海洋汙染防治法修正
Amendments to Marine Pollution Legislation
海洋汙染防治法於2023年修正通過，除設置海汙基金、建立吹哨者制度外，也參考了部分國際制度，強化了汙染管理及加重罰則，用以達到維持海洋環境永續性的政策方向，此在修法通過後，已有諸多面向的詳實討論。
而對於營運船舶的船東、傭船人或其他船舶營運人(包含P&I Clubs)而言，主要關切面向仍多在於船舶源污染責任及P&I LOU的運用部分。
1. 責任限制規範並未納入台灣海洋汙染防治法中。
依據此次修法所參考的1992年IOPC公約，以及IMO的1992年CLC公約，其制度設計原是雙層的責任分擔制度所構成。第一層是船東損害賠償及責任，藉由具體規定船東和其保險人的責任限制，為船東及其保險人提供了確定性，同時，在極少數索賠超過船東責任限制的情形，損害賠償請求權人，仍能從本次修正新增的海洋污染防治基金就超過的部分取償，而保障索賠人之權益。不過，本次海洋汙染防治法修正，並未納入責任限制條款，油汙損害船東及其保險人，在新法通過後，仍無法主張責任限制，而與相關公約下的雙層責任制度，在操作上有重大區別。至於相關法令例如海商法，在後續修法中是否可能加入油汙之責任限制，仍待觀察。
2. P&I Clubs的Letter of Undertaking(LOU)仍可作為海洋汙染案件中之擔保。
LOU作為海洋汙染事故中提供損害賠償擔保的方式，被港務單位所接受已然行之有年，這自然是本於海洋汙染事件具有國際性，且船東責任保險幾乎全由國外P&I Clubs承保，以及油汙案件具急迫性所致。本次修正海洋汙染防治法中雖未就擔保方式做規定，但實務上接受P&I Clubs LOU作為擔保方式則未見改變。至於海洋汙染防治法施行細則第23條文義上是對於海洋汙染防治法第三十六條第二項所做的擔保規定，是否可作為所有擔保使用LOU的法源，解釋上似有其侷限性。
另，原本依據海洋污染防治法第三十六條第三項所公告的「船舶污染損害賠償責任保險或擔保之額度」，亦隨著海洋汙染防治法修訂，一併修正內容並變更名稱為「船舶污染責任保險或擔保之額度」，在內容上略有更動。 https://www.oac.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=67&parentpath=0,6&mcustomize=bulletin_view.jsp&dataserno=202309210003&mserno=201906300001
#長立國際法律事務所# #海洋汙染# #海事案件# #海商#
The Marine Pollution Control Act was amended in 2023. In addition to establishing the Marine Pollution Control Fund and introducing a whistleblower mechanism, the amendments draw upon certain international systems to strengthen pollution management and increase penalties, with the policy objective of promoting the sustainability of the marine environment. Since the passage of these amendments, various aspects of the changes have been widely discussed in detail.
For shipowners, charterers, or other vessel operators (including P&I Clubs), the primary concerns continue to focus on liability for ship-source pollution and the use of P&I Letters of Undertaking (LOUs).
1. Limitation of Liability Provisions Were Not Incorporated into Taiwan’s Marine Pollution Control Act
The recent amendments were made with reference to the 1992 IOPC Convention and the International Maritime Organization’s 1992 CLC Convention, both of which are structured around a two-tier liability allocation system. Under this system, the first tier consists of the shipowner’s liability for damages, with explicit limitations placed on the liability of both the shipowner and its insurer. This provides certainty and predictability for shipowners and their insurers. At the same time, in the rare event that claims exceed the liability limit, claimants are able to recover the excess amount from the Marine Pollution Control Fund newly established under the amendments, thereby safeguarding their rights. However, the 2023 amendments to the Marine Pollution Control Act did not incorporate any limitation of liability provisions. As a result, shipowners and their insurers involved in oil pollution damage cases remain unable to invoke limitation of liability under the amended law. This creates a substantial operational difference from the two-tier liability system under the aforementioned international conventions. Whether related legislation, such as the Maritime Act, may introduce oil pollution liability limitation provisions in future amendments remains to be observed.
2. P&I Clubs’ Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) Remain Acceptable as Security in Marine Pollution Cases
The use of Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) issued by P&I Clubs as security for compensation in marine pollution incidents has long been accepted by port authorities. This practice naturally arises from the international nature of marine pollution events, the fact that shipowners’ liability insurance is almost entirely underwritten by foreign P&I Clubs, and the urgent nature of oil pollution cases. Although the recent amendments to the Marine Pollution Control Act do not expressly address the forms of security that may be provided, there has been no change in practice regarding the acceptance of P&I Club LOUs as a means of providing security.
As for Article 23 of the Enforcement Rules of the Marine Pollution Control Act, which appears to provide for security under Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Act, its wording raises questions as to whether it can serve as a sufficient legal basis for the use of LOUs as security in all circumstances. There may be limitations in interpreting it in such an expansive manner.
In addition, the “Amount of the Liability Insurance Coverage or Guarantee for Compensation for Ship-Source Pollution Damage,” which had originally been announced pursuant to Article 36, Paragraph 3 of the Marine Pollution Control Act, was also amended in conjunction with the revisions to the Act. Its title has been changed to “Amount of the Liability Insurance Coverage or Guarantee for Ship-Source Pollution Damage,” with certain adjustments made to its content.
Link:
#Chen Chang & Associates #MarinePollution #MaritimeCases #Maritime
