OpenLobby.EU
Explore

FEPORT

FEPORT

FEPORT represents terminal operators and stevedoring companies in EU ports, responsible for cargo loading and unloading operations.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair)

29 Jan 2026 · European Ports Strategy and Competitiveness

Meeting with Daniel Boeshertz (Head of Unit Competition)

26 Jan 2026 · Exchange of views on EU maritime and ports security

Meeting with César Luena (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Jan 2026 · European Union Emission Trade System

Meeting with Didier Millerot (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

9 Dec 2025 · EU Taxonomy

FEPORT urges explicit inclusion of cargo equipment in EU Taxonomy

5 Dec 2025
Topic — The initiative reviews the EU taxonomy environmental delegated act to update technical screening criteria.
Message — FEPORT proposes explicitly including equipment and related activities for cargo handling under NACE Code H52.2. This would recognize green cargo handling investments through digitalization and workforce training. They also suggest specifically mentioning equipment under technical criteria for transhipping freight.123
Why — Broadening the criteria would allow operators to classify terminal digitalization and training as green investments.45
Read full response

Meeting with Inge Bernaerts (Director Competition) and

13 Nov 2025 · The possibilities of financing of ports under EU State aid rules

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – implementing EU funding with Member States and regions

29 Oct 2025

Please see attached document for FEPORT's feedback.
Read full response

FEPORT Urges Dedicated EU Port State Aid Framework

23 Oct 2025
Topic — New EU rules to harmonise national procedures and transport requirements for military mobility.
Message — FEPORT requests a dedicated state aid framework and increased co-financing rates for ports. They propose compensation clauses for when military use of upgraded facilities is low.123
Why — This would shift the financial burden of expensive military upgrades from private operators to governments.45
Impact — Public authorities and taxpayers bear the financial risk of compensating ports for underused infrastructure.6
Read full response

Response to General revision of the General Block Exemption Regulation

6 Oct 2025

The Federation of European Private Port Operators (FEPORT) is the organisation representing 2,290 private port companies and terminals involved in cargo handling and related logistics activities across the EU, Norway, and Turkey welcomes the opportunity to provide its feedback regarding the revision of the GBER. FEPORT members employ over 400,000 port workers and have collectively invested more than 70 billion over the past decade to modernise EU ports. Attached FEPORT's submission.
Read full response

Meeting with Torsten Klimke (Head of Unit Mobility and Transport)

25 Sept 2025 · Discussion on strategic ports aspects

FEPORT urges investment in port CO2 transhipment infrastructure

11 Sept 2025
Topic — The consultation addresses the development of competitive markets and transportation infrastructure for carbon dioxide.
Message — The organization calls for recognizing ports as essential nodes and investing in CO2 transhipment infrastructure. They request financial incentives through the EU ETS to ensure returns on carbon capture projects.12
Why — This would resolve current infrastructure bottlenecks and secure returns on high-cost terminal investments.34
Read full response

FEPORT calls for ETS compensation to protect port competitiveness

4 Sept 2025
Topic — The consultation addresses technical updates to guidelines for state aid compensating indirect carbon costs.
Message — FEPORT recommends extending the Guidelines' scope to electricity used by terminal operators and onshore power supply. They request support for ports facing electricity price peaks that threaten their competitive position against non-EU ports. The group suggests efficiency-based benchmarks to reward efficient operators.123
Why — This would lower operational costs for terminals and help them compete with non-EU ports.45
Impact — Neighboring non-EU ports would lose the competitive price advantage they currently hold.67
Read full response

FEPORT urges earmarking carbon revenues for port fuel distribution

4 Sept 2025
Topic — A strategic framework to boost investments in renewable fuels for EU transport.
Message — FEPORT calls for a dedicated investment plan and recommends earmarking carbon market revenues. They also advocate for close consultation on port safety and workforce training.123
Why — This would provide operators with necessary funding to meet mandatory fuel distribution targets.45
Read full response

