Европейский Союз (ЕС) объявил неправомерным какое-либо страхование танкеров, перевозящих иранскую нефть не только из Ирана в страны ЕС, но и в третьи страны. Если запрет H&M страхования еще можно понять, то запрет P&I страхования – мера явно иррациональная, поскольку этим видом страхования обеспечивается, главным образом, компенсация ущерба от разлива нефти. Такой запрет может повредить интересам граждан ЕС, например, если иранский танкер потерпит аварию в Средиземном море.
Do European Union law-makers understand the principles of P&I liability cover? To judge by the latest round of Iran sanctions, they don’t.
Shipowners lobbied the European External Acton Service prior to the publication of January’s Iranian crude oil embargo in the hope of preventing what one lobbyist called “something stupid” from appearing in the final text. The EU nevertheless outlawed all insurance cover for tankers carrying Iranian crude, not only between Iran and the EU but also from Iran non-EU countries.
Outlawing hull and machinery cover is to a certain extent understandable, as it targets shipowners. The crude embargo itself will no doubt hurt the Iranian regime.
But P&I liability cover is designed to compensate the innocent victims of an oil spill. By including liability cover within the scope of the Iran sanctions insurance ban, the EU has arguably put its own citizens at risk.
“What would happen if an Iranian tanker broke up in the Mediterranean?” asks Andrew Bardot, executive officer at the International Group of P&I Clubs. “Would the shipowner’s insurance arrangements pay out? Messing around with liability insurance is hurting the victims.”
Lifting crude from Iran to non-EU destinations such as India remains perfectly legal; indeed, India has stated publicly that it intends to keep importing Iranian oil. The tanker owners on this trade will however be forced to seek cover outside the International Group of Clubs scheme, as Iran-based tanker owners have already done.
On one hand, this is an ideal opportunity for Asian liability insurers and reinsurers to step into the breach. On the other, there is a question mark as to whether these insurers have the same capacity to respond to a major casualty as the International Group mutuals – with their huge reinsurance contract – do. If the P&I insurer is Iranian, the ban on financial transactions with Tehran might prevent the settlement of any liability claim, Mr Bardot points out.
The European External Action Service evidently got the message but nevertheless did not think it appropriate to press for a liability exemption in the Iran sanctions legislation. Contacts between law-makers and industry continue, but it is thought unlikely that any re-think will take place. EU sanctions against Syria imposed a similar liability insurance ban.
Источник: http://www.maritimewatch.eu/articles/635