charges. Article 12 regulates the port service charges which are divided into three
parts. The first deals with charges emanating from a service provider who operates
under a public service obligation. The provision states in part as follows:
The charges for the services provided by an internal operator under a public service
obligation, the charges for pilotage services that are not exposed to effective competition
and the charges levied by providers of port services, referred to in point (b) of Article 6(1),
shall be set in a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory way, and shall be proportionate to the cost of the service provided.
36
Looking at the words “internal operator” and “public service obligation”, in the
above provision, it must be observed that they fall within the rules in Articles 6 and
7. In the operations of a port there are some services such as pilotage which must be
executed. In some ports, this service is provided by a private contractor; in others, by
a governmental operator. Regardless of whether it is a public or private operator,
both fall under a public obligation and must be executed when the service is
requested or if pilotage is compulsory. Another such obligation is with regard to
assistance with hawsers during docking. It is provided in the Article that any opening
for the provision of such service is excluded from competition, which in terms of
ordinary EU regulation is rather unusual. In the second paragraph there is a reference
to a further opening for port service charges being integrated into other payments,
such as port infrastructure charges. But as stated in the paragraph, it must be in a
transparent, objective and non-discriminatory way.
In Article 13, regarding port infrastructure charges the present author finds
paragraph three of importance for the rest of this study. It states as follows:
In order to contribute to an efficient infrastructure charging system, the structure and the
level of port infrastructure charges shall be determined according to the port’s own commercial strategy and investment plans, and shall comply with competition rules. Where
relevant, such charges shall also respect the general requirements set within the framework
of the general ports policy of the Member State concerned.
37
It is interesting that the ports own commercial strategy and investment plans are
giving room when setting the charges in addition to compliance with competition
rules. It gives port operators some room for deciding on charges. What might be
understood from the regulations, is that a port is free to set charges for different
activities performed for services provided to ship operators. It appears whatever the
ports in the VINNOVA project are charging follows a typical format which has been
discussed earlier. What remains to be considered is the manner in which port
authorities and port operators can act to reduce emissions from vessels and traffic
to and from the port area.
36 See article 12 paragraph 1 REGULATION (EU) 2017/352.
37 See article 13 paragraph 3 REGULATION (EU) 2017/352.
Environmental Challenge in Port Development: The Legal Perspective in. . .
447
parts. The first deals with charges emanating from a service provider who operates
under a public service obligation. The provision states in part as follows:
The charges for the services provided by an internal operator under a public service
obligation, the charges for pilotage services that are not exposed to effective competition
and the charges levied by providers of port services, referred to in point (b) of Article 6(1),
shall be set in a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory way, and shall be proportionate to the cost of the service provided.
36
Looking at the words “internal operator” and “public service obligation”, in the
above provision, it must be observed that they fall within the rules in Articles 6 and
7. In the operations of a port there are some services such as pilotage which must be
executed. In some ports, this service is provided by a private contractor; in others, by
a governmental operator. Regardless of whether it is a public or private operator,
both fall under a public obligation and must be executed when the service is
requested or if pilotage is compulsory. Another such obligation is with regard to
assistance with hawsers during docking. It is provided in the Article that any opening
for the provision of such service is excluded from competition, which in terms of
ordinary EU regulation is rather unusual. In the second paragraph there is a reference
to a further opening for port service charges being integrated into other payments,
such as port infrastructure charges. But as stated in the paragraph, it must be in a
transparent, objective and non-discriminatory way.
In Article 13, regarding port infrastructure charges the present author finds
paragraph three of importance for the rest of this study. It states as follows:
In order to contribute to an efficient infrastructure charging system, the structure and the
level of port infrastructure charges shall be determined according to the port’s own commercial strategy and investment plans, and shall comply with competition rules. Where
relevant, such charges shall also respect the general requirements set within the framework
of the general ports policy of the Member State concerned.
37
It is interesting that the ports own commercial strategy and investment plans are
giving room when setting the charges in addition to compliance with competition
rules. It gives port operators some room for deciding on charges. What might be
understood from the regulations, is that a port is free to set charges for different
activities performed for services provided to ship operators. It appears whatever the
ports in the VINNOVA project are charging follows a typical format which has been
discussed earlier. What remains to be considered is the manner in which port
authorities and port operators can act to reduce emissions from vessels and traffic
to and from the port area.
36 See article 12 paragraph 1 REGULATION (EU) 2017/352.
37 See article 13 paragraph 3 REGULATION (EU) 2017/352.
Environmental Challenge in Port Development: The Legal Perspective in. . .
447