FEPORT Urges Public Investment in Climate-Resilient Port Infrastructure

4 Sept 2025
Topic — This initiative establishes an integrated framework to manage accelerating European climate risks.
Message — FEPORT advocates for public funding to protect port facilities from rising sea levels. They also recommend policies that ensure waterway navigability and grid resilience.12
Why — Government-backed infrastructure upgrades would reduce the operators' exposure to costly climate disruptions.34
Impact — Public budgets may be strained by industry demands for increased state aid.5
Read full response

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

2 Sept 2025 · Customs Code (UCC)

FEPORT demands priority electricity grid access for port operators

4 Aug 2025
Topic — This consultation seeks to accelerate the upgrade and expansion of European grid infrastructure.
Message — FEPORT recommends simplifying permitting for grid expansion and renewable energy projects near ports. They also want regulators to grant priority grid access to terminal operators instead of following the first-come-first-served rule.12
Why — This would protect terminal operators from operational delays caused by energy shortages.34
Impact — Other industrial sectors might face longer wait times for grid connections.56
Read full response

Response to EU Ports Strategy

28 Jul 2025

FEPORT welcomes the opportunity to submit its replies to the EU Ports and Maritime Industrial Strategies which should go hand in hand as they are part of the same ecosystem. Without efficient port operations, imported and exported goods would not reach their final destinations, underscoring the indispensable role of private port companies and terminals in sustaining Europes economic prosperity. To maintain competitiveness, resilience, and sustainability, European port operators require policies that reinforce their strategic position, enhance their global competitiveness, and facilitate the transformation necessary to achieve international sustainability goals. In an era of geopolitical uncertainty, climate-related disruptions, shifting trade patterns, and rapid technological advancements, strengthening the resilience of port operators is vital to ensuring ports dual-use capabilities, thus supporting both civilian and military operations efficiently. FEPORT therefore calls on the European Commission to provide the necessary instruments to reinforce the competitiveness and resilience of European ports by adopting an offensive and ambitious EU Ports Strategy that holistically addresses all strategic dimensions, economic, environmental, digital, and geopolitical, relevant to the future of EU ports.
Read full response

Response to EU industrial maritime strategy

28 Jul 2025

Dear Madam, Dear Sir, Please find attached FEPORT's Reply to the Call for Evidence on the EU Maritime Industrial Strategy. Best regards, FEPORT
Read full response

FEPORT urges Innovation Fund to back commercially available green tech

8 Jul 2025
Topic — This consultation evaluates the Innovation Fund’s effectiveness in supporting industrial decarbonization.
Message — FEPORT wants the Fund to include commercially available green technologies with measurable benefits. They request a tailored approach addressing the specific decarbonisation challenges faced by terminal operators. Finally, they seek to reduce the risk and costs associated with application processes.123
Why — Subsidies would help terminal operators overcome the high costs of purchasing greener equipment.4
Impact — Port authorities may receive less funding as resources are redirected toward terminal operators.5
Read full response

Meeting with Apostolos Tzitzikostas (Commissioner) and

1 Jul 2025 · Strategic Dialogue on the EU Port Strategy

Meeting with Beatriz Yordi (Director Climate Action) and European Sea Ports Organisation and

26 Jun 2025 · ETS extension to maritime & IMO developments

Meeting with Christiane Kirketerp De Viron (Acting Director Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

24 Jun 2025 · Cybersecurity of ports, cybersecurity aspects in upcoming Port Security Strategy.

FEPORT urges EU to simplify port cybersecurity rules and guidance

19 Jun 2025
Topic — The initiative revises the Cybersecurity Act to improve resilience and streamline legislation.
Message — FEPORT supports simplifying requirements and strengthening ENISA's role in sharing anonymized incident data. They advocate for practical guidance and a European Early Warning Management System.123
Why — The proposal would reduce compliance costs and protect terminals from external systemic risks.4
Impact — Public authorities may face pressure to upgrade their less secure digital infrastructure systems.56
Read full response

Meeting with Raphaël Glucksmann (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

