COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(93) 218 final 
Brussels, 19 May 1993 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL DECISION 
ON COMMON RULES AND STANDARDS 
FOR SHIP INSPECTION 
AND SURVEY ORGANISATIONS 
(presented by the Commission) 
fo>-,,: 
A 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
1. In the Communication "A Common Policy on Safe Seas", approved 
on 24 February 1993, the Commission underlines that despite the efforts 
already made in order to reduce the risk of casualties at sea, both at 
national and international level, the risk in shipping activities is still very 
high1. 
2. The Communication also draws attention to the wide variation of 
accidents and deficiencies within the world fleets. These differences 
continue to exist in spite of the maze of international standards which 
regulate the shipping sector and which would be expected to lead to similar 
levels of safety performance in all fleets. 
3. The variations in safety performance are due to different factors. An 
important one is the unsatisfactory performance of a number of shipping 
operators and the flag authorities responsible for safety. 
4. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has also drawn the 
attention of the shipping world to the fact that many flag States are unable 
to secure and maintain a proper control of the safety and environment 
protection standards of vessels on their respective registers or operating 
under their flags. 
5. Investigations into the causes of accidents and deficiencies found on 
ships point to the ways chosen by States of implementing the 
internationally agreed standards on construction and maintenance of 
seagoing vessels. These standards are mostly fixed by international 
Conventions designed to ensure a satisfactory level of safety and pollution 
prevention. More precisely: 
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS 
1974) lays down technical safety standards for cargo vessels over a 
Communication from the Commission "A Common Policy on Safe Seas", p.l 
to 13. 
I 
given tonnage and for passenger vessels, both on an international 
voyage 
the International Convention on Load Lines (LLC 1966) establishes 
safety standards relating to solidity and stability of ships and 
the International Convention on Maritime Pollution (M ARPOL 1973) 
lays down construction and operational rules designed to prevent 
pollution of the seas. 
6. According to these Conventions, the national Administrations are 
responsible for the testing of compliance with the international standards 
and the issuing of the corresponding international Certificates to the vessels 
on their Registers. These tasks require such a vast technical infrastructure 
and expertise that it is difficult for most Member States to carry out their 
responsibilities using the actual structure of the national Administrations. 
7. Until two decades ago, these tasks were, however, already performed 
by a limited number of highly specialized organisations, the classification 
societies, with extensive experience in the shipping sector, employing 
skilled technical staff and supported by powerful research and computer 
centres. They had been assessing for quite some time already the 
seaworthiness and quality of ships, within the framework of private 
contracts with shipowners, in order to deliver a class, in a highly 
professional manner, thanks to the adequacy of their back-up structures. 
For this reason, the national Administrations decided, in conformity with 
specific provisions in the Conventions, to delegate to these classification 
societies inspections and surveys to various extents, i.e. control of 
compliance with national and international safety rules and, in some cases, 
the issuing of safety Certificates. 
8. Furthermore, neither the SOLAS '74 Convention nor the Load Lines 
Convention identify the standards to which all ships must conform, at the 
building stage and during their entire life, to a degree detailed enough to 
ensure that they are uniformly implemented in a non-divergent manner. 
This is particularly true for elements such as the hull, machinery and 
electrical and control installations. These fundamental ship components are 
3 
controlled according to the rules of classification societies; the Load Lines 
Convention even expressly provides that hull, machinery and electrical and 
control installations "built and maintained in conformity with the 
requirements of a classification society recognized by the Administration 
may be considered to possess adequate strength"2. Therefore, most national 
Administrations decided at the same time to delegate to the classification 
societies the preparation and enforcement of safety rules concerning these 
parts of the ships. 
9. Since the adoption of these Conventions, however, the number of 
classification societies has sharply increased to reach 40 to 50 nowadays. 
This is the root of the problem. Quite a number of these companies, in 
fact, cannot offer sufficient evidence as regards their experience, reliability 
and professionalism and do not have the traditional characteristics to justify 
their being delegated to act on behalf of the national Administrations: for 
example, they have insufficient trained and experienced personnel and 
infrastructure to prepare and carry out tests, to interpret rules and in some 
cases to lay them down. There is also a lack of procedural criteria to be 
followed by certain classification societies: for ships in service, survey 
intervals and specifications of conditions under which a partially worn out 
structure or worn machinery may be considered unsafe are not defined. 
10. All these factors have led to a situation worldwide and in the EC 
where the most important rules, i.e. those affecting hull, machinery and 
electrical and control installations, have not been laid down internationally 
but only internally by classification societies, and the conformity of ships 
to rules is determined by bodies of different levels of quality and expertise 
whose decisions on safety-related issues can hardly disregard other 
considerations such as the need to retain a fleet under their class. These 
divergences do not only have an adverse effect on safety, they can and do 
create competitive disadvantages which encourage a more lax approach to 
surveying and certification in those classification societies with an excellent 
record of performance. 
2 International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, Annex I Regulation 1, 
H 
JUSTIFICATION FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 
11. a) What are the objectives of the envisaged action in relation to the 
obligations of the Community? 
The Extraordinary Council on Environment and Transport, at its 
meeting of 25 January 1993, urged the Community and Member 
States to establish strict, convergent implementation for the whole 
Community of international rules, in particular on construction, 
certification and maintenance of vessels. The Communication, "A 
Common Policy on safe Seas", approved by the Commission on 24 
February 1993, announced the proposal for a Community Directive 
establishing measures to be followed by the Member States and 
national organisations concerned with the certification and the related 
surveillance of compliance by ships with the international 
Conventions on safety and pollution prevention at sea. This 
Directive is fully in line with the action announced in the 
Communication. 
b) Is the envisaged action solely the responsibility of the Community 
or a responsibility shared with the Member States? 
