Article 1 Subject matter
1. The purpose of this Directive is: (a) to ensure that Member States effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States; and (b) to enhance safety and prevent pollution from ships flying the flag of a Member State. 2. This Directive is without prejudice to Community maritime legislation, as listed in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS) ( 5 ) , and to Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) ( 6 ) .
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 1 Subject matter):
1. The purpose of this Directive is: (a) to ensure that Member States effectively and consistently discharge their responsibilities and obligations as flag States; and (b) to enhance safety and living and working conditions, and to prevent pollution from ships flying the flag of a Member State. 2. This Directive is without prejudice to Community maritime legislation, as listed in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS) ( 1 ), and to Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) ( 2 ).
Article 2 Scope
This Directive shall apply to the administration of the State whose flag the ship is flying.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 2 Scope):
This Directive shall apply to the administration of the Member State whose flag the ship is flying in respect of ships subject to certification and engaged in any type of international voyages.
Article 3 Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: (a) ‘ship’ means a ship or craft flying the flag of a Member State falling within the scope of the relevant IMO Conventions, and for which a certificate is required; (b) ‘administration’ means the competent authorities of the Member State whose flag the ship is flying; (c) ‘recognised organisation’ means an organisation recognised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (recast) ( 7 ) ; (d) ‘certificates’ means statutory certificates issued in respect of the relevant IMO Conventions; (e) ‘IMO audit’ means an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Resolution A.974(24) adopted by the IMO Assembly on 1 December 2005.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 3 Definitions):
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: (a) ‘ship’ means a ship or craft to which one or more Conventions apply, flying the flag of a Member State and in respect of which a certificate is required; (b) ‘administration’ means the competent authorities of the Member State whose flag the ship is flying; (c) ‘recognised organisation’ means an organisation recognised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (recast) ( 3 ); (d) ‘certificates’ means statutory certificates issued in respect of the relevant IMO Conventions; (f) ‘Conventions’ means the conventions, with the Protocols and amendments thereto, making the use of the III Code mandatory, and the related codes of mandatory status, in their up-to-date versions; (g) ‘III Code’ means Resolution A.1070(28) (the IMO Instruments Implementation Code), adopted by the IMO, Part 2, with the exception of paragraphs 16, 18, 19, 20.3, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of that Part, in its up-to-date version; (h) ‘flag State surveyor’ means a public sector employee, working exclusively for and duly authorised by the competent authority of a Member State, responsible for or performing surveys, verifications and audits of ships and companies covered by the relevant international mandatory instruments and fulfilling the independence requirement laid down in Article 8(1); (j) ‘other personnel who assist in the performance of surveys’ means persons duly authorised by the administration of the Member State or by a recognised organisation acting on its behalf, who may assist flag State surveyors when carrying out surveys, as specified by the administration, and who fulfil the communication, qualification and independence requirements laid down in Article 8(1); (k) ‘flag State inspection’ means an inspection not leading to certification, conducted to verify that the actual condition of the ship and its crew is in conformity with the certificates that it carries.
Article 4 Conditions for allowing a ship to operate upon granting the right to fly the flag of a Member State
1. Prior to allowing a ship to operate, which has been granted the right to fly its flag, the Member State concerned shall take the measures it deems appropriate to ensure that the ship in question complies with the applicable international rules and regulations. In particular, it shall verify the safety records of the ship by all reasonable means. It shall, if necessary, consult with the losing flag State in order to establish whether any outstanding deficiencies or safety issues identified by the latter remain unresolved. 2. Whenever another flag State requests information concerning a ship which was previously flying the flag of a Member State, that Member State shall promptly provide details of outstanding deficiencies and any other relevant safety-related information to the requesting flag State.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 4 Conditions for allowing a ship to operate upon granting the right to fly the flag of a Member State):
1. Prior to allowing a ship which has been granted the right to fly its flag to operate, the Member State concerned shall ensure that the ship in question complies with the applicable international rules and regulations, including safety, social and environmental standards. Measures may be taken by a recognised organisation, acting on behalf of the Member State, when it has been duly authorised by the competent authority to do so. In particular, the Member State concerned or the recognised organisation acting on its behalf, as applicable, shall verify the safety records of the ship using, where available, the flag State inspection reports and certificates contained in its own database or, for Member States that have opted to use the ship information database referred to in Article 6a, in that database. The Member State concerned shall, if necessary, consult with the losing flag State in order to establish whether any outstanding deficiencies or safety issues identified by the latter remain unresolved. 2. Whenever another flag State requests information concerning a ship which was previously flying the flag of a Member State, that Member State shall promptly provide details of outstanding deficiencies and any other relevant safety-related information to the requesting flag State.
Article 5 Detention of a ship flying the flag of a Member State
When the administration is informed that a ship flying the flag of the Member State concerned has been detained by a port State, it shall, according to the procedures it has established to this effect, oversee the ship being brought into compliance with the relevant IMO Conventions.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 5 Detention of a ship flying the flag of a Member State):
1. When the administration is informed that a ship flying the flag of the Member State concerned has been detained by a port State, it shall, according to the procedures it has established to this effect, oversee the ship being brought into compliance with the relevant IMO Conventions. 2. Member States shall develop and implement an appropriate control and monitoring programme in order to provide a timely response to the situations referred to in paragraph 1.