26 Apr 2025 · Foreign investments screening Regulation

FEPORT urges Taxonomy recognition for green port equipment and LNG

26 Mar 2025
Topic — This consultation seeks to simplify sustainability reporting and reduce administrative costs for European companies.
Message — FEPORT supports exempting mid-sized firms from reporting and reducing data requirements. They want the EU to recognize green port equipment and LNG infrastructure as sustainable. The group also proposes including cargo handling activities in the technical screening criteria.123
Why — Port operators would face lower reporting costs and find it easier to attract green investment.4
Impact — Climate advocates lose as labeling fossil fuel infrastructure as sustainable undermines environmental standards.5
Read full response

Response to Establishing a list of “neighbouring container transhipment ports” for the FuelEU Maritime Regulation

11 Feb 2025

Please see attached for FEPORT reply to the Call for Feedback on the FuelEU Maritime draft Implementing Regulation as regards of identifying neighbouring container transhipment ports.
Read full response

Meeting with Raphaël Glucksmann (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

30 Jan 2025 · Foreign Investments Screening Regulation

Meeting with Torsten Klimke (Head of Unit Mobility and Transport)

29 Jan 2025 · FEPORT views on EU Port Strategy

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Oct 2024 · Discussion on EU ports

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and

8 Apr 2024 · Dialogue on Clean Mobility

Meeting with Ditte Juul-Joergensen (Director-General Energy) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

8 Apr 2024 · Energy market

Meeting with Caroline Nagtegaal (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Mar 2024 · EU ETS Maritime

Meeting with Caroline Nagtegaal (Member of the European Parliament) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

13 Feb 2024 · EU ETS Maritime

Response to Measures to reduce microplastic pollution

17 Jan 2024

Please see attached for FEPORT feedback regarding the proposal for a regulation on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution.
Read full response

Meeting with Kathleen Van Brempt (Member of the European Parliament) and European Transport Workers' Federation

24 Nov 2023 · Social, environmental and economic resilience of the maritime logistics chain

Response to Measures to better manage and coordinate international rail traffic to increase the modal share of rail

17 Nov 2023

Please see attached for FEPORT feedback regarding the Proposal for a Regulation on the use of Railway Infrastructure Capacity in the Single European Railway Area.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Union Customs Code

7 Nov 2023

Please see attached for FEPORT feedback regarding the revision of the Union Customs Code. Our feedback particularly pertains to the new rules proposed for temporary storage and customs warehousing.
Read full response

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs and

7 Nov 2023 · Reform of the Union Customs Code

FEPORT urges stricter monitoring of shipping evasion via non-EU ports

18 Sept 2023
Topic — A consultation listing non-EU transhipment ports to prevent ships from evading carbon costs.
Message — FEPORT calls for robust monitoring using early warning indicators like new investments in non-EU port capacity. They also advocate for tracking diversion through ports below the current traffic threshold.12
Why — This would protect the competitive position of European terminals by preventing permanent cargo diversion.34
Impact — Shipping companies would face higher costs as loopholes for avoiding emissions payments are closed.56
Read full response

Meeting with Marco Campomenosi (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Jul 2023 · Meeting with FEPORT

Meeting with Vera Tax (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

25 May 2023 · Meeting on Maritime (Assistant participated)

Meeting with Tom Berendsen (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

24 May 2023 · European port strategy

FEPORT urges inclusion of cargo handling in EU taxonomy

3 May 2023
Topic — This consultation defines sustainable investment criteria for water protection and the circular economy.
Message — The group requests that cargo handling activities be explicitly included in the taxonomy criteria. They also recommend removing the exclusion of dredging to support inland waterway transport.12
Why — This would reduce the financial burden of investing in environmentally friendly equipment and infrastructure.3
Read full response

Meeting with Tom Berendsen (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Mar 2023 · European Port Strategy

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

20 Dec 2022 · ETS

Meeting with Dominique Riquet (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

8 Nov 2022 · Infrastructures de transport

Meeting with Vera Tax (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

12 Oct 2022 · General exchange of views

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and CMA CGM and Methanol Institute

7 Apr 2022 · Roundtabel

Meeting with Andrey Novakov (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