It is a responsibility shared with the Member States by virtue of 
Article 84, 2 of the Treaty. 
c) What is the Community dimension of the problem? 
All the Member States are concerned as flag States and eleven of 
them are also concerned as port States. 
r 
d) What is the most efficient solution taking into account the 
resources of the Community and the Member States? 
The most efficient solution is at Community level; a complete 
explanation of the need for a Community measure is given in 
paragraphs 12 to 15. 
e) What is the concrete added value of the action envisaged by the 
Community and what would be the cost of inaction? 
The concrete added value of this Directive is the enforcement of 
international standards in a non-divergent way at flag level and also 
at port level, all over in the Community. Statistics show that each 
year of inactivity involves a high price in terms of casualties and 
loss of human lives. 
f) What forms of actions are available to the Community? 
This measure is meant to solve problems at Community level 
because of the added value the Community can bring. One of the 
elements necessary for attaining the objectives of the action is to 
organise a Community-wide recognition of certain organisations. 
This recognition can maintain an adequate safety and pollution 
prevention level only if it lays down minimum standards for 
recognition. Common criteria for hull, machinery and electrical and 
control installations are also introduced by the proposed measure. 
The definition of priority criteria for Port State Control will ensure 
appropriate implementation to ensure that ships flying third State 
flags are not treated more favourably than ships flying the flag of a 
Member State. 
g) Is uniform legislation necessary or does a Directive setting the 
general objectives and leaving the execution to the Member States 
suffice? 
This Directive establishes at Community level a common framework 
of quality requirements to be met by the organisations to which the 
Member States decide to delegate tasks, but it does so by leaving to 
each Member State the responsibility of deciding the implementation 
tools which best fit its internal system, the recognition its, the means 
of enforcement, and the implementation of the Directive. 
12. The facts outlined in the general introduction show the necessity to 
ensure that all the national Administrations and the organisations to which 
they delegate the inspection, survey and certification tasks are fully 
qualified for the job, which implies that their structure, methods, rules and 
know-how guarantee a high quality of control of conformity with 
international rules. Rules should also be established such as those fnr hull, 
machinery and electrical and control installations, against which the 
construction and maintenance of ships can actually be examined. 
13. Action within the international organisations have not so far achieved 
these objectives. 
Quite a number of the States which are members of IMO are not in a 
position to improve the performance of the organisations acting on their 
behalf. Furthermore for several organisations to accept internationally 
agreed high quality standards would imply raising their present 
performance levels to a point where they will be less attractive than they 
are now to irresponsible shipowners. If certain developing States were 
obliged to delegate their tasks only to more severe classification societies, 
they would need financial support to upgrade the quality of their 
classification societies and their fleet. These circumstances make it 
extremely difficult to introduce rules of a level of adequate severity 
t 
through IMO; this has been demonstrated during the first meeting of the 
Flag State Implementation (FSI) Committee (see paragraph 17 below). 
Furthermore, ongoing work on classification societies in IMO does not 
deal with implementation and development of the rules affecting hull, 
machinery and electrical and control installations, while this item is 
considered an essential part of the Directive proposed by the Commission. 
It is also quite obvious that an effective answer to the situation outlined 
above cannot be given solely at national level. The present unacceptable 
situation described above is, in fact, the. result of two decades during 
which individual action by States has failed to secure the safety level 
provided for by the international regulatory framework. Hence the need for 
a Community solution which regulates the link between the national 
Administrations and the classification societies, establishes qualitative 
criteria for the organisations and aims to harmonise the development and 
implementation of safety requirements as regards hull, machinery and 
electrical and control installations. Finally, through Port State Control 
action, it also ensures that ships flying third country flags are not treated 
more favourably than ships operating under the flags of the Member 
States. 
14. In accordance with the proportionality principle, the Directive 
proposed by the Commission establishes at Community level a common 
framework of quality requirements to be met by the organisations to which 
the Member States decide to delegate tasks, in order to guarantee 
equivalent safety performances of classification societies in the EC, but it 
does so by leaving to each Member State the responsibility of deciding the 
implementation tools which best fit its internal system, and to the delegated 
competent organisations the duty to lay down, maintain and apply the 
appropriate standards under the surveillance of the Member States in 
cooperation with the Commission. 
15. The need to introduce qualitative criteria for organisations acting on 
behalf of Member States has already been stressed by the Council, which 
i 
in its Regulation (EEC) N° 613/91 of 4 March 1991, on the transfer of 
ships from one register to another within the Community, provides that 
"Where the Certificates are issued by an organisation on behalf of a 
Member State, the latter must ensure that the qualifications, technical 
experience and staffing of the said organisation are such as will enable it, 
in applying the Conventions, to issue Certificates guaranteeing a high level 
of safety. The organisation must be in a position to develop and update 
rules and regulations having the quality of accepted technical standards, 
and must operate with qualified and experienced surveyors so as 
adequately to assess a ship's condition".3 
CONTENT OF THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 
16. The scope of this Directive is to specify a set of criteria to be met by 
the classification societies and other private bodies, when acting on behalf 
of the national Administrations of the Member States; to ensure, through 
such criteria, that the organisations authorised to carry out surveillance and 
certification, or organisations upon which Member States intend to rely for 
those purposes, are professionally efficient, reliable and able to maintain 
proper control of compliance with safery and environmental protection 
standards of the vessels they classify. 