Article 6 Accompanying measures
Member States shall ensure that at least the following information concerning ships flying their flag is kept and remains readily accessible for the purposes of this Directive: (a) particulars of the ship (name, IMO number, etc.); (b) dates of surveys, including additional and supplementary surveys, if any, and audits; (c) identification of the recognised organisations involved in the certification and classification of the ship; (d) identification of the competent authority which has inspected the ship under port State control provisions and the dates of the inspections; (e) outcome of the port State control inspections (deficiencies: yes or no; detentions: yes or no); (f) information on marine casualties; (g) identification of ships which have ceased to fly the flag of the Member State concerned during the previous 12 months.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 6 Electronic information and exchange):
1. Member States shall ensure that the following information concerning ships flying their flag is made available in electronic format in its up-to-date version at the latest by 6 January 2031: (a) statutory certificates (full or interim) including dates of surveys, additional and supplementary surveys, if any, and audits; (b) identification of ships which ceased to fly the flag of the Member State concerned during the previous 12 months. 2. The Commission shall develop, maintain and update a digital interoperable portal providing a single point of access for the information referred to in paragraph 1 and allowing Member States’ flag State inspectors and port State inspectors to access that information in the performance of their duties. The Commission shall make that portal electronically accessible and free of charge for Member States. That portal shall not contain personal data or confidential information. The Commission shall ensure the interoperability of that portal with the ship information database referred to in Article 6a. That portal shall be established by 6 January 2028 at the latest. 3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the technical functioning of the portal referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 10(2).
Article 7 Flag State auditing process
Member States shall take the necessary measures for an IMO audit of their administration at least once every seven years, subject to a positive reply of the IMO to a timely request of the Member State concerned, and shall publish the outcome of the audit in accordance with relevant national legislation on confidentiality. This Article 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.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 7 Monitoring of compliance and performance of Member States):
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures for an IMO audit of their administration in accordance with the cycle adopted by the IMO. Member States shall publish the outcome of the audit, in accordance with relevant national legislation on confidentiality. 2. In order to ensure the effective implementation of this Directive and to monitor the overall functioning of flag State compliance with the legal duties of the administrations pursuant to this Directive, the Commission shall collect the necessary information when carrying out visits to Member States.
Article 8 Quality management system and internal evaluation
1. By 17 June 2012 each Member State shall develop, implement and maintain a quality management system for the operational parts of the flag State-related activities of its administration. Such quality management system shall be certified in accordance with the applicable international quality standards. 2. Member States which appear on the black list or which appear, for two consecutive years, on the grey list as published in the most recent annual report of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (hereinafter the Paris MOU) shall provide the Commission with a report on their flag State performance no later than four months after the publication of the Paris MOU report. The report shall identify and analyse the main reasons for the lack of compliance that led to the detentions and the deficiencies resulting in black or grey status.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 8 Quality management system and internal evaluation):
1. Each Member State shall implement and maintain a quality management system covering the operational parts of the flag State-related activities of its administration. Such quality management system shall be certified in accordance with applicable international quality standards, such as ISO 9001. The quality management system shall include the details of the responsibilities, of the authority and of the interrelation of personnel who perform surveys, inspections, audits and verifications and the flag State personnel who manage, perform and verify work relating to and affecting the flag State obligations. Such responsibilities shall be documented, specifying the type and scope of inspection work that may also be performed by non-exclusively employed flag State inspectors, and how such personnel shall communicate and report. The quality management system shall indicate the tasks that can be carried out by other personnel who assist in the performance of surveys. Each Member State shall ensure that non-exclusively employed flag State inspectors, and other personnel who assist in the performance of surveys, have education, training and supervision commensurate with the tasks they are authorised to perform, and that they are able to apply flag State instructions, procedures and criteria. Member States shall take appropriate measures to prevent conflicts of interests of all personnel who perform surveys, inspections, audits and verifications and regarding independence in relation to the work to be performed. By 6 January 2028, the quality management system shall cover the aspects referred to in this paragraph. 2. Member States which appear on the low performance list or which appear, for two consecutive years, on the medium performance list as published in the most recent annual report of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (the ‘Paris MOU’) shall provide the Commission with a report on their flag State performance no later than four months after the publication of the Paris MOU report. The report shall identify and analyse the main reasons that led to the detentions and the deficiencies resulting in a low or medium performance status.
Article 9 Reports
Every five years, and for the first time by 17 June 2012 the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive. This report shall contain an assessment of the performance of the Member States as flag States.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 9 Reports and Review):
Every five years, and for the first time by 6 January 2028, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive.
Article 10 Committee procedure
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS) established by Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002. 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at two months.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 10 Committee procedure):
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS) established by Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 6 ). 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.
Article 11 Transposition
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 17 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States. 2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 . Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention , also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 . Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety. However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence. Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18 /EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence. The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control. It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. The se surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 . The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf. However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently , almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from. As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto , for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: (1) statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, (2) flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case. To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits , it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation , within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens , the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules. The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order. In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention , which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the I nternational L abour O rganisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag State s of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 . Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections . Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since s haring of such information withi n one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections , making them more effective . This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays. The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern (1) the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and (2) the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships. In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are: – The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code. – Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of RO s working on behalf of the flag State . This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs invol ving all Member States in an EU- wide oversight scheme; – Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems toward s higher efficiency for both administrations and ships; – Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties . This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, a n update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement. 
Revised version (Article 11 Transposition):
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 17 June 2011 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States. 2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 3. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, (a) the Member States which do not have ships flying their flag and that fall within the scope of this Directive may derogate from the obligation to transpose and implement Article 6 of this Directive as long as that condition is fulfilled; (b) the Member States which do not have ships that fall within the scope of this Directive and have closed their register for such ships may derogate from the obligation to transpose and implement this Directive for as long as that condition is fulfilled. Any Member State that intends to avail itself of one of the derogations referred to in the first subparagraph shall notify the Commission by 6 July 2027. Any subsequent change shall also be communicated to the Commission. Those Member States may not allow ships falling within the scope of this Directive to fly their flag or register such ships in their national registry until they have completely transposed and implemented this Directive.
Article 12 Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .
Article 13 Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.