14 Jan 2022 · EU ETS

Response to Revision of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive

16 Nov 2021

Please see the uploaded file for FEPORT's feedback regarding the EU Commission proposal for an Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Energy Tax Directive

15 Nov 2021

Please see the uploaded file for FEPORT's comments with respect to the EU Commission proposal for a revised Energy Taxation Directive.
Read full response

Response to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

15 Nov 2021

Please see the attached file for FEPORT's comments regarding the EU Commission proposal for a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001

15 Nov 2021

Please see the uploaded file for FEPORT's feedback regarding the EU Commission's proposal for a revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED III).
Read full response

Response to Addressing distortions caused by foreign subsidies

15 Jul 2021

FEPORT represents 1225 private port companies and terminals performing cargo handling and logistics related operations in European sea ports. FEPORT subscribes to the White Paper findings and is supportive of a proposal aimed at addressing those distortions that fall outside the EU State aid, merger control and antitrust rules, and the detrimental effects of distortive foreign subsidies in the cases of concentrations and public procurement ex ante, without limiting the EU’s ability to intervene ex post in other market situations. Well-functioning competition rules, state aid control and fair taxation rules play an essential role within the Single Market. They also represent an efficient mechanism to ensure fair globalization. They can limit distortions, protect consumers’ rights, and offer the possibility for companies to enter new markets. FEPORT is convinced that, if the legislator wants European companies to remain truly competitive at a global level, Member States must implement EU competition rules in a consistent manner, and coherently apply and control state aid rules. The Commission should also explore how EU competition policy can adapt to developments on global markets and where necessary change relevant notices and guidelines. In this respect, public (port authorities) and private (private port companies and terminals) ports operators are essential to the waterborne sector and play an indispensable role in the maritime logistics chain. Ports are also points of entry to the EU territory and have geopolitical positions with respect to emergency or military operations. They play a strategic role in the supply of goods and services to European consumers and industry. They should therefore be considered as strategic assets in the framework of the proposed Regulation on foreign subsidies. With COVID-19, many subsectors of Europe’s waterborne sector have been severely impacted (e.g., passenger shipping and shipbuilding). This impact has come on top of the sector’s challenges with the energy transition and with severe competitive and trade distortions emanating from third countries, often related to unfair subsidies. The effects of such distortions, for sectors which were suffering even before the COVID-19 outbreak, should not be underestimated as third-country actors often directly target or put at risk Europe’s strategic sectors. With respect to the maritime sector, the EU Commission suggests clarifying what is the relationship between the proposed Regulation on foreign subsidies and the old Council Regulation (EEC) 4057/86 on unfair pricing practices in maritime transport (OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 14). FEPORT considers that the market of maritime transport as well as its structure has changed fundamentally since 1986 and that the vertical integration of seaport terminals by shipping companies constitutes an evolution that needs be considered. It is therefore essential to anticipate situations where EU shipping companies would sell terminal assets to subsidized third country companies. Besides, given the international global nature of shipping, it is crucial, to make sure that both EU and non-EU maritime companies are not receiving subsidies considered illegal state aid in Europe thus distorting competition within the EU market. For the above two reasons, FEPORT recommends that maritime transport is in the scope of the proposed Regulation. To know more, please read the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the NIS Directive

18 Mar 2021

Please find in the attached document FEPORT's feedback to the EU Commission proposal for a NIS 2 Directive.
Read full response

Meeting with Rachel Smit (Cabinet of Commissioner Adina Vălean)

18 Feb 2021 · Introductory call to new Member of Cabinet.

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

FEPORT members, i.e. private port companies and terminal operators, perform cargo handling activities in seaports and ensure the connection of maritime transport to the next mode, which can be rail, road or inland waterway transport. Since our members are firm supporters of multimodal solutions connecting ports to environmentally friendly modes of transport in the hinterland, we welcome the content of recital 21 which promotes a shift to clean modes of transport and reiterates that the taxonomy criteria should not only compare environmental performance within modes of transport but also across modes. We strongly favor the recognition of the decarbonizing potential of multimodality, as rightly acknowledged by subparagraphs 6.14.1.b-c of Annex I (in the case of rail freight) and subparagraph 6.15.1.b (in the case of the transport of cargo by road). These sections rightly note that terminals allowing the transshipment of goods onto other clean modes can contribute to climate change mitigation. In this light, it should be considered to make a more explicit reference to seaport terminals, highlighting their role as a place where goods are transshipped between modes, thereby reducing the environmental footprint of transport thus contributing to climate change mitigation. It is to be welcomed that seaport infrastructure (see Paragraph 6.16 of Annex I) and superstructure dedicated to the transshipment of freight between modes of transport is included, but the same should go for cargo handling equipment as well as the activity of cargo handling itself. If the current Delegated Regulation or the still to be developed maritime taxonomy criteria would make reference to cargo handling operations in seaports, already existing industry initiatives should be taken into account, for example the FEPORT guidance to calculate emissions in container terminals, which will be sent to DG FISMA directly. Finally, in the maritime taxonomy, transitional activities should be allowed to qualify as green. The EU Taxonomy Regulation allows for transitional activities to qualify as green when they have “greenhouse gas emission levels that correspond to the best performance in the sector or industry” (see Article 10.2A of Regulation (EU) 2020/852). It is indeed important to compare the performance of economic activities with already marketable solutions that are available in the same sector, rather than excluding solutions merely because they are based on fossil fuels. This is particularly relevant for LNG as it is in many instances the cleanest maritime fuel available. In the second place, port operators have already made investments in LNG refueling points as this was prescribed by the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive 2014/94/EU. LNG as a marine fuel and its accompanying port infrastructure should therefore not be overlooked in the annexes of the EU Taxonomy Delegated Regulation and/or should be included in the to be developed maritime taxonomy criteria. Finally, it is of paramount importance to adhere to a technology neutral and goal-based approach. This is crucial for encouraging innovations and research into economic activities and solutions which are not yet covered by the Taxonomy criteria, but could nevertheless constitute a substantial contribution to any of the six environmental criteria.
Read full response

Response to Revision of Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)

18 Dec 2020

Through the attached position paper, FEPORT would like to give its feedback regarding the revision of the TEN-T guidelines.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Shipyards' and Maritime Equipment Association of Europe

19 Oct 2020 · Maritime transport and Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on taxonomy-alignment of undertakings reporting non-financial information

8 Sept 2020

Please find FEPORT's contribution in the uploaded position paper.
Read full response

Response to FuelEU Maritime

24 Apr 2020

FEPORT, the European organization representing 1200 private port companies and terminals welcomes the opportunity to provide some initial comments regarding the ReFuelEU Maritime initiative. FEPORT members are committed to green port operations and to contribute to the reduction of shipping emissions in ports FEPORT supports the aim of ReFuel EU Maritime to stimulate the demand of sustainable alternative fuels in order to facilitate zero-emission shipping in line with the objectives of the European Green Deal. FEPORT has welcomed the Green Deal and is interested in the initiatives it contains on digital and smart logistics, as well as its ambitions to boost multimodality. At the same time, we emphasized it would be crucial that the Green Deal allows European industry to stay competitive and that carbon leakage should be avoided. In its enclosed position paper, FEPORT lists a number of priorities that should part of the reflection regarding alternative fuels for maritime transport. FEPORT looks forward to continuing a constructive dialogue with EU institutions to adopt a framework that will allow a smooth greening of the maritime sector while preserving its competitiveness.
Read full response

Meeting with Adina-Ioana Vălean (Commissioner) and

17 Mar 2020 · Ports

Meeting with Roxana Lesovici (Cabinet of Commissioner Adina Vălean)