This Directive represents a first step to improve the compliance with 
international safety standards existing in the shipping sector and in view 
in particular of the low safety performance of some organisations 
concerned with the certification and related surveillance of compliance of 
ships with the Conventions. Moreover, loopholes and weaknesses in the 
international Conventions, Codes and Resolutions have often led to varying 
3 Council Regulation (EEC) N° 613/91 of 4 March 1991, article 3, 
paragraph 3. 
levels of application and enforcement thereof, and to consequent differing 
safety and environmental performances. A further aim of this Directive, 
therefore, is to establish the development and implementation of minimum 
safety requirements with equivalent effect throughout the Community, in 
order to eliminate substantial differences in the construction and 
maintenance of vessels operating under the flags of the Member States, 
and more precisely rules on hull, machinery and electrical and control 
installations. 
17. The IMO intends to develop non-mandatory guidelines for delegation 
of authority to organisations, and minimum standards for organisations 
acting on behalf of the Administration. 
Therefore, the newly created sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation 
was invited to prepare a relevant IMO Resolution. During its April 1993 
meeting this sub-Committee finalised a draft Resolution. 
It is the intention of the sub-Committee to report to the next Maritime 
Safety Committee (MSC) and Marine Environment Protection Committee 
(MEPC) on the outcome of its work, with the aim of inviting the 
Assembly to adopt a Resolution. 
The requirements, with regard to delegation of authority, set out in this 
Directive are quite similar to those under preparation in the IMO. The 
criteria set out in Annex I of the Directive contain the minimum 
requirements identified at this stage by the Flag State Implementation sub-
Committee. 
Should this Assembly Resolution be adopted in November 1993, the 
Commission is prepared to take the IMO recommendations duly into 
account in so far as the guidelines contain more detailed provisions with 
regard to the relationship between the Admimstration and the 
organisations, and if the minimim criteria for the organisations ensure at 
least an equivalent level of safety. 
18. In order to achieve the above mentioned aims, the Directive sets two 
objectives. The first objective of this Directive is to secure the direct and 
tighter involvement of the national Administrations in the ship certification 
and survey process. To this end the following provisions will be necessary: 
a) A first provision to establish that where a Member State decides to 
delegate fully or in part its statutory role in inspecting and certifying 
compliance with Conventions such as SOLAS, Load Lines and MARPOL, 
or to rely upon expertise from organisations outside its Administration to 
carry out inspections and surveys related to those Certificates, it shall only 
entrust these duties to organisations which meet a set of common minimum 
criteria established in the Directive, guaranteeing their ability and 
commitment to perform at a highly reliable and efficient level. 
This provision applies to the inspection surveys and Certificates required 
by the International Conventions listed in the Directive; for example, the 
Directive does not affect certification of specific items of marine 
equipment, nor does it relate to Certificates for ships which are not 
covered by the International Conventions. 
The list of criteria has been established having regard to the requirements 
of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) and to 
the criteria specified in EN 45004 (inspection bodies) and EN 29001 
European standardisation (CEN). According to these criteria, organisations 
authorised to act on behalf of Member States are required 
to maintain a documented quality system; 
to employ a number of professionally qualified technical staff, 
working exclusively for the organisation and sufficient to carry out 
research and to develop a full and adequate set of own rules and 
regulations at least on hull, machinery and electrical and control 
installations, and able to carry out all inspections and surveys 
required by the Conventions for the issue of Certificates; 
to maintain a worldwide coverage of inspection offices and a 
minimum size of classified fleet or tonnage; 
to demonstrate willingness to cooperate with port State control. 
In deciding upon the recognition of the organisations, the Commission 
10 
shall consult a Committee; such Committee will become operational as 
soon as the Council has adopted the Directive. 
b) A second provision to establish a working relationship between the 
competent national Administrations and the organisations acting on their 
behalf, to ensure quality and consistency of rules, surveys and 
certifications. This relationship is based upon a formalized agreement 
between the parties setting out the specific duties and functions assumed 
by the orgamsations; the national Adrninistrations shall carry out a periodic 
audit of this work as well as checking procedures involving random and 
detailed inspections of ships, and shall provide the Commission with a 
report of the results of this monitoring and with any information relating 
to the performances of the organisations. 
c) A third provision concerns the non-Community flag Administrations. 
Since safety at sea is a worldwide problem, the responsible behaviour 
required from Member States' Administrations when delegating tasks to 
outside organisations must also be required from third States' 
Administrations, whose ships intend to operate in Community waters. To 
this end, the Directive establishes that Member States, acting as States of 
the port, shall ensure that ships flying third States flags are not treated 
more favourably than ships operating under the flag of a Member State. 
They shall therefore consider as a primary criterion for selecting ships for 
inspection the fact that the ship Certificates have been delivered by an 
organisation which has not been recognised. Appropriate measures should 
then be taken for ships which fail to meet the agreed international 
standards. 
