REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the progress in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and Directive 2009/15/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations
Date: 2016-02-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, maritime safety, pollution from ships, prevention of pollution, professional association, roadworthiness tests, vessel

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.2.2016  COM(2016) 47 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the progress in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and Directive 2009/15/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

As part of the Third Maritime Safety package, the European Parliament and the Council 
adopted  in  2009  Regulation  (EC)  No  391/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (the 
Regulation)1  and  Directive  2009/15/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the 
relevant  activities  of  maritime  administrations  (the  Directive)2.  This  report  aims  to 
inform the European Parliament and the Council on the progress in the implementation of 
this  legislation  in  accordance  with  Article  17  of  the  Regulation  and  Article  12  of  the 
Directive respectively. 

2.  BACKGROUND 

The  Regulation  and  the  Directive  repealed  Council  Directive  94/57/EC3  and  form  one 
coherent piece of legislation which provides the regulatory framework for ship inspection 
and survey organisations (otherwise called recognised organisations or ROs) in the EU. 

The Directive governs the relations between the Member States, in their capacity as flag 
States, and the recognised organisation(s) which they authorise to carry out tasks on their 
behalf for the statutory certification of the ships flying their flags. 

The  Regulation 
lays  down  recognition  criteria  and  obligations  for  recognised 
organisations,  covering  both  statutory  and  classification  activities.  These  requirements 
are of a structural and systemic nature, largely based on international standards. They aim 
at ensuring that EU recognised organisations strictly apply their rules and procedures on 
the basis of a stringent quality assurance system, with respect to all ships classed in their 
registers regardless of flag. 

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

If  a  Member  State  wishes  to  authorise  an  organisation  to  carry  out  on  its  behalf 
inspections  and  surveys  related  to  statutory  certificates  for  compliance  with  the 
international conventions, it has to entrust these duties only to a recognised organisation, 
which means an organisation recognised in accordance with the Regulation4. 

The  recognition  process  is  managed  centrally  and  the  recognition  is  granted  by  the 
Commission. Once recognised at EU level, the organisation is free to conclude bilateral 

1   OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.11, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1355/2014, 

OJ L 365, 19.12.2014, p. 82. 

2   OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.47, as amended by Commission Implementing Directive 2014/111/EU, OJ L 

366, 20.12.2014, p. 83. 

3   Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection 
and  survey  organizations  and  for  the  relevant  activities  of  maritime  administrations,  OJ  L  319, 
12.12.1994, p. 20, as amended. 

4   Annex  I  of  the  Regulation  laid  down  minimum  criteria  for  organisations  to  obtain  or  to  continue  to 

enjoy (EU) recognition. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
agreements  with  any  Member  State,  and  the  latter  cannot  refuse  but  only  restrict  the 
number of recognised organisations it authorises under its flag. 

The Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS)5 assists 
the Commission in the implementation of this legislation as per Article 6 (resp. 12) of the 
Directive (resp. of the Regulation). 

3.  LIST OF RECOGNISED ORGANISATIONS (ROS) 

3.1.  Legal basis for recognition and continuation of existing recognitions 

The  following  provisions  of  the  Regulation  govern  the  recognition  process  and  the 
continuation of recognitions granted before 2009 under Council Directive 94/57/EC:  

  Article  4:  recognition  decision  to  be  granted  by  the  Commission  in  accordance 
with  the  examination  procedure  provided  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/20116; 
relevant  legal  entity  that  should  hold  the  recognition;  limited  recognition; 
publication of the list of ROs; 

  Article  15:  continuation  of  recognitions  and  review  of  limited  recognitions 
granted under Directive 94/57/EC before the entry into force of the Regulation; 

  Article  16:  verification  of  the  legal  entity  that  should  hold  the  recognition; 

decision to amend the recognitions as appropriate. 

3.2.  Changes in the list 

There  were  thirteen  organisations  holding  EU  recognition  in  20077.  Since  then,  the  list 
has evolved as follows: 

  The  limited  recognition  of  the  'Registro  Internacional  Naval,  SA'  (RINAVE) 

expired on 18 April 2008 and was not renewed8;  

  Ten organisations retained their recognitions (without limitation) at the entry into 
force of the Regulation in 2009 in accordance with Article 15 of the Regulation; 

  The  recognition  of  the  Polish  Register  of  Shipping  (PRS)  was  retained  and 
extended without limitations9 in accordance with Article 15 of the Regulation; 

5   Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 324, 29.11.2002, 
p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 530/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 
OJ L 172, 30.6.2012, p. 3. 

