Scope of the right of appeal against a PSC detention and the professional profile of inspectors (EU Directive 2009/16)

An appeal against a PSC detention or refusal of access does not automatically suspend the order. The ship’s right to sail must be assessed separately from its right to appeal.

Article 20 of EU Directive 2009/16 grants a right of appeal and states that an appeal does not suspend the detention or refusal of access. Both provisions apply together.

That arrangement moves the weight of practice. This article follows the structure, and at the end it looks at what the directive places on the person making the decision.

Application timing: This article includes the framework amended by EU 2024/3099. The national transposition deadline is 2027-07-06. As of 2026-09-28, do not assume every port applies the amended procedures identically. For an inspection, detention or appeal, check the port State’s implementing law and competent authority guidance.

Filing an appeal does not automatically suspend the order

The owner or operator of a ship or the owner or operator’s representative in the Member State shall have a right of appeal against any detention or refusal of access by the competent authority. An appeal shall not cause the detention or refusal of access to be suspended.

The owner, operator or their representative in the Member State may appeal detention or refusal of access. Filing alone does not suspend the order, but the decision on the appeal can revoke or amend the order itself. Before departure, confirm the operative order and the authority’s decision.

Revocation or amendment also requires corrections to the record

When, as a result of an appeal or of a request made by the owner or the operator of a ship or his representative, a detention order or a refusal of access order is revoked or amended:

the Member State where the detention order or refusal of access order is issued shall, within 24 hours of such a decision, ensure that the information published in accordance with Article 26 is rectified.

Article 20(4) expressly addresses orders revoked or amended after an appeal or request. The effect is not limited to correcting records. The inspection database must be updated without delay and Article 26 published information within 24 hours of the decision. Whether departure is permitted depends on that decision and any other restrictions still in force.

Member States build the procedure and the notice goes to the master

Member States shall establish and maintain appropriate procedures for this purpose in accordance with their national legislation.

The procedure is built by national legislation, not by the directive. Where to file, what to file and by when differ from State to State. What the directive makes uniform is not the procedure but the notice.

The competent authority shall properly inform the master of a ship referred to in paragraph 1 of the right of appeal and the practical arrangements relating thereto.

The person informed is the master. The right belongs to the owner, the operator and their representative, while the person told that the right exists and how it works is the master on board. The detention notice is served on the ship, so the arrangement is natural. It does add a step in practice. The notice the master receives has to reach the office for the procedure to be filed in time.

Keep appeal evidence and corrective work up to date

Preserve the inspection report, certificates presented and correspondence with the authority, with their dates. Keep later evidence separately identifiable. Check admissibility and submission deadlines under the applicable procedure, and continue required corrective work while the order remains in force.

The provision puts qualification and an interest ban on the person deciding

Inspections shall be carried out only by inspectors who fulfil the qualification criteria specified in Annex XI and who are authorised to carry out port State control by the competent authority.

Two conditions narrow down who may inspect. Meeting the qualification criteria in Annex XI, and being authorised by the competent authority. One alone is not enough to inspect. Where the port State authority lacks the required expertise, the inspector may be assisted by a person who has it, and the assistant does not become an inspector but helps one.

The competent authority, the inspectors carrying out port State control and the persons assisting them shall have no commercial interest either in the port of inspection or in the ships inspected, nor shall the inspectors be employed by, or undertake work on behalf of, non-governmental organisations which issue statutory and classification certificates or which carry out the surveys necessary for the issue of those certificates to ships.

no commercial interest runs against two places. The port of inspection and the ships inspected, and the ban covers the authority, the inspectors and the assistants alike. One further condition falls on inspectors only. They may not be employed by, or work on behalf of, non-governmental organisations issuing statutory and classification certificates or carrying out the surveys needed to issue them. An inspector also carries an identity card issued by the competent authority, on the common model laid down by Commission Directive 96/40/EC.

Member States shall ensure that the competence of inspectors and their compliance with the minimum criteria referred to in Annex XI are verified, before authorising them to carry out inspections and periodically thereafter in the light of the training scheme referred to in paragraph 7.

Qualification is not checked once and left. It is verified before an inspector is authorised, and periodically after that in the light of the training scheme. Member States also have to provide training on changes to the EU port State control system and on amendments to the Conventions. The Commission, with the Member States and the Paris MoU signatory States, develops a programme to support the training of inspectors.

Amended Article 22(7) calls for a professional programme supporting inspector training and competence assessment, with continuing updates for environmental, labour and new-technology training needs.

Worth confirming

The passages above come from Articles 20 and 22 of EU Directive 2009/16. The time limit for an appeal, where it is filed and what has to be filed are set by national legislation. The qualification criteria for inspectors are in Annex XI, and the publication referred to in Article 20(4) is in Article 26. On what conditions a detention is lifted sits outside these two provisions, so it has to be checked separately. Where the authority at that port receives an appeal is where the actual judgement starts.

Track an appeal filing separately from a changed order

Suppose a company files an appeal against detention and books a repair contractor on the same day. The filing receipt and repair booking each show that a process has begun. Neither establishes release from detention.

Record	What it establishes	Evidence still needed
Appeal receipt and case reference	The order challenged and the filing date	Decision on revocation or amendment
Rectification work and completion evidence	Which deficiencies have actually been corrected	Required authority confirmation and sailing conditions
Decision revoking or amending the order	How the operative order has changed	Correction of published information to reflect the decision

The 24-hour correction deadline above runs from the revocation or amendment decision, not the appeal filing. Track the appeal and repairs in parallel, checking the conditions of the existing order until a decision changes them.

You can consult the cited source documents

These links lead to the official publishers of the documents discussed here. Match the edition and provisions cited in the article; for EU legislation, also consult the consolidated versions and amendment history on the document page.

• EUR-Lex · 32009L0016

Continue with the related operational guidance

• PSC ACTION codes, rectification deadlines and how to handle each
• The inspection window set by the ship risk profile and the grounds that force an inspection (EU Directive 2009/16)