19. The second objective of this Directive is to ensure that all 
"Convention" ships flying the flag of a Member State comply with 
precisely defined requirements designed to achieve equivalent results on 
safety and reliability of hull, machinery and electrical and control 
installations. These requirements apply both to the certification of new 
constructions and to surveys during the life of the ship. Preparation of 
sufficiently detailed standards for new constructions would mean, however, 
11 
practically re-writing the extremely large and complex set of rules and 
procedures of the classification societies, in fact several hundred volumes 
of rules, and keeping them continuously updated. This would be unrealistic 
and unnecessary since the major classification societies which are members 
of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) have 
developed, maintained and upgraded in the course of the years all 
necessary standards for these ships' main components. Although they may 
differ in cases, it is generally accepted that their effects on the safety of 
ships are substantially equivalent. Thus, the Directive states that hull, 
machinery and electrical and control installations are to be built and 
maintained in conformity with the requirements of one of the classification 
societies which meet the set of common criteria described above. In order 
to maintain equivalence of safety standards in accordance with the 
provisions of the Directive, approved organisations shall consult with each 
other periodically. 
20. The Commission considers that an immediate consequence of this 
Directive, apart from the improvement and harmonisation of safety and 
environmental rules within the Community will be to release the approved 
organisations from the present economic pressure put on them by unsound 
competitors. The Commission shares the views expressed by the shipping 
sector that such an economic pressure prevents classification societies from 
maintaining the necessary full independence of judgement when carrying 
out their statutory duties on behalf of the national Administrations. The 
adoption of this Directive will restore full confidence in the effectiveness 
and reliability of the inspections and surveys of the approved organisations 
and in their continuous commitment to maintain and update rules on hull, 
machinery and electrical and control installations. 
21. An additional positive effect of this Directive will be the suppression 
of special or exclusive rights granted by Member States to one or more 
organisations on the basis of criteria other than quality and safety criteria. 
The application of the principle of freedom to provide services within the 
Community to organisations which meet the common set of minimum 
criteria will allow only qualified organisations to compete freely, while 
12 
guaranteeing shipowners and Governments a high quality service as 
regards the safety aspects. The Directive achieves these objectives by 
stating that Member States which delegate to or rely upon organisations 
outside their Administration will have to accept that such tasks are carried 
out by any one of the recognised organisations. 
13 
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 
Article! 
This article defines the purpose of the Directive: to specify a set of criteria 
to be met by the classification societies and other private bodies, when 
acting on behalf of the national Administrations of the Member States; to 
ensure, through such criteria, that the organisations authorised to carry out 
surveillance and certification, or organisations upon which Member States 
intend to rely for those purposes, are professionally efficient, reliable and 
able to maintain proper control of compliance with safety and 
environmental protection standards of the vessels they classify. 
This Directive represents a first step to improve the compliance with 
international safety standards existing in the shipping sector and in view 
in particular of the low safety performances of some organisations 
concerned with the certification and related surveillance of compliance of 
ships with the Conventions. 
Moreover, loopholes and weaknesses in the international Conventions, 
Codes and Resolutions have often led to varying levels of application and 
enforcement thereof, and to consequent differing safety and environmental 
performances. A farther aim of this Directive, therefore, is to establish the 
development and implementation of minimum safety requirements with 
equivalent effect throughout the Community, in order to eliminate 
substantial differences in the construction and maintenance of vessels 
operating under the flags of the Member States, and more precisely rules 
on hull, machinery and electrical and control installations of ships. 
14 
Article 2 
This article contains definitions of the key words of the Directive. 
Article 3 
Paragraph 1. This article reaffirms the principle that States are primarily 
responsible for the implementation of the provisions of international 
Conventions to which they have acceded. Each Member State must, in so 
far as possible, ensure that their Administrations effecting inspections of 
the ships and issuing the related Certificates, do have enough experience, 
capability and reliability to carry out such tasks. 
Paragraph 2. Most of the relevant international Conventions, however, 
allow Member States to delegate fully or in part surveys and inspections 
of the ships (including those for the assessment of the general structural 
strength of the hull, the reliability and safety of machinery and electrical 
and control installations) and the issuing of Certificates to private 
organisations or experts. 
This article states that the organisations or experts entrusted to carry out 
these duties on behalf of a Member State, or on the expertise of which a 
Member State relies, shall only be the recognised organisations, being 
bodies which offer evidence of their experience, technical ability and 
ethical reliability. Exceptions to this provision are the Cargo Ship Safety 
Radiotelegraphy Certificate and the Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelephony 
Certificate, whose issuing may be delegated to other bodies for practical 
reasons. 
Paragraph 3. The certification of specific items of marine equipment is not 
covered by this article; it will be regulated by another EC Directive. 
15 
Article 4 
Paragraph 1. This article states that Member States may recognise as 
organisations acting on their behalf only those bodies which fulfil the 
criteria set out in Annex I of this Directive. The organisations which want 
to be recognised for the purpose of article 3 have to submit adequate 
information to the Member States in order to prove their compliance with 
such criteria. 
Paragraph 2. Notification of the recognised organisations shall be given by 
each Member State to the Commission and to the other Member States. 
Article 5 
Paragraph 1. In accordance with the principles of free circulation of 
services and the elimination of special and exclusive rights within the 
common market, laid down in articles 60 and 90 of the Treaty, this article 
states that Member States delegating safety duties as mentioned in Article 
3, cannot refuse any of the recognised organisations which are located in 
the Community to act on their behalf. Where a Member State decides to 
delegate or rely upon an organisation for those tasks, it has to accept all 
the recognised organisations which are located, within the meaning of 
article 58 of the Treaty, in the European Community and which offer to 
provide their services for the accomplishment of such tasks. 