6   Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of 
the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. 

7   List  of  organisations  recognised  on  the  basis  of  Council  Directive  94/57/EC  on  common  rules  and 
standards  for  ship  inspection  and  survey  organisations  and  for  relevant  activities  of  maritime 
administrations (2007/C 135/04), OJ C 131, 19.6.2007, p. 4. 

8   Commission  Decision  2005/311/EC  of  18  April  2005  on  the  extension  of  the  limited  recognition  of 

‘RINAVE — Registro Internacional Naval, SA’, OJ L 99, 19.4.2005, p. 15. 

3 

 
                                                 
  The limited recognition of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (HRS) expired on 30 

August 2010 and was not renewed10; 

More recently, the list of ROs changed as follows: 

 

 

 

In 2013, following the merger of 'Det Norske Veritas' (DNV) and 'Germanischer 
Lloyd' (GL), the Commission amended the recognition of DNV and granted it to 
the  new  relevant  legal  entity  'DNV  GL  AS'11  in  accordance  with  Article  4  and 
Article 16 of the Regulation; 

In  2014,  the  Commission  granted  recognition  to  the  'Croatian  Register  of 
Shipping' (CRS)12 in accordance with Article 4 of the Regulation; 

In  2015,  the  Commission  amended  the  recognitions  of  four  organisations 
pursuant to Article 16 of the Regulation and granted each of them to the relevant 
legal entity which should hold the recognition13. 

3.3.  List of EU recognised organisations as from May 2015 

Pursuant  to  Article  4(5)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  draws  up,  updates  and 
publishes a list of the organisations recognised in accordance with the Regulation. 

To this end, the Commission adopted Commission Decision (EU) 2015/66914 of 24 April 
2015  repealing  Decision  2007/421/EC  on  the  publication  of  the  list  of  recognised 
organisations  which  have  been  notified  by  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Council 
Directive 94/57/EC which empowers the Director-General for Mobility and Transport to 
publish the list of recognised organisations and to update it where necessary. 

The  updated  list  was  published  on  19  May  2015  as  a  Notice  from  the  European 
Commission (2015/C 162/06)15; it comprises eleven organisations: American Bureau of 
Shipping (ABS); Bureau Veritas SA — Registre international de classification de navires 
et  d’aeronefs  (BV);  China  Classification  Society  (CCS);  Croatian  Register  of  Shipping 
(CRS); DNV GL AS; KR (Korean Register); Lloyd’s Register Group LTD (LR); Nippon 
Kaiji Kyokai General Incorporated Foundation (ClassNK); Polish Register of Shipping 
(PRS); RINA Services S.p.A.; Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS). 

9   Commission  Decision  2009/728/EC  of  30  September  2009  extending  without  limitations  the 

Community recognition of the Polish Register of Shipping, OJ L 258, 1.10.2009, p. 34. 

10   Commission Decision 2009/354/EC of 30 March 2009 extending the limited Community recognition 

of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (HRS), OJ L 109, 30.4.2009, p. 42. 

11   Commission Implementing Decision 2013/765/EU of 13 December 2013 amending the recognition of 

Det Norske Veritas pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 391/2009, OJ L 338, 17.12.2013, p. 107. 

12   Commission  Implementing  Decision  2014/281/EU  of  14  May  2014  granting  EU  recognition  to  the 
Croatian Register of Shipping pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 391/2009, OJ L 145, 16.5.2014, p. 43. 

13   Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/668 of 24 April 2015 on amending the recognitions of 
certain  organisations  in  accordance  with  Article  16  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  391/2009,  OJ  L  110, 
29.4.2015, p. 22. 

14   OJ L 110, 24.4.2015, p. 24. 

15   OJ C 162, 19.5.2015, p. 5. 

4 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
4.  USE OF ROS BY MEMBER STATES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS FLAG STATE 

4.1.  Transposition of Directive 2009/15/EC 

Pursuant  to  Article  13  of  the  Directive,  the  Member  States  had  to  complete  the 
transposition of the Directive by 17 June 2011. The completeness of the transposition of 
the  Directive  by  the  Member  States  was  assessed  by  the  Commission  and  was  found 
overall satisfactory.  

4.2.  Working relationships between the Member States and the ROs 

Article  5  of  the  Directive  provides  that  Member  States  which  decide  to  authorise  a 
recognised organisation establish a formal 'working relationship' with the RO concerned 
in  a  form  of  a  written  formal  agreement  or  equivalent  legal  arrangements.  Pursuant  to 
paragraph 4 of this Article, each Member State has to communicate to the Commission 
precise information about the working relationships with ROs. 

All  Member  States  which  use  one  or  several  ROs  provided  the  information  about  their 
working  relationship  as  required,  including  changes  or  updates  where  appropriate.  The 
Commission verified that the said agreements are in line with the requirements. 

All Member States except one have concluded agreements with one or several ROs. The 
number of agreements concluded by each Member State ranges from one to ten, with an 
average of six ROs authorised per Member State. 

The number of agreements concluded by EU ROs with Member States ranges from one 
to twenty-five, with an average of fourteen agreements per RO. 

Pursuant  to  Article  8  of  the  Directive,  a  Member  State  may  suspend  or  withdraw  the 
authorisation of a RO if it considers that the RO concerned can no longer carry out on its 
behalf  the  tasks  specified  in  Article  3  (inspection,  surveys  and/or  issuance  of  statutory 
certificate). In such case, the Member State shall inform the Commission without delay 
and  give  substantiated  reasons  thereof16.  The  Commission  did  not  record  any  such 
notification since the entry into force of the Directive. 

4.3.  Monitoring of ROs by Member States 

Each Member State has to satisfy itself that the ROs acting on its behalf effectively carry 
out the functions entrusted to them in respect of the ships flying its flag. For this purpose, 
each Member State shall on a biennial basis monitor every RO acting on its behalf and 
share  the  results  of  this  monitoring  with  the  Commission  and  the  other  Member  States 
(Article 9 of the Directive). 

In general, Member States fulfilled this obligation and provided their monitoring reports 
to  the  Commission  as  required17.  However  the  Directive  does  not  provide  any  specific 
requirement  as  to  the  structure,  contents  and  level  of  details  of  the  monitoring  reports. 
Thus the completeness and quality of the reports varies significantly from one Member 

16   Excluding cases of termination of the authorisation agreement at the initiative of the RO or by mutual 

consent between the Member State and the RO concerned. 

17   One Member State failed to meet this obligation; infringement procedure is on-going. 

5 

 
                                                 
State to another. The Commission has started a discussion with the Member States with a 
view to agreeing on a list of minimum elements to be covered by the reports. 

Member States have also to carry out monitoring of ROs in their capacity as port States 
(Article 10 of the Directive) and notify the Commission and the other Member States of 
"cases  of  ships  representing  a  serious  threat  to safety  and  the  environment  or  showing 
evidence of particularly negligent  behaviour of the recognised organisations".  To date, 
the Commission did not record any such notification from Member States. 

5.  OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING OF ROS AT EU LEVEL 

5.1. 

Periodic assessments 

Legal framework 

Pursuant  to  Article  8  of  the  Regulation,  "All  the  recognised  organisations  shall  be 
assessed  by  the  Commission,  together  with  the  Member  State  which  submitted  the 
relevant  request  for  recognition  (…)  at  least  every  two  years."  "The  assessment  may 
include  a  visit  to  regional  branches  of  the  recognised  organisation  as  well  as  random 
inspection of  ships, both in  service and under construction, for the purpose  of auditing 
the  recognised  organisation's  performance".  The  assessment  is  performed  by  the 
Commission  with  a  view  to  (1)  verifying  that  the  ROs  meet  the  obligations  under  the 
Regulation  and  fulfil  the  minimum  criteria  set  out  in  Annex  I  of  the  Regulation;  (2) 
analysing  any  specific  items  of  non-conformity  and  their  (potential)  consequences  in 
terms of safety and protection of the environment. 

Visits and inspections 

The Commission tasked the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)18 to carry out, 
on  its  behalf,  the  necessary  technical  visits  and  inspections  referred  to  above.  This 
practice  was  codified  by  the  last  amendment  to  EMSA's  Founding  Regulation19  which 
provides  that  "The  Agency  shall  carry  out  inspections  on  behalf  of  the  Commission  as 
required  by  binding  legal  acts  of  the  Union  regarding  organisations  recognised  by  the 
Union in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 (…)". 

The  objective  is  to  provide  the  Commission  with  the  factual  evidence  and  technical 
analysis needed for the assessment. This arrangement has also allowed EMSA to develop 
a strong expertise in this area and to maintain a pool of qualified inspectors20. 

In order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the periodic assessments, a risk-
based  approach  has  been  developed  for  the  planning,  preparation  and  conduct  of  the 
visits  and  inspections  based  on  a  broad  range  of  information  and  data  (e.g.  previous 
assessments' findings, reports from Member States, fleet and staff statistics, newbuilding 
survey activity, casualties, port state control data, etc.). 

18   The European Maritime Safety Agency was established in 2002 as part of the 'ERIKA II' package. The 

inspection of ROs was one of the first activities of the Agency when it started its operation. 

19   Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European 
Maritime Safety Agency (OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1), as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 100/2013 
of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 39, 9.02.2013, p. 31). 

20   EMSA employs nine full-time inspectors for the purpose of the RO inspections and carries out up to 

twenty visits/inspections per year in different countries and regions of the world. 

6 

 
                                                 
From June 2009 when the Regulation entered into force until the end of 2014 (5.5 years), 
EMSA  carried  out  111  visits  and  inspections,  including  31  visits  of    head  offices,  66 
visits of branch offices and 14 inspection of ships. Around 40% of the visits took place in 
the EU/EEA countries and 60% in third countries21. 

Assessment by the Commission and correction of deficiencies 

The Commission periodically assesses ROs' compliance with the Regulation's obligations 
and  minimum  criteria  in  a  comprehensive  manner,  on  the  basis  of  EMSA's  findings, 
technical analysis and, as the case may be, recommendations. 

The  periodic  assessment  focuses  on  the  systemic  performance  of  the  organisation  and 
combines  different  analytical  approaches  with  a  view  to  determining  the  possible  root-
causes of the problems identified as well as the magnitude and gravity of their potential 
consequences.  The  assessment  is  addressed  to  the  RO  concerned  with  an  extensive 
description  and  assessment  of  relevant  items  of  non-compliance  identified,  with  an 
invitation  to  undertake  structural  corrective  and  preventive  actions  in  order  to  remedy 
those items of non-compliance and to prevent their reoccurrence22.  

The corrective and preventive actions put in place by the ROs have been very diverse and 
ranging  from  the  adjustment  of  specific  elements  of  their  systems  to  their  complete 
revamping.  So far, the ROs have  co-operated transparently and effectively  which bears 
witness to their professionalism and commitment to safety. 

At  least  once  every  two  years,  the  consolidated  results  of  the  visits,  inspections  and 
assessments are discussed with the Member States in the COSS, providing also valuable 
information to the national administrations for the purpose of their own monitoring of the 
ROs they authorise in the framework of the Directive (section 4.3 above). 

5.2.  Enforcement and coercive powers of the Commission 

Items  of  non-compliance  of  ROs  with  the  Regulation  are  normally  addressed  in  the 
framework  of  the  periodic  assessment  (Article  8)  which  includes  the  follow-up  of  the 
implementation of relevant corrective actions undertaken by the ROs in response to the 
Commission's assessment as well as collective discussions on cross-cutting issues. 

Notwithstanding the above, the Commission also has specific enforcement and coercive 
powers  so  that  "failure  by  a  recognised  organisation  to  fulfil  its  obligations  can  be 
addressed  in  a  prompt,  effective  and  proportionate  manner"  (recital  (10)  of  the 
Regulation),  namely  the  possibility  to  request  in  a  formal  way  that  the  RO  implements 
preventive and remedial actions within specified deadlines (Article 5) and the possibility 
to impose fines and/or periodic penalty payments (Article 6). 

21   This includes a significant number of visits in East and far-East Asia where most of the shipbuilding 
activity  takes  place  nowadays.  Also,  half  of  the  EU  ROs  have  their  headquarters  located  in  third 
countries: ABS (USA), CCS (China), ClassNK (Japan), KR (Korea) and RS (Russia). 

22   For example, the root-cause analysis of repeated failure to apply a convention's requirement for ship 
construction (as reported in several inspections and evidenced by checking samples of survey reports) 
led to identify a systemic failure in the organisation's process of updating and maintenance of its rules, 
whereas the consequence analysis concluded that relevant surveys for a certain group of ships had not 
been  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  applicable  safety  requirements;  the  RO  concerned 
changed  its  quality  system  to  ensure  that  its  rules  and  procedures  were  maintained  up-to-date 
(prevention) and undertook a re-inspection plan of the ships that may have been affected (correction). 

7 

 
                                                 
Should  the  above  measures  fail  to  achieve  their  purpose  or  should  the  organisation 
otherwise  present  an  unacceptable  threat  to  safety  or  the environment,  the  Commission 
may  withdraw  the  organisation's  recognition,  in  accordance  with  the  examination 
procedure23  and  after  the  organisation  concerned  has  been  given  the  opportunity  to 
submit its observations (Article 7). 

So far, the Commission has not needed to make use of Articles 5, 6 or 7. 

Pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Regulation and in the interests of transparency and legal 
certainty, the Commission adopted Commission Regulation (EU) No 788/201424 laying 
down  detailed  rules  for  the  imposition  of  fines  and  periodic  penalty  payments  and  the 
withdrawal  of  recognition  of  ship  inspection  and  survey  organisations  pursuant  to 
Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council,  so  that  the  methodology  for  the  calculation  of  fines  and  periodic  penalty 
payments  by  the  Commission  is  known  in  advance  by  the  organisations  concerned, 
including  specific  criteria  to  appraise  the  gravity  of  the  case  and  the  extent  to  which 
safety or the protection of the environment has been compromised. 

5.3. 

Safety and pollution prevention performance 

Recognition  is  granted  (and  maintained)  on  the  basis  of  the  quality  and  safety 
performance of the  organisation. The Regulation therefore provides (Article 14(1)) that 
the Commission adopts criteria to measure the effectiveness of ROs' rules and procedures 
as  well  as  ROs'  performance  as  regards  the  safety  of,  and  the  prevention  of  pollution 
from,  their  classed  ships,  having  particular  regard  to  the  data  produced  by  the  Paris 
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control and/or by similar scheme, and to 
determine when such performance is to be considered an unacceptable threat to safety or 
the environment. A similar requirement existed in Directive 94/57/EC (repealed) which 
resulted  in  the  adoption  of  Commission's  Decision  2009/491/EC  on  criteria  to  be 
followed in order to decide when the performance of an organisation acting on behalf of 
a flag State can be considered an unacceptable threat to safety and the environment25. 

This Decision started to apply at the same time when the Regulation entered into force. It 
combines the Port State Control data26 (RO-related detentions) produced by the Paris and 
Tokyo MOUs and the US Coast Guard regime into an overall score. 

The Commission implemented this Decision and shared the results with Member States 
on a regular basis. Since 2009 the EU recognised organisations  consistently  recorded  a 
'fair' to 'high' performance as measured by these criteria. 

The Commission has started the ground work for the implementation of Article 14(1) of 
the Regulation that includes a review of Commission Decision 2009/491/EC. 

23   In accordance with Article 13(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 182/2011 

24   OJ L 214, 19.7.2014, p. 12 and OJ L 234, 7.8.2014, p. 15. 

25   OJ L 162, 25.6.2009, p. 6. 

26   Number of RO-related detentions, i.e. number of ships detained by Port State Control authorities based 
on  so-called  detainable  deficiencies  (serious  shortcomings  in  the  fulfilment  of  Conventions 
requirements) attributable to the work/responsibility if the recognised organisation. 

8 

 
                                                 
6. 

INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION 

6.1.  The European Economic Area  

Both  the  Regulation  and  the  Directive  are  relevant  to  the  European  Economic  Area 
(EEA)  Agreement27,  as  was  also  the  case  of  (repealed)  Council  Directive  94/57/EC. 
Since  2009  however,  the  EEA  Joint  Committee  has  failed  to  incorporate  them  in  the 
relevant Annex of the Agreement due to the opposition of some EEA EFTA States which 
have  delayed  the  process  up  until  now.  Those  States  still  apply  Council  Directive 
94/57/EC28.  This  has  resulted  in  a  number  of  discrepancies  in  the  application  of  the 
requirements for ROs operating within the EEA – in contradiction with the objective of 
the EEA Agreement. 

6.2.  The IMO Code for Recognised Organisations 

Recital  (8)  of  the  Directive  provides  that:  "Worldwide  a  large  number  of  the  existing 
organisations  recognised  by  International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO)  Contracting 
Parties do not ensure either adequate implementation of the rules or sufficient reliability 
when  acting  on  behalf  of  national  administrations  as  they  do  not  have  reliable  and 
adequate structures and experience to enable them to carry out their duties in a highly 
professional manner".29 Mindful that common rules and standards for ROs would have a 
greater impact on safety if they would  be adopted and enforced  at  global level, the co-
legislators  indicated  in  recital  (4)  of  the  Regulation  that  "the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  should  promote  the  development  by  the  IMO  of  an  international  code  for 
recognised organisations". 

The  Member  States  and  the  Commission  actively  contributed  to  the  elaboration  of  the 
code within the relevant IMO committees. End of 2012, the final text of the IMO Code 
for Recognized Organizations (RO Code) was approved by the IMO but the Commission 
assessed  that  some  amendments,  if  adopted,  would  conflict  with  the  EU  legislation  in 
force or introduce severe contradictions. 

This  being  a  matter  of  EU  competence,  the  Council  established  the  position  of  the 
Member  States30  at  the  IMO  that  was  to  authorise  the  Member  States  to  give  their 
consent  to  be  bound  by  the  code  with  the  caveat  that  it  is  considered  as  minimum 

27   The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings 
together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway 
—  in  a  single  market,  referred  to  as  the  "Internal  Market".  The  EEA  Agreement  provides  for  the 
inclusion  of  EU  legislation  covering  the  four  freedoms  —  the  free  movement  of  goods,  services, 
persons  and  capital  —  throughout  the  31  EEA  States.  The  Agreement  guarantees  equal  rights  and 
obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. 

28   Council Directive 94/57/EC applies as amended last by Directive 2002/84/EC; see EEA Agreement, 

Annex XIII, Part V, para. 55b, p. 55. 

29   At that time there were no consolidated set of rules or standards of mandatory status at the IMO level 

to govern the recognition, authorisation and monitoring of ROs by flag States. 

30   Council Decision 2013/268/EU of 13 May 2013 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European 
Union  within  the  International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO)  with  regard  to  the  adoption  of  certain 
Codes and related amendments to certain conventions and protocols, OJ L 155, 7.6.2013, p. 3. 

9 

 
                                                 
standard and that nothing in it shall be construed to restrict or limit the fulfilment of their 
obligations under EU law in relation to three specifically enumerated points31. 

Furthermore,  as  foreseen  by  the  Regulation  and  the  Directive  in  such  cases,  the 
Commission used the so-called 'conformity checking procedure' (safeguard mechanism) 
to  prevent  the  automatic  incorporation  into  Union  law  of  certain  provisions  of  the  RO 
code  which  were  either  incompatible  with  the  EU  legislation  in  force  or  which  could 
negatively  impact  on  the  EU  safety  standards32.  The  Commission  completed  the 
procedure in December 2014, shortly before the entry into force of the RO Code33. 

7.  OTHER MECHANISMS PROVIDED FOR IN THE REGULATION 

7.1.  Article  10(1)  –  technical  and  procedural  conditions  for  the  mutual 
recognition of class certificate for materials, components and equipment 

While furthering the objective of freedom to provide services for classification societies 
recognised by the EU, the Regulation requires the ROs to co-operate with each other with 
a  view  to  aiming  for  harmonisation  of  their  rules  and  procedures  and  to  agreeing,  in 
appropriate  cases,  on  the  technical  and  procedural  conditions  under  which  they  will 
mutually recognise their class certificates for equipment, materials and components based 
on  equivalent  standards,  taking  the  most  demanding  and  rigorous  standard  as  the 
reference.  To  a  large  extent,  this  mechanism  draws  on  the  principles  of  self-regulation 
and partnership with the relevant stakeholders of the maritime industry. 

