The Commission presented a report on the progress in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and Directive 2009/15/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

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

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

Transposition of Directive 2009/15/EC : Member States had to complete the transposition of the Directive by 17 June 2011. The completeness of the transposition of the Directive by the Member States was assessed by the Commission and was found overall satisfactory .

Working relationships between the Member States and the ROs : the Directive provides that Member States which decide to authorise a recognised organisation establish a formal 'working relationship' with the RO concerned in a form of a written formal agreement or equivalent legal arrangements.

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

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

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

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

Monitoring of ROs by Member States : the Directive provides that each Member State shall on a biennial basis monitor every RO acting on its behalf and share the results of this monitoring with the Commission and the other Member States.

The report noted that in general, Member States fulfilled this obligation and provided their monitoring reports to the Commission as required. However the Directive does not provide any specific requirement as to the structure, contents and level of details of the monitoring reports. Thus the completeness and quality of the reports varies significantly from one Member State to another. The Commission has started a discussion with the Member States with a view to agreeing on a list of minimum elements to be covered by the reports.

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

In conclusion , the Commission considered that the implementation of Directive 2009/15/EC and Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 progressed effectively since 2009 , thanks to the combined effort of, and the co-operation between, the Member States, the Commission and European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).

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

The Commission considered that it is too early to assess the impact of this legislation and priority should be given to further implementation of the existing framework.

COM(2016)0047
EUR-Lex

PURPOSE: to establish measures to be followed by the Member States in their relationship with organisations entrusted with the inspection, survey and certification of ships, operating in the Community.

LEGISLATIVE ACT: Directive 2009/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

CONTENT: following conciliation between Parliament and Council and a third reading by the European Parliament, the Council adopted this Directive which aims at recasting successive amendments to Directive 94/57/EC establishing common rules and standards for organisations that inspect ships and issue ships' certificates, known as recognised organisations. The purpose of the Directive is to reform the current system for Community recognition of the bodies tasked by the Member States with inspecting and certifying ship safety under international conventions (classification societies), a system set up by Directive 94/57/EC.

The Directive establishes measures to be followed by the Member States in their relationship with organisations entrusted with the inspection, survey and certification of ships for compliance with the international conventions on safety at sea and prevention of marine pollution, while furthering the objective of freedom to provide services. This includes the development and implementation of safety requirements for hull, machinery and electrical and control installations of ships falling under the scope of the international conventions.

The Council decided to split the Commission's initial proposal into two separate instruments, a Directive and a Regulation, in order to ensure that the system is legally watertight, particularly as it involves imposing obligations on recognised organisations and setting up a system of financial penalties. This was supported by the European Parliament.

The Directive notes that worldwide, a large number of the existing organisations recognised by International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Contracting Parties do not ensure either adequate implementation of the rules or sufficient reliability when acting on behalf of national administrations as they do not have reliable and adequate structures and experience to enable them to carry out their duties in a highly professional manner. This Directive is intended to rectify that.

The main points of the Directive are as follows:

in assuming their responsibilities and obligations under the international conventions (i.e SOLAS and MARPOL) , Member States must ensure that their competent administrations can ensure appropriate enforcement of the provisions thereof, in particular with regard to the inspection and survey of ships and the issue of statutory certificates and exemption certificates. They must act in accordance with the relevant provisions of IMO Resolution A.847; Member States may delegate the tasks listed above to recognised organisations; they must set out a ‘working relationship’ between their competent administration and the organisations acting on their behalf, which must be regulated by a formalised written and non-discriminatory agreement setting out the specific duties and functions assumed by the organisations and including, inter alia, certain specified provisions concerning financial liability , and provisions for a periodical audit by the administration or by an impartial external body appointed by the administration into the duties the organisations are undertaking on its behalf; where a Member State considers that a recognised organisation can no longer be authorised to carry out on its behalf the tasks specified it may suspend or withdraw such authorisation; each Member State shall, at least on a biennial basis, monitor every recognised organisation acting on its behalf and provide other Member States and the Commission with a report at the latest by 31 March of the year following the year in which the monitoring was carried out; the Commission shall, on a biennial basis, inform the European Parliament and the Council of progress in the implementation of the Directive.