Paragraph 2. If the recognised organisation is located in a third State, a 
reciprocal recognition between the Member State and the third State may 
be requested to authorise the said organisation to act on behalf of the 
Member State. 
16 
Article 6 
Paragraph 1. Since the Directive intends to secure a tighter involvement 
of the national Administrations in the ship certification and survey process, 
this article describes the working relationship which must be established 
between the responsible administration of each Member State and the 
organisations carrying out its statutory duties. 
Paragraph 2. Transparency of this relationship is assured by formalised 
written agreements setting out the duties and functions assumed by the 
organisations acting on behalf of a Member State. This agreement will 
guarantee the possibility for that Member State to undertake periodical 
audits and carry out inspections of ships for which these duties and 
functions have been delegated. The organisations shall also provide the 
Member States with information about their classed fleet. 
Paragraph 3. Moreover, in order to allow the circulation of relevant 
information concerning the performances of the classification societies 
within the Community , this article sets up a procedure to inform the 
Commission and subsequently all the Member States about the working 
relationship which each national Administration establishes with external 
organisations. 
Article 7 
This article establishes an advisory Committee made up of representatives 
of the Member States, preferably maritime safety experts, and chaired by 
a representative of the Commission. The experts meet as required to assist 
the Commission in amending Annex I, in withdrawing recognition of 
organisations which no longer fulfil the criteria set out in Annex I, and in 
the case of a suspension procedure for reasons of serious danger to safety 
or environment in accordance with article 9. 
17 
Article 8 
This article provides that Annex I may be amended by the Commission in 
order to adapt it to possible evolutions of the relevant international 
Conventions and to update the common set of criteria. The Commission 
may also decide to withdraw the recognition of the recognised 
organisations which no longer fulfil the criteria of Annex I. 
In both cases, the Commission will do so in accordance with a specific 
procedure laid down in article 12. 
Article 9 
This article describes the procedure for suspending the authorisation given 
to an organisation to carry out statutory duties: when a Member State 
considers that the performance of a classification society acting on its 
behalf is no longer reliable in terms of safety and environmental 
protection, it may suspend such authorisation, and must then inform the 
Commission and the other Member States. The Commission shall decide 
whether to withdraw the suspension or to withdraw the recognition of the 
organisations in accordance with article 12 within three months. 
This article has been designed as a safeguard clause. 
Article 10 
Paragraph 1. With regard to the principle of direct involvement of the 
national Administrations in the survey and certification process, this article 
establishes mandatory verification of the effectiveness of the tasks carried 
out by the authorised organisations and of their compliance with the 
18 
criteria set out in Annex I. Member States must fulfil the obligations under 
1 and 2 by monitoring those items themselves, but in the case of 
organisations located in another State, it is sufficient for them to review 
the monitoring by another Member State's Administration. 
Paragraph 2, Each Member State is requested to monitor the work of the 
delegated organisations every year. 
Paragraph 3. They must forward to the Commission and to the other 
Member States both the results of this control and any information about 
the performance of the organisation. 
Article 11 
Paragraph 1. This paragraph is designed to ensure that ships calling at 
Community ports and carrying Certificates issued by organisations which 
have not been recognised in this Directive as meeting the required quality, 
are inspected as a priority since one may reasonably doubt the conformity 
of the ship with its Certificates. Member States, when acting as Port 
Authorities, are required to inspect with high priority those ships whose 
safety and class Certificates have not been issued by a recognised 
organisation. 
Member States are required to take appropriate measures when ships do 
not meet the internationally agreed standards and to inform the 
Commission and the Secretariat of the Memorandum of Understanding on 
Port State Control of all the discrepancies discovered acting as Port 
Authorities. 
Paragraph 2. A performance record of the organisations working on behalf 
of flag States will be held, updated every year and distributed to the other 
Member States and the Commission. 
19 
Article 12 
This article describes the procedure which must be applied when the 
Commission is required to take a decision on matters covered by articles 
8 and 9. It is the type procedure I of article 2 of the Council Decision 
87/373/EEC of 13 July 19874 laying down the procedures for the exercise 
of implementing powers conferred to the Commission. 
Article 13 
This article requires the Member States to ensure that the ships flying their 
flag comply with the requirements for construction and maintenance, 
including periodic surveys, of hull, machinery and electrical and control 
installations set out by one of the classification societies among the 
recognised organisations. Furthermore, classification societies are required 
to consult each other in order to maintain equivalence of their technical 
standards. 
This approach appears sensible as these standards exist and ate so 
numerous and complex that rewriting them would be very time-consuming 
and indeed also unnecessary, since the major classification societies have 
developed and upgraded in the course of the years all necessary safety 
standards for these ships' main components. 
* OJ N° L 197/33, 17. 7. 87. Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987 
laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred 
on the Commission. 
20 
Article 14 
This article upholds the measures with which each Member State has to 
comply in order to enforce the Directive. 
Article 15 
No comments. 