26 Feb 2020 · Maritime topics

Response to Prolongation of the Consortia Block Exemption Regulation

30 Dec 2019

FEPORT welcomes the opportunity to provide a reply to the consultation about the Staff Working Document on the Consortia BER and would like to make the following comments that are further elaborated in the attached legal analysis in annex of this reply: The CBER was adopted when rationalisation in consortia involved sharing the increased number of vessels necessary to provide a frequent reliable service with extended port coverage to the benefit of cargo interests. The reality these last years is that Global Alliances which operate ULCV-s have largely changed the economics of international liner shipping, which in turn change cost structures for logistics, port service and infrastructure providers. Carriers’ market power resulting from consolidation in liner shipping and the increase in size of ships has compelled ports to bear the additional infrastructure and cost externalities to avoid the risk of losing their carrier customers to competing ports. Port service providers are forced to accept lower prices for their services because of carriers’ joint purchasing market power. There is no effective competition on Europe’s most important trade lane, Asia – North Europe, where the Commission SWD accepts the WSC evidence that there are 4 services competing with the three global Alliances on that trade, but that they enjoy together 1% market share, leaving 99% to the Alliances. It is disturbing that the Commission SWD concludes that Alliances are irrelevant to its evaluation of the CBER because two of the Global Alliances fall outside the 30% market share threshold on certain trades. The Commission has ignored the relevant papers produced by the ITF in the last 5 years since the last prolongation of the CBER. The Commission, in concluding that the stakeholders, other than the carriers whom it believes without hesitation, have not proved their complaints, contradicts all the objective evidence gathered and analysis included in the ITF reports that the Commission cites with approval in the SWD. However, it has not cited much of the other relevant evidence relied upon by the ITF in its market analyses, especially regarding quality of shipper service and the threats to the continuing businesses of port services and freight forwarders. For example, the SWD mistakenly assumes that increased Alliance capacity during the review period when blank sailings increased on certain trades automatically reduces the percentage of actual blank sailings as a percentage of actual cargo carried. Capacity does not necessarily, without further evidence, reflect cargo volume carried, especially because ULVCs are too big and only appear to require 60% utilisation to be viable. In its Staff Working document, the Commission did not: (1) obtain the relevant price and market share data and information readily available from the carriers to enable it to review the operation of the CBER in the light of the major developments in the industry since the last review in 2014; (2) recognise that a BER is the application of competition law by legislation of general application to a category of defined agreements but is not a self-standing law in the same way as standard EU legislation subject to the EU Better Regulation and the related Evaluation process; (3) assess the 5 Evaluation criteria accurately, in any event, because of the failure to obtain the available relevant data and by ignoring important changes in the liner shipping market since 2014. (4) explicitly prohibit consortia members from discussing shoreside port and hinterland logistics. Because of these significant shortcomings, the EC should not simply extend the CBER for another four years as within such a period, the current CBER regime could cause irreparable harm to the European maritime logistics sector. At most, the Commission should extend the CBER for one year, during which a proper review is conducted. If not, then the Commission must let the CBER expire in April 2020.
Read full response

Meeting with Violeta Bulc (Commissioner) and

24 Sept 2019 · Lunch with maritime stakeholders

Response to Evaluation of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive

20 Mar 2019

FEPORT welcomes the opportunity to provide input into the evaluation roadmap of the 2014 Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive. With regards to the legislation relevant to the port industry (shore-side power supply and LNG infrastructure), it is important that the Directive is market driven and pragmatic whilst also adaptable to future technological developments. This is especially true regarding the obligations to develop port infrastructure. A stronger focus should be placed on "needs" and viability of developments. It must be possible to design the execution of any infrastructure that may be required at a later date in line with requirements. The legal framework must not prescribe a technology which is perhaps designed for the needs of certain vessels classes but would be oversized/inappropriate for other ships and therefore far too costly/expensive than necessary. The cost efficiency required by Article 4(5) of the Directive (shore-side electricity for ships in ports) depends to a large extent on a tax exemption for shore-side electricity in order to ensure competitiveness with conventionally generated less expensive on-board electricity. In order to provide Member States with legal certainty in this respect, the Commission should clarify in the appropriate place (where appropriate in the recitals of the Directive) that any tax incentives both for the use of alternative fuels with lower emissions and for the purchase of shore-side electricity by ships do not constitute aid but can be important building blocks in the Clean Fuel Strategy.
Read full response

Response to 2018 Amendment to the Union Customs Code Delegated Act - Article 84

18 May 2018

Dear Sir/Madam, FEPORT is the European organization representing the interests of private port companies and terminals located out of the seaports of the European Union. Under the Union Customs Code, FEPORT members are responsible for operating temporary storage facilities in European Union seaports, the primary arteries through with non-Union goods enter the European Union. Under the Union Customs Code, a guarantee is required for all goods placed in temporary storage given that, hypothetically, a customs debt could be incurred. In some case’s though, this guarantee would prove excessive and does not take into consideration risk of potential unpaid customs debts, and Article 96 was rightfully introduced to the UCC to allow for the possibility of a reduced amount or a guarantee waiver as referred to in Article 95(2) of the Union Customs Code. Port operators are a good example of where a guarantee waiver is required. Port operations handle 100's of millions of Euro's worth of cargo a year and there is negligible risk of goods being removed from temporary storage without removal permission first being granted. Therefore, the obligation for a port operator to provide a guarantee for all potential unpaid customs debts would not be proportionate. On top of this, the process for establishing a guarantee amount would fundamentally alter how the sector works. In most cases, the port operator does not (and does not need to know) the value of the goods. In the case of container terminals, the terminal does not even know the contents of the container other than information for safety purposes (for instance, whether a container contains dangerous goods). Finally, the amount required for a guarantee would not be feasible. If a terminal needed to provide a guarantee for all potential customs debts in a terminal at one moment, this figure would run into 100's of millions. The possibility to avail of a guarantee waiver is therefore crucial to ensure proportionality. However, under the existing Delegated Act wording, the criteria for a guarantee waiver is unclear and unnecessarily complex. The current wording proposes that sufficient financial resources is interpreted as limited to having the necessary liquidity available and is thus too restrictive. The criteria for a guarantee waiver does not take into consideration risk either. There is therefore concerns that under the existing wording, the Union Customs Code would create a guarantee waiver which is unobtainable to trusted economic actors. For this reason, FEPORT strongly supports the Commission proposal to delete Article 84.1.f, Article 84.2.g and Article 84.3.l as proposed by the European Commission. This will add clarity to the criteria for a guarantee waiver, add flexibility and align it with the criteria for AEO status. FEPORT would like to stress that the Commission proposal for an amendment should be formally adopted as soon as possible given that the review of authorisations must be completed by April 2019. It is crucial that Member States have a clear understanding under which legal framework revisions of authorizations should be completed.
Read full response

Meeting with Alisa Tiganj (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

5 Mar 2018 · introduce the organization representing the European Private Port Companies and terminals in European Ports

Response to REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a framework to review FDIs into the EU

12 Dec 2017

Dear Madam, Dear Sir, Please find enclosed FEPORT's reply to the consultation regarding the proposed Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework to review FDIs into the EU. This is reply is on behalf of the Fedartion of European Private Port Companies and Terminals operating in the seaports of the European Union. Nice regards, Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid FEPORT Secretary General
Read full response

Meeting with Friedrich-Nikolaus von Peter (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

20 Jul 2017 · Meeting with Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid

Meeting with Miguel Ceballos Baron (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and Shipyards' and Maritime Equipment Association of Europe

13 Jun 2017 · trade in maritime transport services

Meeting with Henrik Hololei (Director-General Mobility and Transport)

12 Sept 2016 · Ports Regulation

Meeting with Friedrich-Nikolaus von Peter (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

6 Jul 2016 · Feport stakeholders conference

Meeting with Johannes Laitenberger (Director-General Competition)

1 Jun 2016 · To make acquaintance and review current competition trends

Meeting with Desiree Oen (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

25 May 2016 · Conference on logistics

Meeting with Matej Zakonjsek (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

12 Apr 2016 · Maritime Policy

Meeting with Desiree Oen (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

28 Sept 2015 · DTLF

Meeting with Violeta Bulc (Commissioner) and

16 Jul 2015 · Meeting Feport representatives

Meeting with Violeta Bulc (Commissioner) and

16 Jun 2015 · Meeting Port Social Partners

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Mobility and Transport)

26 Mar 2015 · Funding for new equipment projects, carbon footprinting methodology