Five shipping companies sue state for unnecessary repairs
Ships fixed to meet new requirements which were soon cancelled
|
|
Five Finnish shipping companies are demanding compensation from the state after the Finnish Maritime Administration had ordered them to make repairs on their ships, which later proved unnecessary.
The case, which has been brewing for about two years, went to trial at Helsinki District Court on Monday.
The shipping companies had modifications done on nine ships after the authorities had noted in the summer and early autumn of 2003 that the vessels did not meet the requirements of the ice classes to which they had been assigned.
The Finnish Maritime Administration had said that without the changes, the ice classification would be downgraded, which would have led to massive increases in shipping route fees and possible restrictions on navigation in heavy ice conditions.
Just before Christmas in 2003 the administration announced that pursuant to a decision by the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the modifications were unnecessary.
The state changed its mind after it was noted that there had been a translation error in the orders that were written in Finnish and Swedish.
According to the incorrectly translated Finnish orders, the ice reinforcement did not need to reach as high along the hull of the ship as the Swedish and English versions said.
The shipyards say that they were saddled with nearly EUR 800,000 in unnecessary costs when the repairs that they made proved to be unnecessary, and that the mistakes and neglect of the Maritime Administration mean that they are entitled to compensation.
The shipping lines say that mistakes were already made when the ships were built at a German shipyard in the previous decade.
The ships were commissioned to meet the ice classes 1A and 1A Super. The construction took place under the supervision of the Finnish Maritime Administration, which outsourced the supervision to a German company.
The shipping yards feel that the Finnish Maritime Administration neglected to make sure that the ships really met the ice classification level that had been asked for.
The state denies making any mistakes, or that it has any liability. The tasks of the Finnish Maritime Administration do not include confirming that a ship that is built at a shipyard includes the features that were required. The state also notes that the shipping companies themselves have defined and ordered the changes for which they now want to be compensated for.
The Finnish Maritime Administration also does not feel that it has changed its orders on ice reinforcement, and says that it has merely interpreted them and upgraded supervision.
Helsingin Sanomat