21 
PROPOSAL FOR A 
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON COMMON RULES AND STANDARDS 
FOR SHIP INSPECTION AND SURVEY ORGANISATIONS 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community and in particular Article 84 (2) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, 
Whereas safety and pollution prevention at sea may be effectively 
enhanced through the elimination of substandard operators and vessels 
from Community waters, while strictly applying international Conventions, 
Codes and Resolutions; 
Whereas the ontrol of compliance of ships with the uniform international 
standards fur safety and prevention of pollution of the seas is the 
responsibility of flag and port States; 
Whereas Member States are responsible for the issuing of international 
Certificates for safety and pollution provided under Conventions such as 
SOLAS 74, Load Lines 66 and MARPOL 73/78, and for the 
implementation of the provisions thereof; 
22 
Whereas in compliance with such Conventions, all Member States may 
delegate to or rely to a various extent upon technical organisations for the 
certification of such compliance, and may delegate the issue of the relevant 
safety Certificates; 
Whereas worldwide a large number of the existing classification societies 
do not ensure either adequate implementation of the rules or reliability 
when acting on behalf of the national Administrations, as they do not have 
adequate structures and experience to be relied upon and to enable them 
to carry out their duties in a highly professional manner; 
Whereas the action at Community level is more efficient in this field than 
the combined actions of the Member States; 
Whereas the appropriate way to act is through a Council Directive laying 
down minimum criteria for recognition of organisations, while leaving 
recognition itself, the means of enforcement and the implementation of the 
Directive to the Member States; 
Whereas the Council urged the introduction of standards at Community 
level to enforce the implementation of the international rules in order to 
eliminate substandard vessels and operators from Community waters; 
Whereas EN 45004 and EN 29001 standards combined with International 
Association of Classification Societies (IACS) standards constitute an 
adequate guarantee of performance quality of organisations; 
Whereas organisations wishing to be recognised for the purpose of this 
Directive shall submit to the Member States complete information and 
23 
evidence of their compliance with the minimum criteria, and the Member 
States shall notify to the Commission and to the other Member States the 
organisations they have recognised; 
Whereas the establishment of the common market involves free circulation 
of services so that organisations meeting a set of common criteria which 
guarantee their professionalism and reliability cannot be prevented from 
supplying their services within the Community; 
Whereas a tighter involvement of the national Administrations in ship 
surveys and issue of the related Certificates is necessary to ensure full 
compliance with the international safety rules even if the Member States 
rely upon organisations outside their Administration for carrying out 
statutory duties; 
Whereas it is necessary to establish an advisory committee composed of 
the representatives of the Member States in order to assist the Commission 
in its effort to ensure effective application of the existing maritime safety 
and environmental standards; 
Whereas the Commission shall act according to the same procedure laid 
down in article 12 in order to take due account of progress in international 
fora and to update the minimum criteria; 
Whereas on the basis of the information provided in accordance with 
article 10 by the Member States about the performance of the organisations 
working on their behalf, the Commission will decide whether to withdraw 
the recognition of recognised organisations which no longer fulfil the set 
of common minimum criteria, acting in accordance with the procedure of 
article 12; 
24 
Whereas Member States must nevertheless be left the possibility of 
suspending their authorization to an organisation for reasons of serious 
danger to safety or environment; 
Whereas the Commission shall rapidly decide upon confirmation or 
overruling of such a national measure in accordance with the procedure 
referred to above; 
Whereas each Member State should periodically assess the performance of 
the organisations working on its behalf, and provide the Commission and 
all the other Member States with precise information related to such 
performance; 
Whereas Member States, as port authorities, are required to enhance safety 
and prevention of pollution in the Community waters through the 
elimination of substandard vessels irrespective of the flag of the ships; 
Whereas the adequate procedure according to which the Committee will 
act is Procedure I of article 2 of Council Decision 87/373/EEC; 
Whereas the Commission's decision on withdrawal of recognition of 
organisations which no longer fulfil the criteria of Annex I will take the 
utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee and will pay 
particular attention to the safety and pollution prevention performance 
records of the organisations; 
Whereas classification societies have to update and enforce their technical 
standards in order to harmonize safety rules and ensure uniform 
implementation of international rules within the Community; 
25 
Whereas at present there are no uniform international standards to which 
all ships must conform at the building stage and during their entire life, as 
regards hull, machinery and electrical and control installations; 
Whereas such standards may be fixed according to the rules of 
classification societies; 
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 
26 
PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON COMMON RULES AND STANDARDS 
FOR SHIP INSPECTION AND SURVEY ORGANISATIONS 
Article l 
The purpose of this Directive is to establish measures to be 
followed by the Member States and organisations concerned with 
the inspection, survey and certification of ships for compliance 
with the international Conventions. This process includes the 
development and implementation of safety requirements for hull, 
machinery and electrical and control installations of ships 
falling under the scope of the international Conventions. 
Article 2 
For the purpose of this Directive including its annex, 
"ship" means a ship falling within the scope of the international 
Conventions; 
"inspections and surveys" means inspections and surveys made 
mandatory by the international Conventions; 
"international Conventions" means the 197 4 International 
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the 1966 International 
Convention on Load Lines and the 1973/78 International Convention 
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, together with the 
Protocols and amendments thereto, and related Codes of mandatory 
status in all Member States; 
"organisation" means classification societies and other private 
bodies authorised by governments to carry out safety assessment 
work on their behalf; 
^ 
"recognised organisation" means an organisation recognised in 
conformity with article 4; 
"Certificate" means a certificate issued by or on behalf of a 
Member State in accordance with the international Conventions 
except the exemption certificates; 
"class certificate" means a representation by a classification 
society as to the structural and mechanical fitness for a 
particular use or service in accordance with its rules and 
standards ; 
"location" refers to the place of the registered office, central 
administration or principal place of business of an organisation. 