The recitals note that when a recognised organisation, its inspectors, or its technical staff issue the relevant certificates on behalf of the administration, Member States should consider enabling them, as regards these delegated activities, to be subject to proportionate legal safeguards and judicial protection, including the exercise of appropriate rights of defence, apart from immunity, which is a prerogative that can only be invoked by Member States as an inseparable right of sovereignty and therefore cannot be delegated.

The Directive focuses on the relationship between the Member States and the recognised organisations to which they delegate the inspection and certification of ships under international conventions, whereas the Regulation deals in full with the recognition system as a whole (including the granting of recognition, the recognition criteria, the recognised organisations' obligations as regards reporting and cooperation, the periodic assessment of recognised organisations, the correction of shortcomings and, finally, withdrawal of recognition).

This Directive is part of a series of measures, comprising the third maritime package , aiming to strengthen the security of maritime transport in Europe by improving accident prevention and investigations into accidents and by strengthening vessel quality control. (See also COD/2005/0236 , COD/2005/0238 , COD/2005/0239 , COD/2005/0240 , COD/2005/0241 and COD/2005/0242 ).

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 17/06/2009.

TRANSPOSITION: 17/06/2011.

Directive 2009/15
OJ L 131 28.05.2009, p. 0047

03719/2008/LEX

Results of vote in Parliament

The European Parliament adopted by 665 votes to 19, with 4 abstentions, under the third reading of the codecision procedure, a legislative resolution approving the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) .

For details of the agreement, see the summary dated 08/12/2008.

T6-0105/2009

Debate in Parliament

A6-0097/2009

A6-0097/2009

03719/2008

03719/2008

The Commission accepts in full a certain number of amendments to the common position, adopted by the European Parliament in first reading. It accepts one amendment in part and three amendments in principle, given that they incorporate elements from its proposal for a Directive on compliance with Flag State obligations. However, the definitions introduced by these amendments should only apply to the provisions concerning Flag State obligations.

The Commission notes that the Council achieved a political agreement concerning its proposal on a Directive on Flag State obligations. This political agreement concerns the subject matter of a certain number of amendments and therefore renders these amendments no longer necessary within the perspective of the conciliation procedure.

EUR-Lex
COM(2008)0828

The European Parliament adopted by 638 votes to 21, with 9 abstentions, a legislative resolution amending the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast).

The recommendation for second reading (co-decision procedure) had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL (EPP-ED, ES) on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

The main purpose of the amendments is to reinstate Parliament’s position at first reading.

Recognised organisations : MEPs consider that the name ‘recognised organisations’ should be used throughout the directive (instead of ‘classification societies’).

Purpose : it is stated that the purpose of the directive is to ensure that Member States effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States, in accordance with international conventions.

Definitions : the definition of ‘international conventions’ should include the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (Tonnage 69), the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW 1978), and the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREG 72).'Administration' means the competent authorities of the Member State whose flag the ship is flying, including departments, agencies, and bodies, in charge of the implementation of the Flag State-related provisions of the IMO Conventions.

Responsibilities and obligations of Member States : Member States shall: (a) apply the provisions of the Flag State Code; (b) take the necessary measures for an independent auditing of their administration at least once every five years, in accordance with the rules of the IMO; (c) take the necessary measures with regard to the inspection and survey of ships and the issue of statutory certificates and exemption certificates as provided for by the international conventions.

Flag State requirements : a new article stipulates that, prior to allowing the operation of a ship, which has been granted the right to fly its flag, the Member State concerned shall take the appropriate measures 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 and shall, if necessary, consult with the administration of the losing flag State. Whenever a flag State requests information concerning a ship which was previously flying the flag of a Member State, the requested Member State shall promptly provide details of outstanding deficiencies and any other relevant safety-related information to the requesting flag State.