In  accordance  with  Article  10(2)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  assessed  the 
implementation of the above provisions by the EU ROs34 and submitted a Report to the 
European Parliament and the Council at the end of July 201535, based on an independent 
study36. The said report concludes inter alia that the scheme developed and implemented 
by the EU ROs is compliant with Article 10.1 of the Regulation. 

31   Declaration annexed to Council decision 2013/268/EU: 1/ the definition of 'statutory certificates' and 
'class certificates', 2/ the scope of the obligations and criteria laid down for recognised organisations, 
3/  the  duties  of  the  European  Commission  as  regards  the  recognition,  assessment  and,  where 
appropriate, the imposition of corrective measures or sanctions on recognised organisations. 

32   The Regulation and of the Directive includes dynamic references to the 'international conventions', i.e. 
amendments  to  the  conventions  are  automatically  brought  into  EU  law  at  the  same  time  when  they 
enter into force at international level. Such Amendments may however be excluded in accordance with 
the conformity checking procedure set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002. 

33   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1355/2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 
(OJ  L  365,  19.12.2014,  p.  82)  and  Commission  Implementing  Directive  2014/111/EU  amending 
Directive 2009/15/EC (OJ L 366, 20.12.2014, p. 83) of 17 December 2014 with regard to the adoption 
by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) of certain Codes and related amendments to certain 
conventions and protocols. 

34   Further information: http://www.euromr.org 

35   COM(2015) 382 final 

36   http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2015-05-29-report-mutual-recognition.pdf 

10 

 
                                                 
7.2.  Article  11  –  setting  up  of  an  independent  quality  assessment  and 

certification entity (QACE) 

The  Regulation  provides  that  the  ROs  shall  set  up  by  17  June  2011  and  maintain  an 
independent quality assessment and certification entity with the main objective to assess 
and  certify  the  ROs'  quality  management  system,  issuing  interpretations  on  quality 
management  standards  tailored  for  ROs'  peculiarities,  and  adopting  individual  and 
collective recommendations to improve RO's internal control mechanisms. 

The  entity  was  founded  in  November  2010  in  London,  United  Kingdom,  as  a  private 
limited and community interest (non-profit) company, with the name 'QACE - Entity for 
the  Quality  Assessment  and  Certification  and  of  Organisations  Recognised  by  the 
European Union (CIC)'37. 

Pursuant  to  paragraphs  6  and  7  of  Article  11,  the  Commission,  with  the  assistance  of 
EMSA, has assessed the development and operation of QACE for the past five years and 
reported on the results and follow-up of its assessment to the Member States at COSS.  

The Commission is in general satisfied with QACE's development and the entity can now 
be considered as a self-standing organisation certified as compliant with ISO 9001:2008.  

QACE's governance structure provides for a clear separation between the corporate and 
the operational activities, so that QACE appears to operate independently from the ROs.  

As regard the assessment and certification of the ROs' quality management system, the 
Commission  notes  the  efforts  undertaken  by  QACE  to  co-operate  with  the  private 
Quality  System  Certification  Scheme  managed  by  the  International  Association  of 
Classification  Societies  and  encourages  further  synergy  insofar  as  it  contributes  to 
achieving the full implementation of the Regulation's requirement. 

8.  CONCLUSIONS 

to 

the  preceding  sections, 

Having  regard 
the 
implementation  of Directive 2009/15/EC and Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 progressed 
effectively since 2009, thanks  to the combined effort of, and the co-operation between, 
the Member States, the Commission and EMSA. 

the  Commission  considers 

that 

Practically all provisions of the Regulation and of the Directive have been implemented 
as  required,  meaning  that  the  various  activities,  mechanisms,  schemes  and  working 
arrangements are now put in place and operative. 

It seems yet too early to assess the impact of this legislation and priority should be given 
to further implementation of the existing framework. 

37   Further information: http://qace.co, including QACE Annual Reports 2012, 2013 and 2014 

11