Article 3 
1. In assuming their responsibilities and obligations under the 
international Conventions, Member States shall ensure that their 
competent administrations can assure an appropriate enforcement 
of the provisions of the international Conventions, in particular 
with regard to the inspection and survey of ships and the issue 
of certificates and exemption certificates. 
2. Where for the purpose of paragraph 1 a Member State decides 
with respect to ships flying its flag 
i) to delegate fully or in part 
- inspections and surveys including those for the 
assessment of compliance with article 13 on the 
general structural strength of the hull, the 
reliability and safety of machinery and electrical 
and control installations, or 
- the issue or renewal of Certificates, 
or 
ii) to rely upon expertise outside its Administration to 
carry out inspections and surveys related to 
Certificates, 
it shall entrust these duties only to recognised organisations. 
2.« 
However for the Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelegraphy Certificate and 
the Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelephony Certificate, these duties 
may be entrusted to other bodies with sufficient expertise in 
radio-communication. 
3. This article does not concern the certification of specific 
items of marine equipment. 
Article 4 
1. Member States may only recognise such organisations which 
fulfil the criteria set out in Annex I. The organisations shall 
submit to the Member States complete information concerning, and 
evidence of, compliance with these criteria from whom recognition 
has been requested. The Member States will notify the 
organisations in an appropriate manner of their recognition. 
2. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission and the other 
Member States those organisations it has recognised. 
Article 5 
1. In applying Article 3, paragraph 2, Member States shall not 
refuse to delegate to or rely upon any of the recognised 
organisations located in the Community. 
2. In order for a Member State to accept that an organisation 
located in a third State is to carry out the duties mentioned in 
Article 3 or part of them it may request that the said third 
State grant a reciprocal recognition for those recognised 
organisations which are located in the Community. 
Article 6 
1. Member States which decide to act as described in Article 3, 
paragraph 2 shall set out a working relationship between their 
•13 
responsible administration and the organisations authorised to 
act on their behalf. 
2. The working relationship shall be regulated by a formalised 
written and non-discriminatory agreement setting out the specific 
duties and functions assumed by the organisations and at least 
including provisions for a periodical audit by the administration 
into the duties the organisations are authorise^ to undertake on 
its behalf and the possibility for random and detailed 
inspections of ships and provisions for reporting essential 
information about their classed fleet, changes of class or 
disclassing of vessels. 
3. Each Member State shall provide the Commission with precise 
information on the working relationship established in accordance 
w4-th this Article. The Commission shall subsequently inform the 
other Member States. 
Article 7 
A Committee of an advisory nature composed of the representatives 
of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the 
Commission is hereby instituted to assist the Commission. This 
Committee shall be called by the Commission at least once a year 
and whenever required in the case of suspension of authorisation 
of an organisation Jay a Member State under the provisions of 
Article 9. 
The Committee shall draw up its rules of procedure. 
Article S 
The Commission, in accordance with the procedure laid down in 
Article 12, may 
a) amend Annex I in order to 
(i) take into account amendments to the international 
Conventions and new international Conventions, 
iO 
Conventions and new international Conventions, 
Protocols and Codes; 
(ii) update the criteria of Annex I; 
b) withdraw the recognition of recognised organisations referred 
to in article 4 which no longer fulfil the criteria set out in 
Annex I. 
Article 9 
Notwithstanding the criteria specified in Annex I, where a Member 
State considers that a recognised organisation can no longer be 
authorised to carry out on its behalf the tasks specified in 
Article 3 for reasons of serious danger to safety or environment, 
it may suspend such authorisation. 
In the above circumstances the following procedure shall apply: 
(a) the Member State shall inform the Commission and the 
other Member States of its decision without delay, 
giving substantiated reasons therefor; 
(b) the Commission shall decide whether to withdraw the 
suspension of authorisation or to withdraw the 
recognition of the organisation. It shall do so in 
accordance with Article 12 within a period not 
exceeding three months. 
Article 10 
1. Each Member State must satisfy itself that the functions 
delegated to recognised organisations under Article 3 are 
effectively carried out and that the criteria specified in Annex 
I are fulfilled. It may do so by directly monitoring the 
recognised organisations or, in the case of organisations located 
in another Member State, by reviewing the corresponding 
monitoring of such organisations by the administration of another 
Member State. 
31 
2. Each Member State shall carry out this task each year and 
shall provide the other Member States and the Commission with a 
report of the results of this monitoring at the latest by the 1st 
of March of each year following the year for which compliance has 
been assessed. 
3. Member States shall forward to the Commission and the other 
Member States any information relevant to the assessment of the 
performance of organisations. 
Article 11 
1. In exercising their inspection rights and obligations as port 
States, 
(a) Member States shall ensure that ships flying a third State 
flag are not treated more favourably than ships entitled to fly 
the flag of a Member State. To this end the fact that the ship 
Certificates including the class Certificate have been delivered 
by an organisation which is not a recognised organisation shall 
be taken as a primary criterion for selecting ships for 
inspection. 
b) Member States shall take appropriate measures when ships do 
not meet the internationally agreed standards and report to the 
Commission and the Secreteriat of the Memorandum of Understanding 
on Port State Control the discovery of any issue of valid 
Certificates by organisations acting on behalf of a flag State 
to a ship which does not fulfil the relevant requirements of the 
international Conventions, or any failure of a ship carrying a 
valid class Certificate and relating to items covered by that 
certificate. 
2. Each Member State shall establish a performance record of the 
organisations acting on behalf of flag States. This performance 
record shall be updated yearly and distributed to the other 
Member States and the Commission. 