Information : Member States shall ensure that at least certain information concerning the ships flying their flag is kept under the direct control of a public authority and remains at all times readily accessible to the administration by appropriate electronic means (for example, particulars of the ship; dates of the surveys; identification of the recognised organisations involved in the certification and classification of the ship; identification of the body which has inspected the ship under Port State control provisions and dates of the inspections; outcome of the port State control inspections; information on casualties; identification of the ships which have ceased to fly the flag of the Member State concerned during the previous 12 months).

Quality management : each Member State shall, within the framework of a quality management system, continuously evaluate and review its performance as a flag State. These evaluations shall, over a [36] month period, cover all aspects of the quality management system for the operational parts of the administration. As a minimum, the following performance indicators shall be included in the evaluation: (i) port State control detention rates; (ii) flag State inspection results; (iii) performance indicators, as may be appropriate, to determine whether staffing, resources and administrative procedures are adequate to meet the flag State obligations. The quality management system shall be set up and certified within a period of three years from the entry into force of the Directive.

Report : the Commission shall, before the end of 2010, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the feasibility of establishing a Memorandum of Understanding on flag State control obligations, aiming at ensuring a level playing field between flag States which have committed themselves to implementing in a mandatory way the Flag State Code and agreed to be audited in accordance with the provisions of Resolution A. 974 (24), adopted by the IMO Assembly on 1 December 2005.

Role of recognised organisations : an amendment specifies that, when a recognised organisation, its inspectors, or its technical staff issue the required certificates on behalf of the authority, they shall be subject to legal safeguards and judicial protection, including the exercise of any rights of defence, in the same forms as those to which the authority and its members could have had recourse had the authority issued the required certificates itself.

Maximum amount payable : while the common position states that the maximum amount payable by the recognised organisation must be at least equal to EUR 4 million (in the event of a marine casualty with personal injury not resulting in death) and EUR 2 million (damage to property), the Parliament stipulates that where the amount determined in the judgment or settlement is lower, this latter amount shall constitute the compensation payable.

Suspension of authorisation : Member States shall be left with the possibility of suspending their authorisation of a recognised organisation for reasons of serious danger to safety or the environment. According to MEPs, the Commission should decide without delay, in accordance with the committee procedure, whether any national measure to the above effect should be overruled. If the decision is not justified, the Commission shall request the Member State to withdraw the suspension. If the decision is justified, the Commission shall request the Member State to grant a new authorisation to another recognised organisation to replace the suspended organisation.

Transposition : this should take place within 18 months (instead of 24) of the date of entry into force of the Directive.

T6-0447/2008

Debate in Parliament

A6-0331/2008

A6-0331/2008

The Committee on Transport and Tourism adopted the recommendation for second reading contained in the report by Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL (EPP-ED, ES), amending the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast).

The committee accepts splitting the proposal into a draft Directive and a draft Regulation. However, it considers it necessary to treat the set of proposals that make up the ‘Erika III’ package as an interconnected whole, in order to avoid incoherency.

The main purpose of the amendments is to reinstate Parliament’s position at first reading:

Recognised organisations : MEPs consider that the name ‘recognised organisations’ should be used throughout the directive (instead of ‘classification societies’).

Purpose : it is stated that the purpose of the directive is to ensure that Member States effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States, in accordance with international conventions.

Definitions : the definition of ‘international conventions’ should include the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (Tonnage 69), the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW 1978), and the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREG 72). 'Administration' means the competent authorities of the Member State whose flag the ship is flying, including departments, agencies, and bodies, in charge of the implementation of the Flag State-related provisions of the IMO Conventions.

Responsibilities and obligations of Member States : Member States shall apply the provisions of the Flag State Code. They shall: take the necessary measures for an independent auditing of their administration at least once every five years; take the necessary measures with regard to the inspection and survey of ships and the issue of statutory certificates and exemption certificates as provided for by the international conventions.

Flag State requirements : prior to allowing the operation of a ship, which has been granted the right to fly its flag, the Member State concerned shall take the appropriate measures 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, consulting, if necessary, with the administration of the flag State.

Information : Member States shall ensure that at least certain information concerning the ships flying their flag is readily accessible to the administration by appropriate electronic means (for example, particulars of the ship, dates of the surveys, identification of the recognised organisations involved in the certification and classification of the ship, identification of the Body which has inspected the ship under Port State control provisions and dates of the inspections, outcome of the port State control inspections, information on casualties and identification of the ships which have ceased to fly the flag of the Member State concerned during the previous 12 months).

Quality management : each Member State shall, within the framework of a quality management system, continuously evaluate and review its performance as a flag State. These evaluations shall, over a 36 month period, cover all aspects of the quality management system for the operational parts of the administration. MEPs specified the minimum performance indictors to be included in the evaluation.

Report : the Commission shall, before the end of 2010, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the feasibility of establishing a Memorandum of Understanding on flag State control obligations, aiming at ensuring a level playing field between flag States which have committed themselves to implementing in a mandatory way the Flag State Code and agreed to be audited in accordance with the provisions of Resolution A. 974 (24), adopted by the IMO Assembly on 1 December 2005.

Recognised organisations : an amendment specifies that, when a recognised organisation, its inspectors, or its technical staff issue the required certificates on behalf of the authority, they shall be subject to legal safeguards and judicial protection, including the exercise of any rights of defence, in the same forms as those to which the authority and its members could have had recourse had the authority issued the required certificates itself.

Maximum amount payable : while the common position states that the maximum amount payable by the recognised organisation must be at least equal to EUR 4 million (in the event of a marine casualty with personal injury not resulting in death) and EUR 2 million (damage to property), the committee stipulates that where the amount determined in the judgment or settlement is lower, this latter amount shall constitute the compensation payable.

Suspension of authorisation : Member States shall be left with the possibility of suspending their authorisation of a recognised organisation for reasons of serious danger to safety or the environment. According to MEPs, the Commission should decide without delay, in accordance with the committee procedure, whether any national measure to the above effect should be overruled.

Transposition : this should take place within 18 months (instead of 24) of the date of entry into force of this Directive.

PE407.922

The Commission accepts splitting the proposal into a draft Directive and a draft Regulation in so far as (a) it remains a formal procedure and the substance of its proposal is fully respected; and (b) it helps create greater legal certainty for the organisations concerned.

In terms of the Directive, the Commission can accept the amendment made by the Council that aims to remove the safeguard clause from Article 8(1), which does not undermine its right of initiative. The Commission also reiterated its position on Member States drawing up concordance tables between Member States' transposal measures and the provisions of the Directive, in the interests of citizens, better regulation and transparency. Despite the removal of this requirement from Article 14, the Commission offered no opposition to the Council's agreement. However, it expects this horizontal matter to be considered jointly by the institutions.

The Commission and the Council are both of the opinion that the system currently being developed by the Community could usefully serve as a model at international level. This is in line with the European Parliament's concerns regarding the need for coordination between the Community system and the international system. The Commission and the Member States are therefore prepared to call on the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to draw up a code guaranteeing that classification societies operate to a high level of quality worldwide. The Council and the Commission have therefore signed a joint declaration to this effect.

In conclusion, the Commission considers that the Council's common position fully addresses the concerns which led it to submit its proposal to recast Directive 94/57/EC and retains the key elements of the measures it recommended. Now that the act has been split into a draft Directive and a draft Regulation, most of those measures have been incorporated into the draft Regulation. Furthermore, the common position incorporates almost all of those amendments put forward by the European Parliament which the Commission was able to accept either in whole or in part. The Commission therefore accepts the common position, which forms a good basis for reaching agreement with the European Parliament at second reading.

COM(2008)0370
EUR-Lex

The Council’s common position, adopted by unanimity, introduces, in full or in part, 14 amendments proposed by the European Parliament at 1 st reading. The other amendments proposed by the Parliament (14 in total) were rejected by the Council.

The main issue raised during the discussions in the Council bodies was the form of the legal act proposed by the Commission. In its political agreement, the Council agreed to split the text into two separate instruments, a Directive and a Regulation.

