-conformity with the directive dealing with the fact that Malta allows people without qualifications to act as port state inspectors.

Referring to the Malta case yesterday, the Commission explained: “In fact, Maltese law allows non-qualified ‘inspectors’ employed before 1 May 2004 to continue to work as port state control inspectors, while the directive only allows inspection tasks to be performed by persons without the required qualifications if they were employed in the capacity before June 1995.”

Meanwhile, Portugal received a second warning from the Commission yesterday over the fact that the details supplied by the country on how it is to transpose the directive into national law held several inconsistencies. A reasoned opinion is the last step before action is taken at the ECJ, and Malta had received its own reasoned opinion on the issue back in December 2005.

The Competitiveness and Communications Ministry said that the directive imposes the necessity for port state inspectors to be in possession of certain qualifications.

The directive, however, allows unqualified inspectors employed before the adoption of this directive to retain their posts. The government said it interprets this to be a measure designed to ensure that no state is obliged to terminate the engagement of inspectors who do not fulfil the criteria provided for by the directive but who were employed by the competent authority of a member state for port-state control before becoming bound by the same directive. The European Commission is, however, interpreting this aspect literally and unfairly by insisting that only unqualified inspectors employed prior to 19 June 1995 may maintain their port state control responsibilities, the ministry said.

The Maltese government, on the other hand, maintains that inspectors who on the date that the directive became applicable to Malta (1 May 2004) did not meet the criteria laid down in the directive, but were employed with the Malta Maritime Authority may continue to carry out their port state control duties.

This is a reasonable and logical interpretation that transposes the principal objective of the directive correctly, said the ministry, adding that Malta intends to defend its case in all the relevant fora.