3X, 
Article 12 
1. The following procedure shall apply for matters covered by 
Articles 8 and 9: 
(a) the representative of the Commission shall submit to 
the Committee referred to in Article 7 a draft of the 
measures to be taken; 
(b) the Committee shall deliver its opinion within a time 
limit which the chairman may lay down according to the 
urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a votei. 
(c) the opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in 
addition each Member State shall have the right to have 
its position recorded in the minutes; 
(d) the Commission shall take the utmost account of the 
opinion delivered by the committee. It shall inform the 
committee of the manner in which its opinion has been 
taken into account. 
2. In preparing drafts for a decision relating to the matters 
referred to in article 8 (b) , the Commission shall take into 
account the reports and information mentioned in articles 10 and 
11. In preparing such draft measures, the Commission shall pay 
particular attention to the safety and pollution prevention 
performance records of the organisations. Draft decisions 
relating to such matters may also be submitted to the Committee 
by the Member States. 
Article 13 
1. Each Member State shall ensure that a ship flying its flag 
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the hull, 
machinery and electrical and control installation requirements 
of a recognised organisation. 
33 
2. The recognised organisations shall consult with each other 
periodically with a view to maintaining equivalence of their 
technical standards and the implementation thereof. They shall 
provide the Commission with periodic reports on fundamental 
progress in standards. 
Article 14 
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive 
on 1 November 1994. They shall forthwith inform the Commission 
thereof. 
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a 
reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such 
reference on the occasion of their official publication. The 
methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by Member 
States. 
2. The Member States shall immediately communicate to the 
Commission all provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the 
field governed by this Directive. The Commission shall inform the 
other Member States thereof. 
Article 15 
This Directive is addressed to the Member States 
j# 
ANNEX I 
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR ORGANISATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 
GENERAL 
1 The recognised organisation must be able to document 
extensive experience in assessing the design and 
construction of merchant ships. 
2 The organisation should have in its class a fleet of at 
least 1000 ocean-going vessels (over 100 GRT) totalling no 
less than 5 million GRT. 
3 The organisation must employ a technical staff commensurate 
with the number of vessels classed. As a minimum, 100 
exclusive surveyors would be needed to meet the requirements 
in paragraph 1.2. 
4 The organisation should have comprehensive rules and 
regulations for the design, construction and periodic survey 
of merchant ships, published and continually upgraded and 
improved through research and development programmes. 
5 The organisation should have its Register of Vessels 
published on an annual basis. 
SPECIFIC 
1 The organisation is established with: 
(a) a significant technical, managerial, support and 
research staff; 
(b) world-wide coverage by exclusive field staff. 
2 The organisation is governed by a Code of Ethics. 
3 The organisation is managed and administered in such a way 
as to ensure the confidentiality of information required by 
the Administration. 
4 The organisation is prepared to provide relevant information 
to the administration. 
5 The organisation's management has defined and documented its 
policy and objectives for, and committment to, quality and 
has ensured that this policy is understood, implemented and 
maintained at all levels in the organisation. 
3* 
The organisation has developed, implemented and maintains 
an effective internal quality system based on appropriate 
parts of internationally recognised quality standards and 
in compliance with EN 45004 (inspection bodies) and with EN 
29001, as interpreted by the IACS Quality System 
Certification Scheme Requirements, and which, inter alia, 
ensures that: 
(a) the organisation's Rules and Regulations are 
established and maintained in a systematic manner; 
(b) the organisations Rules and Regulations are complied 
with ; 
(c) the requirements of the statutory work for which the 
organisation is authorised are satisfied; 
(d) the responsibilities, authorities and interrelation of 
personnel whose work affects the quality of the 
organisation's services are defined and documented; 
(e) all work is carried out under controlled conditions; 
(f) a supervisory system is in place which monitors the 
actions and work carried out by surveyors and technical 
and administrative staff employed directly by the 
organisation; 
(g) a system for qualification of surveyors and continuous 
updating of their knowledge is implemented; 
(h) records are maintained, demonstrating achievement of 
the required standards in the items covered by the 
services performed, as well as the effective operation 
of the quality system; and 
(i) a comprehensive system of planned and documented 
internal audits of the quality related activities in 
all locations. 
The organisation must demonstrate ability 
(a) to develop and keep updated a full and adequate set of 
own rules and regulations on hull, machinery and 
electrical and control equipment having the quality of 
internationally recognised technical standards on the 
basis of which SOLAS Convention and Passenger Ship 
Safety Certificates (as regards adequacy of ship 
structure and essential shipboard machinery systems) 
and Load Line Certificates (as regards adequacy of ship 
u 
strength) can be issued, 
(b) to carry out all inspections and surveys required by 
the international Conventions for the issue of 
Certificates. 
8 The organisation is subject to certification of its quality 
system by an indépendant body of auditors recognised by the 
Administration of the State in which it is located. 
9. The organisation should allow participation in the 
development of its rules and/or regulations by 
representatives of the Administration and other parties 
concerned. 
10. The organisation must demonstrate willingness to co-operate 
with port State control when a ship of its class is 
concerned and in particular in order to facilitate the 
rectification of reported deficiencies or other 
discrepancies. 
11. The organisation must provide all relevant information to 
the Administration about changes of class or disclassing 
vessels. 
37 
i* 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 218 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 04 07 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-245-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-55854-7 
Office for Officiai Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg