Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION On the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) with regard to the adoption of certain Codes and related amendments to Conventions
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, environmental protection, international convention, marine environment, maritime safety, revision of an agreement

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.4.2013  
COM(2013) 208 final 

2013/0111 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

On the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, at the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO) with regard to the adoption of certain Codes and related 
amendments to Conventions 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

The  present  Commission  proposal  concerns  the  establishment  of  the  Union  position  in 
different IMO bodies in relation to the following:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

The adoption of an IMO Instruments Implementation Code (hereinafter referred to as 
the "III Code") ;  

The adoption of an IMO Code for Recognised Organisations (hereinafter referred to 
as the "RO Code"); 

The adoption of amendments to certain international conventions ; and 

The acceptance of those amendments in accordance with the respective provisions in 
the conventions concerned. 

1.1. 

The III Code 

The draft III Code has the objective to enhance global maritime safety and protection of the 
marine environment and assist States in the implementation of the following instruments: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea,  1974,  as  amended 
(SOLAS 1974) and its 1988 Protocol;  

The  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships,  1973,  as 
modified  by  the  Protocols  of  1978  and  1997  relating  thereto,  as  amended 
(MARPOL 73/78);  

The  Convention  on  the  International  Regulations  for  Preventing  Collisions  at  Sea, 
1972, as amended (COLREG 1972);  

The International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (LL 1966) and its 1988 Protocol;  

The  International  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training,  Certification  and 
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW); and 

The International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (TONNAGE 
1969). 

The Code contains both mandatory provisions and recommendations addressing those aspects 
which are considered necessary for a Contracting Party to give full and complete effect to the 
provisions of the applicable international instruments to which it is a Contracting Party. The 
areas covered are the following:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

As  regards  flag  States,  coastal  States  and  port  States:  general  provisions  on 
implementation strategy, scope, initial actions, communication of information, record 
keeping and improvement; 

As  regards  flag  States:  implementation,  delegation  of  authority,  enforcement,  flag 
State surveyors, flag State investigations, evaluation and review; 

As regards coastal States: implementation, enforcement, evaluation and review; 

As regards port States: implementation, enforcement, evaluation and review. 

1.2. 

The RO Code 

The draft RO Code has the objective to provide flag States with a standard for the assessment 
and  authorisation  of  recognised  organisations  as  well  as  mechanisms  for  the  consistent, 

EN 

2 

   EN 

efficient and effective oversight of recognised organisations, and to clarify the responsibilities 
of organisations authorised as recognised organisations and the scope of that authorisation.  

This concerns the following instruments:  

• 

• 

• 

The  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea,  1974,  as  amended 
(SOLAS 1974);  

The Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships, 1973;  

The 1988 Protocol to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966.  

The Code applies to all organisations being considered for recognition or that are recognised 
by a flag State to perform, on its behalf, statutory certification and services under mandatory 
IMO  instruments  and  national  legislation,  and  to  all  flag  States  that  intend  to  grant  that 
recognition.  

The  Code  contains  mandatory  provisions  as  regards  delegation  of  authority  and 
communication of information, and establishes: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The  mandatory  requirements  that  an  organisation  shall  fulfil  to  be  recognised  by  a 
flag State; 

The  mandatory  requirements  that  a  recognised  organisation  shall  fulfil  when 
performing statutory certification and services on behalf of its authorising flag States; 

The  mandatory  requirements  that  flag  States  should  adhere  to  when  authorising  a 
recognised organisation;  

Guidelines for flag State oversight of recognised organisations. 

1.3. 

Adoption of the Codes  

1.3.1.  Adoption of the III Code 
Now  approved  by  the  IMO  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee  in  its  64th  session 
(MEPC  64,  October  2012)  and  by  the  IMO  Maritime  Safety  Committee  in  its  91st  session 
(MSC  91,  November  2012),  the  28th  IMO  Assembly  is  expected  to  adopt  the  III  Code  in 
December 2013. 

1.3.2.  Adoption of the RO Code 
Now  approved  by  the  IMO  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee  in  its  64th  session 
(October  2012)  and  by  the  IMO  Maritime  Safety  Committee  in  its  91st  session  (November 
2012), the RO Code is expected to be adopted by these committees in May and June 2013, in 
their 65th and 92nd sessions, respectively. 

1.4. 

Amendment of the relevant international conventions 

1.4.1.  Adoption of amendments concerning the III Code 
The  IMO  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee,  at  its  64th  session,  approved 
amendments to the protocols of 1978 and 1997 relating to the MARPOL convention with a 
view  to  rendering  the  III  Code  mandatory,  together  with  an  associated  flag  State  audit 
scheme. The Committee is expected to adopt these amendments at its 66th session, in 2014. 
The  IMO  Maritime  Safety  Committee,  at  its  91st  session,  approved  amendments  to  the 
SOLAS convention as well as to the protocol of 1988 relating to the Load Lines convention, 
with a view to rendering the III Code mandatory, together with an associated flag State audit 
scheme.  At  its  92nd  Session,  due  to  take  place  in  June  2013,  the  Committee  is  expected  to 

EN 

3 

   EN 

approve  amendments  to  the  STCW  Convention  with  the  same  purpose.  The  Committee  is 
expected to adopt the amendments referred to in this paragraph at its 93rd session, in 2014.  
The IMO Maritime Safety Committee, at its 91st session, approved amendments to the Load 
Lines, COLREG and Tonnage conventions with a view to rendering the said Code mandatory, 
together with an associated flag State audit scheme, for consideration and adoption by the 28th 
Assembly.  

1.4.2.  Adoption of amendments concerning the RO Code 
The  IMO  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee,  at  its  64th  session,  approved 
amendments  to  the  Protocol  of  1978  relating  to  the  MARPOL  convention  with  a  view  to 
rendering the RO Code mandatory. The committee is expected to adopt these amendments at 
its 65th session, due to take place in May 2013. 
The  IMO  Maritime  Safety  Committee,  at  its  91st  session,  approved  amendments  to  the 
SOLAS convention and to the protocol of 1988 relating to the Load Lines convention, with a 
view  to  rendering  the  RO  Code  mandatory.  The  committee  is  expected  to  adopt  these 
amendments at its 92nd session.  

1.4.3.  Acceptance and entry into force. Reservations. 

Once  approved  and  adopted  by  the  competent  IMO  Committee  or  by  the  Assembly,  as 
appropriate,  the  amendments  to  the  above  mentioned  conventions  will  be  submitted  to  the 
respective  contracting  parties  in  order  for  these  to  express  their  consent  to  be  bound  by  the 
said  amendments  either  tacitly  or  expressly,  according  to  the  relevant  provisions  of  each 
convention.  

None  of  the  above  mentioned  conventions  contains  clauses  excluding  the  formulation  of 
reservations as regards amendments. 

1.4.4. 

Summary table 

A summary table of the events described in the preceding subsection is presented below for 
ease of reference: 

EN 

4 

   EN 

Code or 
Convention 

Approval 

Expected 
Adoption 

Type of 
acceptance 

Circulation period 

Expected 
acceptance  

Expected entry into 
force of the 
amendments 

III Code 

Load Lines 
convention 
1966 

(III Code) 

Tonnage 
convention 
1969,  

(III Code) 

28th IMO 
Assembly, 
December 2013 

-/- 

MEPC164, 
October 2012 
MSC291, 
November 
2012 

-/- 

-/- 

-/- 

Unanimous and 
tacit, or 

3 years 

1/1/2017 

1/1/20183 

MSC91, 
November 
2012 

28th IMO 
Assembly, 
December 2013 

2/3 majority 
and explicit 

Based on attainment of 
sufficient explicit acceptances 

On a date 12 months 
after the number of 
explicit acceptances have 
been received 

MSC91, 
November 
2012 

28th IMO 
Assembly, 
December 2013 

Unanimous and 
tacit, or 

2 years  

1/1/2016 

1/1/20174 

2/3 majority 
and explicit 

Based on attainment of 
sufficient explicit acceptances 

On a date 12 months 
after the number of 
explicit acceptances have 
been received  

1 
2 
3 
4 

IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee 
IMO Maritime Safety Committee 
Or 12 months after attainment of sufficient explicit acceptances 
Or 12 months after attainment of sufficient explicit acceptances 

EN 

5 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Code or 
Convention 

Approval 

Expected 
Adoption 

Type of 
acceptance 

Circulation period 

Expected 
acceptance  

Expected entry into 
force of the 
amendments 

Collision 
Regulations 

(III Code) 

RO Code 

MARPOL 
protocol '78 

(RO Code) 

MSC91, 
November 
2012 

28th IMO 
Assembly, 
December 2013 

2/3 majority 

18 months 

1/7/2015 

1/1/2016 

Tacit 

MEPC64, 
October 2012 

MEPC65, May 
2013 

-/- 

-/- 

-/- 

-/- 

MSC91, 
November 
2012 

MSC92, June 
2013 

MEPC64, 
October 2012 

MEPC65, May 
2013 

2/3 majority 

≥10 months 

1/4/2014 

1/10/2014 

Tacit 

EN 

6 

EN 

 
  
 
Code or 
Convention 

Approval 

Expected 
Adoption 

Type of 
acceptance 

Circulation period 

Expected 
acceptance  

Expected entry into 
force of the 
amendments 

MSC91, 
November 
2012 

MSC92, June 
2013 

2/3 majority 

≥1 year 

1/7/2014 

1/1/2015 

Tacit 

MEPC64, 
October 2012 

MEPC66, 
March 2014 

2/3 majority 

≥10 months 

1/2/20155 

1/8/20156 

Tacit 

MSC91, 
November 
2012 

MSC93, May 
2014 

2/3 majority 

≥1 year 

1/7/2015 

1/1/2016 

Tacit 

SOLAS 
convention 
and Load 
Lines pro-
tocol '88;  

(RO Code) 

MARPOL 
protocols 
'78/'97 

(III Code) 

SOLAS 
convention 
and Load 
Lines pro-
tocol '88;  

(III Code) 

5 
6 

EN 

Acceptance deadline might be delayed until 1/7/2015 in order to harmonize with the concomitant amendment of the SOLAS, Load Lines and STCW conventions 
Entry into force might be delayed until 1/1/2016 in order to harmonize with the concomitant amendment of the SOLAS, Load Lines and STCW conventions 

7 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Code or 
Convention 

Approval 

Expected 
Adoption 

Type of 
acceptance 

Circulation period 

Expected 
acceptance  

Expected entry into 
force of the 
amendments 

MSC92, June 
2013 

MSC93, May 
2014 

2/3 majority 

≥1 year 

1/7/2015 

1/1/2016 

Tacit 

STCW 
convention 
and part A of 
STCW code 

(III Code) 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
  
1.5. 

Relevant EU legislation 

1.5.1.  Directive 2009/15/EC 

Directive  2009/15/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  common  rules  and 
standards  for  ship  inspection  and  survey  organisations  and  for  the  relevant  activities  of 
maritime  administrations7  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  Directive")  repealed  and  partly 
replaced Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards 
for  ship  inspection  and  survey  organisations  and  for  the  relevant  activities  of  maritime 
administrations8. 

The  Directive  governs  the  relationship  between  the  Member  States  and  the  recognised 
organisations which they authorise to carry out statutory tasks on their behalf.  

1.5.2.  Regulation 391/2009 

Regulation (EC) N° 391/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on common rules 
and  standards  for  ship  inspection  and  survey  organisations9  (hereinafter  "the  Regulation") 
modified and replaced the system formerly laid down in Council Directive 94/57/EC for the 
recognition and assessment of classification societies. 

The  Regulation  lays  down  a  number  of  criteria  and  obligations  which  an  organisation  must 
meet  in  order  to  obtain  and  thereafter  maintain  its  EU  recognition.  These  requirements 
concern both statutory and classification activities and are laid down10 in Articles 8(4), 9, 10 
and 11 as well as in Annex I of the Regulation.  

The requirements provided in the Regulation have the specific objective to enhance the safety 
of, and prevent pollution from, all ships in the class of recognised organisations11. They are 
formulated in general terms and make no distinction based on flag.  

The Regulation also governs the granting and withdrawal of EU recognition, provides for the 
periodic assessment of RO's by the Commission and lays down a system of sanctions in case 
of non-compliance. 

1.5.3.  Directive 2009/21/EC  
Directive  2009/21/EC  on  flag  State  requirements12,  which  also  formed  part  of  the  3rd 
Maritime Safety Package, lays down a number of obligations for the Member States as flag 
States.  These  include  in  particular  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  take  the  necessary 
measures for an IMO audit of their administration to be carried out at least once every seven 
years.  However,  this  provision  shall  expire  "at  the  latest  on  17  June  2017  or  at  an  earlier 
date, as established by the Commission in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred 
to in Article 10(2), if a mandatory IMO Member State Audit Scheme has entered into force". 

1.5.4.  Directive 2008/106/EC  
Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers13 lays down inter alia a 
minimum  level  of  training  for  seafarers  in  the  Union  based  on  the  standards  of  training 
contained  in  the  STCW  Convention  and  the  associated  STCW  guidelines,  as  well  as 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 47 
OJ L 319,12.12.1994, p. 20 
OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 11 
Article 3(1) 
Recital 13 
OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 132 
OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 33; Directive as last amended by Directive 2012/35/EU 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
provisions on minimum rest periods for watchkeeping personnel in accordance with the same 
Convention.  

Directive 2008/106/EC also lays down a series of specific obligations for the Member States 
as flag and port States, such as: a) procedures and common criteria for the recognition by the 
Member States of certificates issued by third countries, based on the training and certification 
requirements  contained  in  the  STCW  Convention;  b)  criteria  concerning  the  inspection  of 
maritime  institutes,  training  programmes  and  courses;  c)  provisions  for  the  inspection  of 
vessels  by  port  authorities  and  Port  State  control;  d)  provisions  for  the  enforcement  by  the 
Member States including the prevention of fraudulent practices and a system of sanctions. 

1.6. 

EU Competence 

In view of the relevant EU legislation above, the Commission considers that the adoption of 
the draft III Code and the RO Code as well as the amendments to the conventions referred to 
in  section  1.1  and  1.2  above  come  under  exclusive  EU  competence  which  the  Union  has 
acquired  pursuant  to  Article  3  (2)  TFEU,  in  so  far  as  the  adoption  of  the  international 
instruments at stake may affect common rules or alter their scope. In this respect: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The  draft  III  Code  is  meant  to  replace  Resolution  A.973(24)  which  contains  the 
existing Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments, which in turn 
replaced  Assembly  Resolution  A.847(20),  which  the  Member  States  are  obliged  to 
apply by virtue of Article 3 (1) of Directive 2009/15/EC.  

The  matter  of  the  RO  Code  is  exhaustively  regulated  by  the  above  mentioned 
Directive  and  by  Regulation  (EC)  nº391/2009,  either  directly  or  by  reference  to  a 
number of IMO resolutions. 

According  to  the  first  subparagraph  Article  7(2)  of  Directive  2009/15/EC: 
"Following  the  adoption  of  new  instruments  or  protocols  to  the  international 
conventions  referred  to  in  Article  2(d),  the  Council,  acting  on  a  proposal  from  the 
Commission,  shall  decide,  taking  into  account  the  Member  States’  parliamentary 
procedures  as  well  as  the  relevant  procedures  within  the  IMO,  on  the  detailed 
arrangements  for  ratifying  those  new  instruments  or  protocols,  while  ensuring  that 
they are applied uniformly and simultaneously in the Member States."  

The  term  "international  conventions"  is  defined  both  in  Directive  2009/15/EC 
(Article  2(d))  and  in  Regulation  (EC)  nº391/2009  (Article  2(b))  to  include  the 
SOLAS,  MARPOL  and  Load  Lines  conventions,  together  with  the  protocols  and 
amendments thereto, and the related codes of mandatory application, in their up-to-
date version.  

The  obligations  incumbent  on  the  Member  States  as  flag  and  port  States  under  the 
STCW convention are exhaustively covered by Directive 2008/106/EC. 

Consistent with a well consolidated body of case law, even if the Union is not a member of 
the IMO, the Member States are not authorised to assume obligations likely to affect EU rules 
promulgated for the attainment of the objectives of the Treaties, unless they are authorised to 
do  so  by  means  of  a  Council  decision,  on  a  proposal  by  the  Commission.  The  need  for 
authorisation therefore extends to any such obligations, regardless of the subject-matter of the 
international instruments concerned. 

1.7. 

Areas of conflict between the draft IMO Codes and EU law 

The Commission considers that the Codes are compatible with EU law with the exception of 
the following areas: 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
1.7.1.  Draft III Code 

1.7.1.1.  Class and statutory certificates 

Section 16, Part 2 of the Code provides for a minimum list of resources and processes which 
flag  States  have  to  establish  in  order  to  administer  a  safety  and  environmental  protection 
programme.  According  to  point  1  of  this  section,  this  list  has  to  include  "administrative 
instructions  to  implement  applicable  international  rules  and  regulations  as  well  as  develop 
and  disseminate  any  interpretative  national  regulations  that  may  be  needed  including 
certificates  issued  by  a  classification  society,  which  is  recognized  by  the  flag  State  in 
accordance with the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-1/1, and which certificate is required 
by  the  flag  State  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  structural,  mechanical,  electrical  and/or 
other  requirements  of  an  international  convention  to  which  the  flag  State  is  a  party  or  a 
requirement of the flag State's national regulations". 

Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and Directive 2009/15/EC are defining two types of certificates 
that  can  be  issued  by  classification  societies  -  'statutory  certificates'  –  which  are  those 
certificates  issued  by  or  on  behalf  of  a  flag  State  in  accordance  with  the  international 
conventions  and  'class  certificates'  which  are  those  documents  issued  by  a  recognised 
organisation certifying the fitness of a ship for a particular use or service in accordance with 
the rules and procedures laid down and made public by that recognised organisation.  

In  contrast  to  these  provisions,  Section  16  of  the  Draft  III  Code  seems  to  refer  to  all 
certificates  issued  by  classification  societies  as  being  required  by  the  flag  State  and, 
consequently,  having  to  comply  with  the  administrative  instructions  provided  by  that  State. 
This has to be understood also as referring to what in the EU is considered as class tasks and 
certificates, and in particular those required as proof of compliance with SOLAS Ch. II-I, Part 
A-1,  Reg.  3-114,  which  remain  acts  of  the  recognised  organisations  and  therefore  cannot 
benefit  from  the  protection  due  to  acts  of  a  State.  There  is  therefore  a  risk  that  the 
requirements contained in the above mentioned Regulation concerning classification tasks and 
certificates,  or  action  taken  in  order  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  those  requirements,  be 
unduly contested by third States or by recognised organisations themselves based on different 
administrative instructions emanating from those States.  

1.7.1.2.  Authorisation of Recognised Organisations 

According to the introductory part of Section 18, Part 2 of the draft III Code, "With regard 
only to ships entitled to fly its flag, a flag State authorising a recognised organisation to act 
on  its  behalf,  in  conducting  the  surveys,  inspections  and  audits,  issuing  of  certificates  and 
documents, marking of ships and other statutory work required under the conventions of the 
Organization  or  under  their  national  legislation,  must  regulate  such  authorisation(s)  in 
accordance  with  the  applicable  requirements  of  the  international  mandatory  instruments 
[…]".  

According  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  391/2009,  recognition  is  provided  at  EU  level  and  the 
recognised  classification  society,  following  such  recognition,  can  fulfil  both  statutory  and 
classification  tasks  in  the  EU.  Moreover,  the  recognition  is  provided  for  the  worldwide 
activity of the classification society. The list of minimum criteria and obligations as provided 
in the Regulation (many of which are of a structural nature) concern the entire activity of the 
organisation, regardless of flag.  

The above mentioned limitation in the draft III Code of the flag State's capacity to regulate the 
activity  of  the  organisation  only  as  regards  ships  flying  its  own  flag,  may  be  seen  to  be  in 

14 

See below, section 1.7.1.4 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
conflict with the set of criteria applied at EU level as a sine qua non condition for the granting 
and maintenance of recognition. It must however be noted that recognition is provided by the 
Commission, while Member States can only authorise organisations recognised at EU level. 

1.7.1.3.  Specific requirements 

Section  18  in  the  draft  III  Code  seems  to  provide  an  exhaustive  list  of  areas  in  which  the 
States can intervene in the activity of a recognised organisation in order to ensure compliance 
with certain standards. Even if these requirements are formulated in a broad manner, they do 
not cover all the minimum criteria and obligations which are provided in the Regulation - like 
criterion B.5 (intellectual property) or obligations concerning harmonisation of classification 
rules  and  mutual  recognition  under  Article  10  (1)  of  the  Regulation;  or  deriving  from  the 
obligations  of  the  Member  States  laid  down  in  Directive  2009/15/EC  -  such  as  financial 
liability as provided for in Article 5(2)(b).  

However,  it  appears  from  the  nature  of  the  Code  itself  and  its  scope  as  stated  in  section  6 
("The Code seeks to address those aspects necessary for a Contracting Government or Party 
to give a full and complete effect to the provisions of the applicable international instruments 
to which it is a Contracting Government or Party …"), that, save where an explicit prohibition 
is formulated, its provisions must be understood as setting minimum standards on which the 
individual  States  can  elaborate  and  improve,  which  is  the  intent  stated  in  recital  4  of 
Regulation 391/2009.  

1.7.1.4.  Application of classification rules 

According  to  section  19,  Part  2  of  the  draft  III  Code,  "No  flag  State  shall  mandate  its 
recognised  organisations  to  apply  to  ships,  other  than  those  entitled  to  fly  its  flag,  any 
requirements  pertaining 
their  classification  rules,  requirements,  procedures  or 
performance  of  other  statutory  certification  processes  beyond  convention  requirements  and 
the mandatory instruments of the organization." 

to 

Hence,  the  flag  State  will  not  be  able  to  impose  on  classification  societies  which  they 
authorize  requirements  which  go  beyond  convention  requirements  and  the  mandatory  IMO 
instruments, other than in the case of the ships flying their flag. Per a contrario, any flag State 
may  impose  such  requirements  which  are  in  accordance  with  the  IMO  Convention  or  other 
mandatory IMO instruments, including the III and RO Codes themselves. 

As  can  be  seen  from  the  preceding  subsection,  a  number  of  requirements  contained  in  the 
above mentioned Regulation and Directive are not covered by this provision.  

Furthermore,  the  precedents  in  the  elaboration  of  the  Codes  have  shown  that  some  of  those 
requirements tend to be perceived by a number of States as impinging on their sovereignty. 
That perception is however unfounded, for the following reasons:  

• 

• 

• 

Classification  societies  remain  free  to  establish  their  own  rules  and  procedures  as 
they deem fit, provided they comply with the goal-based standards laid down by the 
IMO. They adopt the said rules and procedures under their own and sole authority. 

It  follows  that  classification  surveys  carried  out  and  classification  certificates 
delivered  in  order  to  establish  and  subsequently  attest  to  compliance  with  the  said 
rules  and  procedures  are  activities  of  a  strictly  private  nature  and  therefore  neither 
acts of any State nor carried out on any State's behalf; 

The private nature of classification tasks and certification is a matter of fact that is 
not  altered  by  their  inclusion  in  the  definition  of  "statutory  certification  and 
services". Nor is such private nature altered by the fact that SOLAS Ch. II-I, Part A-
1,  Reg.  3-1  requires  the  Contracting  Parties  to  ensure  that  ships  flying  their  flag 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

comply with the structural, mechanical and electrical requirements of a classification 
society  which  is  recognized  by  the  Administration:  as  is  evident  from  the  very 
wording of this provision, those remain requirements of the classification society and 
not of the recognizing State; 

Every  classification  society  is  free  to  choose  whether  or  not  to  enter  into 
authorisation  agreements  with  flag  States,  and  hence  to  accept  or  refuse  the 
conditions established by those States, as a condition for recognition, with regard to 
the said classification rules and procedures;  

It  is  therefore  incumbent  on  each  recognised  organisation  to  ensure  that  the 
obligations  entered  into  with  different  flag  States  are  compatible  with  one  another. 
While  it  is  perfectly  conceivable  that  conditions  for  recognition  as  regards 
classification  tasks  and  certification,  as  laid  down  by  different  States,  may  be 
incompatible with one another, this in no case implies a conflict of sovereign rights 
and  has  no  other  consequence  than  the  impossibility  for  an  organisation  to  hold 
recognition from all or part of those States simultaneously. 

The  experience  of  past  maritime  catastrophes  such  as  the  accidents  of  the  "Erika"  and  the 
"Prestige", both ships flying the flag of (then) third countries but classified by organisations 
holding EU recognition, has highlighted to what extent maritime safety and the protection of 
the environment in Europe depend on the good performance of EU-recognised classification 
societies  in  both  the  statutory  and  classification  domains  and  regardless  of  flag.  The  Union 
cannot  ignore  this  need,  as  it  would  otherwise  fall  in  the  contradiction  that  organisations 
entitled to certify the safety of EU ships, and thus benefitting from free access to a market of 
considerable quality and size, would however be allowed to perform to lower standards when 
certifying ships flying the flag of third States and which might pose a threat to legitimate, vital 
Union's interests such as safety and the protection of the environment. That is the reason why 
Regulation 391/2009, as is clear from its Articles 1 and 4 read in conjunction with recital 13, 
requires compliance with appropriate criteria and obligations of a systemic nature, concerning 
both classification and statutory tasks and making no distinction based on ship flag, as a sine 
qua  non  condition  for  an  organisation  to  be  recognised  at  EU  level  and  thereafter  maintain 
that recognition. 

1.7.2.  Draft RO Code 

1.7.2.1.  Class and statutory certificates 

According to section 1.3 of Part II of the RO Code, 'statutory certification and services' means 
"certificates issued, and services provided, on the authority of laws, rules and regulations set 
down  by  the  Government  of  a  sovereign  State.  This  includes  plan  review,  survey,  and  /  or 
audit leading to the issuance of or in support of the issuance of a certificate by or on behalf of 
a  flag  State  as  evidence  of  compliance  with  requirements  contained  in  an  international 
convention  or  national  legislation.  This  includes  certificates  issued  by  an  organization 
recognized by the flag State in accordance with the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-1/1, 
and  which  may  incorporate  demonstrated  compliance  with  the  structural,  mechanical  and 
electrical requirements of the RO under the terms of its agreement of recognition with the flag 
State". 

Taking  into  account  the  definitions  of  the  'statutory  certificate'  and  'class  certificate'  as 
provided in EU law, the considerations made further up under subsections 1.7.1.1 to 1.7.1.4 
for the draft III Code are equally applicable to the draft RO Code. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
1.7.2.2.  Cooperation between recognised organisations 

Points  3.9.3.1  and  3.9.3.2  of  Part  II  of  the  draft  RO  Code  provide  for  a  mechanism  of 
cooperation  between  recognised  organisations,  but  under  the  framework  established  by  the 
flag State. 

Cooperation  between  recognised  organisations  is  governed  by  Article  10  (1)  of  Regulation 
(EC) No 391/2009, and concerns classification tasks and certificates without distinction based 
on flag. In contrast to these provisions included in EU law, points 3.9.3.1 and 3.9.3.2 of Part II 
of the draft RO Code seem to create some limitations in the cooperation between recognised 
organisations, in the sense that the implementation of the Code by the Member States would 
imply  that  (a)  mutual  recognition  would  be  possible  only  if  a  framework  for  that  purpose 
exists  within  each  Member  State  for  the  ships  flying  its  flag  and  (b)  the  effects  of  that 
framework cannot extend beyond the boundaries of the fleet flying the flag of each Member 
State. 

Regulation 391/2009 is directly applicable in all Member States and therefore fulfils condition 
(a).  However,  for  the  reasons  described  in  sections  1.7.1.3  and  1.7.1.4,  the  framework  of 
cooperation  created  by  Regulation  391/2009  goes  further  than  the  boundaries  of  the  fleet 
flying the flag of each member states and therefore does not comply with condition (b) and is 
therefore in conflict with Points 3.9.3.1 and 3.9.3.2 of Part II of the draft RO Code.  

1.7.2.3.  Application of classification rules 

As  the  provisions  of  point  3.9.3.3  of  Part  II  of  the  draft  RO  Code  are  identical  to  those 
included  in  section  19,  Part  2  of  the  draft  III  Code,  the  considerations  made  in  subsection 
1.7.1.4 are also applicable to these provisions. 

1.7.2.4.  Authorisation of recognised organisations 

According to point 8.1.1 of Part II of the draft RO Code, "[...] a flag State may authorise an 
RO to act on its behalf in statutory certification and services and determination of tonnages 
only to ships entitled to fly its flag as required by these conventions. Such authorisations shall 
not require ROs to perform actions that impinge on the rights of another flag State." 

This  provision  should  be  analysed  in  correlation  with  the  definition  of  the  'statutory 
certification and services' in order to see if the extension of the flag State requirements over 
class certificates and the minimum list of criteria which have to be met by an organisation in 
order to be recognised at EU level might call into question powers of other flag States. In this 
respect, the considerations made in sections 1.7.1.3 and 1.7.1.4 also apply here. 

1.8. 

IMO audit 

The  foreseen  amendments  to  the  international  conventions  discussed  are  also  establishing  a 
mandatory IMO  audit scheme defined as  "the  IMO Member State  Audit Scheme  established 
by  the  Organization  and  taking  into  account  the  guidelines  developed  by  the  Organization, 
which  is  intended  to  ensure  consistent  and  effective  implementation  of  instruments  of  the 
Organization and to assist States to improve their capabilities and overall performance in this 
respect." 

According  to  the  amendments  brought,  Member  States  will  be  subject  to  these  audits  at 
periodic  intervals.  As  defined,  the  audit  shall  take  into  account  the  compliance  with  the 
instruments of the IMO and shall be based on an overall schedule developed by the Secretary-
General of the Organization taking into account the guidelines developed. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Hence, in principle, a mandatory IMO audit will assess also compliance with the international 
conventions as defined in Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and Directive 2009/15/EC, including 
the III Code and the RO Code. 

In this respect it is necessary to examine if a situation of incompatibility may arise between 
the  international  obligations  of  the  Member  States  and  those  incumbent  on  them  under  EU 
law. 

The analysis made in sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 shows that there are a number of areas where 
the draft III and RO Codes are in contradiction with the applicable EU law and therefore it is 
necessary to ensure that the obligations incumbent on them under the international maritime 
safety  conventions  concerned,  and  against  which  they  will  be  audited  by  the  IMO,  are 
compatible with their obligations at EU level.  

1.9. 

Directive 2008/106/EC 

Without prejudice to the considerations made in sections 1.6 to 1.8, no areas of conflict have 
been identified between the draft Codes and Directive 2008/106/EC. 

1.10.  Conclusion 

In  view  of  the  above  it  is  only  possible  for  the  Member  States  to  give  their  consent  to  be 
bound by the III and RO Codes if the necessary safeguards are taken in order to ensure that: 

(a) 

(b) 

The full effectiveness of Regulation 391/2009 and Directive 2009/15/EC, as well as 
the Union's capacity to continue to develop such acquis; and  

The  Commission's  capacity  to  grant  recognition  only  to  those  organisations  which 
fulfil the criteria and obligations laid down in Regulation 391/2009, and to withdraw 
the recognition of those which do not, 

are fully preserved. 

The Commission considers that, in order to protect the achievement of the objectives of the 
said  Directive  and  Regulation,  the  Member  States  should  make  an  express  reservation  in 
relation to their obligations under EU law when giving their consent to be bound by the Codes 
and  to  submit  their  maritime  administrations  to  a  mandatory  IMO  Member  State  Audit 
Scheme. 

As regards the issues discussed under section 1.7.1.3 it should suffice for the Member States 
to make it clear, when giving their consent to be bound by the Codes, that they interpret the 
provisions concerned in a certain way – e.g. as providing only a minimum list of requirements 
which  does  not  prevent  the  flag  States  from  imposing  other  requirements  on  recognised 
organisations. 

Finally, the obligation of the Member States to undergo an IMO audit as provided in Article 7 
of Directive 2009/21/EC should be seen also in the light of the obligations incumbent on them 
at international and EU level. Therefore, any IMO audit should verify compliance only with 
those provisions of the international conventions which Member States have accepted.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
2013/0111 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

On the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, at the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO) with regard to the adoption of certain Codes and related 
amendments to Conventions 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 100 (2), in conjunction with Article 218 (9) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Now  approved  by  the  IMO  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee  in  its  64th 
session (MEPC 64, October 2012) and by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee in its 
91st session (MSC 91, November 2012), the 28th IMO Assembly is expected to adopt 
an IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code) in December 2013. 

Now  approved  by  the  IMO  MEPC  64  and  by  the  IMO  MSC  91,  an  IMO  Code  on 
Recognised Organisations (RO Code) is expected to be adopted by these Committees 
in May and June 2013, in their 65th and 92nd sessions, respectively.  

The IMO MSC 91 approved amendments to the International Load Lines Convention, 
1966  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Load  Lines  convention");  to  the  International 
Regulations  for  Preventing  Collisions  at  Sea,  1972;  and  to  the  International 
Convention  on  Tonnage  Measurement,  1969  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  III  Code 
mandatory, together with an associated flag State audit scheme, for consideration and 
adoption by the 28th IMO Assembly. 

The IMO MEPC 64 approved amendments to the protocols of 1978 and 1997 relating 
to  the  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships,  1973 
(hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  MARPOL convention"),  with  a  view  to  rendering  the 
III  Code  mandatory,  together  with  an  associated  flag  State  audit  scheme.  The 
Committee is expected to adopt these amendments at its 66th session, in 2014. 

The  IMO  MSC  91  approved  amendments  to  the  International  Convention  for  the 
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the SOLAS convention") and its 
1988  Protocol,  as  well  as  to  the  protocol  of  1988  relating  to  the  International 
Convention  on  Load  Lines,  1966,  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  III  Code  mandatory, 
together  with  an  associated  flag  State  audit  scheme.  At  its  92nd  Session,  due  to  take 
place  in  June  2013,  the  Committee  is  expected  to  approve  amendments  to  the 
International  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training,  Certification  and  Watchkeeping 
for Seafarers, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the STCW Convention"), with the same 
purpose.  The  Committee  is  expected  to  adopt  the  amendments  referred  to  in  this 
paragraph at its 93rd session, in 2014.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The  IMO  MEPC  64  approved  amendments  to  the  Protocol  of  1978  relating  to  the 
MARPOL  convention  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  RO  Code  mandatory.  The 
Committee is expected to adopt these amendments at its 65th session. 

The  IMO  MSC  91  approved  amendments  to  the  SOLAS  convention  and  to  the 
protocol of 1988 relating to the Load Lines convention, with a view to rendering the 
RO  Code  mandatory.  The  Committee  is  expected  to  adopt  these  amendments  at  its 
92nd session. 

Once adopted, the amendments to the above mentioned conventions will be submitted 
by the IMO Secretary-General to the respective contracting parties in order for these to 
express their consent to be bound by the said amendments either tacitly or expressly, 
according to the relevant provisions of each convention. 

(9) 

None of the above mentioned conventions contains clauses excluding the formulation 
of reservations as regards amendments. 

(10)  The  draft  III  Code  is  meant  to  replace  Resolution  A.973(24)  which  contains  the 
existing  Code  for  the  implementation  of  mandatory  IMO  instruments,  which  in  turn 
replaced  Assembly  Resolution  A.847(20),  which  the  Member  States  are  obliged  to 
apply by virtue of Article 3 (1) of Directive 2009/15/EC of the European Parliament 
and  the  Council  on  common  rules  and  standards  for  ship  inspection  and  survey 
organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations15.  

(11)  The  matter  of  the  RO  Code  is  exhaustively  regulated  by  the  above  mentioned 
Directive  and  by  Regulation  (EC)  N°  391/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
inspection  and  survey 
Council  on  common  rules  and  standards  for  ship 
organisations16, either directly or by reference to a number of IMO resolutions. 

(12)  Furthermore,  according  to  the  first  subparagraph  of  Article  7(2)  of  Directive 
2009/15/EC,  following  the  adoption  of  new  instruments  or  protocols  to  the 
international conventions referred to in Article 2(d), the Council, acting on a proposal 
from  the  Commission,  shall  decide,  taking  into  account  the  Member  States’ 
parliamentary  procedures  as  well  as  the  relevant  procedures  within  the  IMO,  on  the 
detailed arrangements for ratifying those new instruments or protocols, while ensuring 
that  they  are  applied  uniformly  and  simultaneously  in  the  Member  States.  The  term 
"international conventions" is defined both in Directive 2009/15/EC and in Regulation 
(EC)  nº391/2009  to  include  the  SOLAS,  MARPOL  and  Load  Lines  conventions, 
together  with  the  protocols  and  amendments  thereto,  and  the  related  codes  of 
mandatory application, in their up-to-date version.  

(13)  The obligations incumbent on the flag States under the STCW convention are covered 
by Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers17, as amended 
by Directive 2012/35/EU18. 

(14) 

It  is  necessary  to  ensure  the  consistency  with  Union  law  of  the  Member  States' 
obligations  arising  from  the  application  of  the  III  Code  and  the  RO  Code  under  the 
conventions  referred  to  in  the  preceding  paragraphs  and  under  other  conventions 
which render the said codes mandatory for the Contracting Parties. 

15 
16 
17 
18 

OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 47 
OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 11 
OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 33 
OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 78 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(15)  Directive 2009/21/EC on flag State requirements19 lays down a number of obligations 
for  the  Member  States  as  flag  States.  These  include  in  particular  an  obligation  for 
Member States to take the necessary measures for an IMO audit of their administration 
to be carried out at least once every seven years. However, this provision shall expire 
at the latest on 17 June 2017 or at an earlier date, as established by the Commission, if 
a mandatory IMO Member State Audit Scheme has entered into force. 

(16)  For  the  above  mentioned  reasons,  the  III  Code  and  the  RO  Code  as  well  as  the 
corresponding amendments to the conventions referred to above come under exclusive 
EU competence which the Union has acquired pursuant to Article 3 (2) TFEU, in so 
far as the adoption of the international instruments at stake may affect common rules 
or alter their scope.  

(17)  A number of provisions in the draft III Code are in conflict with the above mentioned 
instruments of EU law especially as regards: a) the extension of the Code to cover the 
administrative  instructions  of  the  flag  State  as  regards  classification  tasks  and 
certificates,  which  entails  a  risk  that  the  requirements  contained  in  Regulation  (EC) 
391/2009 concerning those tasks and certificates, or action taken in order to ensure the 
implementation  of  those  requirements,  be  unduly  contested;  b)  the  limitation  of  the 
flag State's capacity to regulate the activity of recognised organisations only to ships 
flying its flag, in contrast with criteria and obligations laid down in the said Regulation 
which concern all the activities of recognised organisations, regardless of flag; c) the 
prohibition  for  the  flag  State  to  mandate  its  recognised  organisations  to  apply 
classification or statutory requirements to ships other than those entitled to fly its flag, 
beyond  convention  requirements  and  the  mandatory  instruments  of  the  IMO,  in 
contrast with the specific criteria and obligations referred to above.  

(18)  A number of provisions in the draft RO Code are in conflict with the above mentioned 
instruments  of  EU  law,  especially  as  regards:  a)  the  definition  of  "statutory 
certification  and  services"  which  includes  services  and  certification  tasks  which  in 
Regulation  (EC)  391/2009  and  in  Directive  2009/15/EC  are  considered  part  of  the 
recognised organisations' classification activities and hence of a private nature; b) the 
limitation  of  requirements  for  cooperation  between  recognised  organisations  only  in 
the framework established by the flag State, in contrast with the obligations laid down 
in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) 391/2009; c) the application of classification rules, as 
described above. Moreover, the prohibition in the draft RO Code of any requirements 
on  recognised  organisations  which  may  impinge  on  the  rights  of  another  flag  State 
may, when read in conjunction with the Code's definition of statutory certification and 
services, lead to abusive interpretation of the Code and hence give rise to unjustified 
restrictions  to  the  implementation  of  the  requirements  provided  in  Regulation  (EC) 
391/2009 on the classification activities of recognised organisations. 

(19)  Neither  the  areas  listed  in  the  draft  III  Code  where  the  Contracting  Parties  can 
intervene in the activity of recognised organisations nor the requirements placed in the 
draft  RO  Code  on  recognised  organisations  cover  all  the  minimum  criteria  and 
obligations laid down in Regulation 391/2009 or deriving from obligations incumbent 
on  the  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Directive  2009/15/EC;  however,  these 
provisions  must  be  understood,  save  where  an  explicit  prohibition  is  formulated,  as 
setting  minimum  standards  on  which  the  Contracting  Parties  can  elaborate  and 
improve. 

19 

OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 132 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(20)  Nothing in either the draft III Code or the RO Code should place any restrictions on 
the  Union's  capacity  to  lay  down,  in  accordance  with  the  Treaties  and  international 
law, appropriate conditions for the granting of recognition to organisations wishing to 
be authorised by the Member States to carry out ship survey and certification activities 
on  their  behalf,  with  a  view  to  achieving  the  Union's  objectives  and  in  particular  to 
enhance maritime safety and the protection of the environment. 

(21)  With the exception of the above described areas of potential conflict with Union law, 
the two draft Codes must on the whole be considered a positive development insofar 
as  they  will  establish  high  global  standards  for  the  activities  of  flag  States  and 
recognised  organisations  alike;  for  these  reasons,  the  development  of  an  IMO  RO 
Code  was  explicitly  envisaged  in  recital  (4)  of  the  Regulation  391/2009.  The  Union 
should therefore support the adoption of both Codes as mandatory instruments of the 
IMO. 

(22)  The  Union  is  neither  a  member  of  the  IMO  nor  a  Contracting  Party  to  the  above 
mentioned  conventions.  It  is  therefore  necessary  for  the  Council  to  authorise  the 
Member States to give their consent to be bound, in the interests of the Union, by the 
amendments  to  those  conventions  which  will  make  the  III  Code  and  the  RO  Code 
mandatory, together with an associated flag State audit scheme, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:  

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

The  position  of  the  Union  at  the  28th  IMO  Assembly  shall  be  to  agree  to  the  draft 
IMO  Instruments  Implementation  Code,  as  approved  by  the  IMO  Maritime  Safety 
Committee in its 91st session and laid down in IMO document MSC 91/22 Annex 16. 
The  position  of  the  Union  at  the  28th  IMO  Assembly  shall  be  to  agree  to  the 
following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

amendments to the International Load Lines Convention, 1966 with a view to 
rendering the IMO Instruments Implementation Code mandatory, together with 
an associated flag State audit scheme, as approved by the IMO Maritime Safety 
Committee  at  its  91st  session,  as  laid  down  in  IMO  document  MSC  91/22 
Annex 10; 

amendments  to  the  International  Convention  on  Tonnage  Measurement,  1969 
with  a  view  to  rendering  the  IMO  Instruments  Implementation  Code 
mandatory, together with an associated flag State audit scheme, as approved by 
the IMO Maritime Safety Committee at its 91st session, as laid down in IMO 
document MSC 91/22 Annex 12; 

amendments to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 
1972  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  IMO  Instruments  Implementation  Code 
mandatory, together with an associated flag State audit scheme, as approved by 
the IMO Maritime Safety Committee at its 91st session, as laid down in IMO 
document MSC 91/22 Annex 11. 

1. 

The  position  of  the  Union  at  the  65th  session  of  the  IMO  Marine  Environment 
Protection  Committee  shall  be  to  agree  to  the  draft  IMO  Code  on  Recognised 
Organisations, as approved by the said committee at its 64th session and by the IMO 

Article 2 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Maritime Safety Committee at its 91st session, as laid down in IMO document MSC 
91/22 Annex 19. 
The  position  of  the  Union  at  the  65th  session  of  the  IMO  Marine  Environment 
Protection  Committee  shall  be  to  agree  to  the  adoption  of  the  amendments  to  the 
Protocol  of  1978  relating  to  the  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of 
Pollution from Ships, 1973 with a view to rendering the IMO Code on Recognised 
Organisations  mandatory,  as  approved  by  the  IMO  Marine  Environment  Protection 
Committee  at  its  64th  session,  as  laid  down  in  IMO  document  MEPC  64/23  Annex 
23. 
The  position  of  the  Union  at  the  66th  session  of  the  IMO  Marine  Environment 
Protection  Committee  shall  be  to  agree  to  the  adoption  of  the  amendments  to  the 
protocols  of  1978  and  1997  relating  to  the  International  Convention  for  the 
Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships,  1973  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  IMO 
Instruments Implementation Code mandatory, together with an associated flag State 
audit scheme, as approved by the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee at 
its 64th session, as laid down in IMO document MEPC 64/23 Annex 20. 

Article 3 

The position of the Union at the 92nd session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee 
shall be to agree to the draft IMO Code on Recognised Organisations, as approved by 
the said committee at its 91st session and by the IMO Marine Environment Protection 
Committee at its 64th session, as laid down in IMO document MSC 91/22 Annex 19. 
The position of the Union at the 92nd session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee 
shall be to agree to the following: 

(a) 

amendments  to  the  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea, 
1974, as amended (SOLAS 1974) with a view to rendering the IMO Code on 
Recognised  Organisations  mandatory,  as  approved  by  the  IMO  Maritime 
Safety Committee at its 91st session, as laid down in IMO document MSC 91/22 
Annex 20;  

(b) 

amendments  to  the  1988 Protocol  to  the  International  Convention  on  Load 
Lines,  1966  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  IMO  Code  on  Recognised 
Organisations mandatory, as approved by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee 
in its 91st session, as laid down in IMO document MSC 91/22 Annex 21. 
The position of the Union at the 93rd session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee 
shall be to agree to the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

amendments  to  the  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea, 
1974,  as  amended  (SOLAS  1974)  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  IMO 
Instruments Implementation Code mandatory, together with an associated flag 
State audit scheme, as approved by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee at its 
91st session, as laid down in IMO document MSC 91/22 Annex 17; 

amendments  to  the  1988 Protocol  to  the  International  Convention  on  Load 
Lines, 1966  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  IMO  Instruments  Implementation 
Code  mandatory,  together  with  an  associated  flag  State  audit  scheme,  as 
approved  by  the  IMO  Maritime  Safety  Committee  at  its  91st  session,  as  laid 
down in IMO document MSC 91/22 Annex 18. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
4. 

1. 

2. 

The position of the Union at the 92nd and 93rd sessions of the IMO Maritime Safety 
Committee shall be to agree to the approval and subsequent adoption of appropriate 
amendments  to  the  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training, Certification  and 
Watchkeeping  for  Seafarers,  1978  with  a  view  to  rendering  the  IMO  Instruments 
Implementation  Code  mandatory,  together  with  an  associated  flag  State  audit 
scheme. 

Article 4 

The  position  of  the  Union  as  set  out  in  Articles  1  to  3  shall  be  expressed  by  the 
Member States, which are members of the IMO, acting jointly in the interest of the 
Union, and subject to the reservation contained in the Annex to the present Decision. 

Formal and minor changes to the Union's position as set out in Articles 1 to 3 may be 
agreed without requiring that position to be amended. 

Member States are hereby authorized to give their consent to be bound, in the interest of the 
Union  and  subject  to  the  reservation  set  out  in  Annex  to  this  Decision,  by  the  amendments 
referred to in Articles 1 (2), 2(2), 2(3) and 3(2) to 3(4). 

Article 5 

This Decision is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels,  

Article 6 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
Reservation by [insert name of the contracting Member State] 

ANNEX 

As regards the [Insert name of the relevant Code], [Insert name of the contracting Member 
State] wishes to make clear that nothing in the said Code shall be construed to restrict or limit 
in any way the fulfilment of its obligations under EU law. In particular, [Insert name of the 
contracting Member State] intends to continue to comply with the relevant Union legislation 
on  common  rules  and  standards  for  ship  inspection  and  survey  organisations  especially  as 
regards: 

- 

- 

The definition of "statutory certificates" and "class certificates"; 

The scope of the obligations and criteria laid down for recognised organisations; 

- 
The  duties  incumbent  on  the  European  Commission  in  the  recognition,  assessment 
and,  as  the  case  may  be,  imposition  of  corrective  measures  or  sanctions  on  recognised 
organisations.  

Moreover, [Insert name of the contracting Member State] considers that the [Insert name of 
the relevant Code] contains a set of minimum requirements on which States can elaborate and 
improve  as  appropriate  for  the  enhancement  of  maritime  safety  and  the  protection  of  the 
environment. 

Any  IMO  audit  should  verify  compliance  only  with  those  provisions  of  the  international 
conventions which [Insert name of the contracting Member State] has accepted, including in 
the terms of this reservation.  

EN 

22 

   EN