The NGO Shipbreaking Platform welcomes the Public prosecutor’s appeal of the Rendsburg District Court’s decision to acquit the shipowners involved in the illegal export and scrapping of the ship WESTERHAMM. While the ruling marks the first time in Germany that shipowners stand trial for violating environmental law through shipbreaking practices, the Court failed to hold them legally accountable — despite the judge’s own recognition of the environmental damage caused.
In her oral statement, Judge Martje Heinsohn made a powerful and unequivocal declaration: “What you did was not right. You caused significant damage to the environment in order to achieve maximum profit. I can only appeal to you to give something back to the environment.”
The WESTERHAMM, a 188-meter-long container ship operated by MSC and owned by Rendsburg Schiffahrtskontor, sailed from Bremerhaven on 2 November in 2016, then made stops in Gibraltar and Egypt before being deliberately driven at full speed onto the infamous shipbreaking beach of Alang, India. There, it was dismantled under conditions that are well documented to be highly hazardous for both workers and the environment. The export of end-of-life ships to India is illegal under the EU Waste Shipment Regulation.
The Court’s decision to acquit was based on doubts about the timing of the intention to dispose the ship. The shipowners claimed that the decision to scrap the vessel was only taken when the vessel had left German waters and provided as evidence sales documents for scrapping that had been signed when the ship was in international waters. They also sought to argue that because the WESTERHAMM was still operational when it left Germany, the ship could not be considered as waste under international and EU law, disregarding well-established jurisprudence that confirms a vessel can simultaneously be classified as both a ship and waste. Indeed, what triggers the classification as waste is the owner’s intent to dispose the asset, and because a ship is a waste that can move on its own — unlike most other types of waste — it remains also a ship subject to all other maritime regulations on its last voyage to the scrapping yard. The fact that the WESTERHAMM was still operational does therefore not negate its classification as waste under international and EU law.
The public prosecutors have appealed the acquittal and maintain that internal communications confirming the “unconditional desire to dispose of the ship” as there was no market for its further operational use provide evidence of the intent to dispose of the ship.
In other cases of illegal trafficking of end-of-life vessels, fraudulent information on further operational use or repair was provided to circumvent EU waste laws. In Norway, Altera was held liable for the illegal export of two shuttle tankers to India — also in this case the owners had claimed that the scrapping of the ships was only decided when the ships had left Norwegian waters. In the Harrier case it was shown that the owners had deliberately provided fraudulent information on repair works in Dubai to authorities to avoid the trade ban, while the true destination was scrapping in Pakistan. Also in the North Sea Producer case, it was claimed that the vessel would be further used in Nigeria – instead it sailed straight to Bangladesh for scrapping.