In terms of the Directive, the Council was able to agree on almost all main elements of the Commission proposal concerning the relationship of Member States with organisations entrusted with the inspection, survey and certification of ships. The related provisions contain only a few changes compared to the corresponding provisions of the existing Directive 94/57/EC.

The modifications of the text by the Council were either necessary for editorial or terminological reasons or concern the following issues:

firstly, in line with the existing Community system, under which Member States can delegate their powers to recognised organisations to inspect ships and issue certificates under the relevant international conventions, the Council is of the view that, if a Member State does no longer wish to authorise a specific recognised organisation to act on its behalf, it is up to the Member State concerned to suspend or withdraw the authorisation. The text of the common position does not specify any procedure, apart from the obligation to inform the Commission and other Member States without delay of the suspension or withdrawal and to give substantiated reasons for this measure; secondly, in accordance with the amended Comitology Decision, the Council introduces in its common position the regulatory procedure with scrutiny for the adaptation of the Directive to amendments to the international conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions; thirdly, the Council deems it appropriate to specify the timeframe for the information by the Commission on the implementation of the Directive by Member States and provides that this will be done every two years.

05724/2/2008

The Council’s common position, adopted by unanimity, introduces, in full or in part, 14 amendments proposed by the European Parliament at 1 st reading. The other amendments proposed by the Parliament (14 in total) were rejected by the Council.

The main issue raised during the discussions in the Council bodies was the form of the legal act proposed by the Commission. In its political agreement, the Council agreed to split the text into two separate instruments, a Directive and a Regulation.

In terms of the Directive, the Council was able to agree on almost all main elements of the Commission proposal concerning the relationship of Member States with organisations entrusted with the inspection, survey and certification of ships. The related provisions contain only a few changes compared to the corresponding provisions of the existing Directive 94/57/EC.

The modifications of the text by the Council were either necessary for editorial or terminological reasons or concern the following issues:

firstly, in line with the existing Community system, under which Member States can delegate their powers to recognised organisations to inspect ships and issue certificates under the relevant international conventions, the Council is of the view that, if a Member State does no longer wish to authorise a specific recognised organisation to act on its behalf, it is up to the Member State concerned to suspend or withdraw the authorisation. The text of the common position does not specify any procedure, apart from the obligation to inform the Commission and other Member States without delay of the suspension or withdrawal and to give substantiated reasons for this measure; secondly, in accordance with the amended Comitology Decision, the Council introduces in its common position the regulatory procedure with scrutiny for the adaptation of the Directive to amendments to the international conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions; thirdly, the Council deems it appropriate to specify the timeframe for the information by the Commission on the implementation of the Directive by Member States and provides that this will be done every two years.

05724/2/2008

08925/2008

The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL (EPP-ED, ES) amending the proposed directive on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. The main amendments were as follows:

- the term "incident" was replaced by "marine casualty”;

- whereas the Commission was proposing a minimum amount of financial compensation in the event of personal injury (EUR 4 million) or loss or damage to property (EUR 2 million), the committee said that, where the amount determined in the judgment or settlement is lower, that lower figure should apply;

- the aggregate amount of the fines and periodic penalty payments shall not exceed 5 % (rather than 10%) of the total turnover of the recognised organisation in the preceding business year for the activities falling under the scope of this Directive

- Parliament clarified the role of the recognised organisations when they are acting on behalf of the States;

- the Member States, together with the recognised organisations, shall set up, 18 months after the date of entry into force of the Directive, an Assessment Committee in accordance with the EN 45012 quality standards. The relevant professional associations working in the shipping industry may participate in an advisory capacity. Its tasks include regulation and assessment of the systems for management of the quality of recognised organisations, in accordance with the ISO 9001 quality standard criteria. The Assessment Committee shall act independently and shall accordingly have access to all the resources needed to be able to operate properly and carry out thorough and consistent work. It shall possess highly specialised and extensive technical skills and a code of conduct that will safeguard the independence of the auditors’ activities;

- three years from the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, based on an independent study, on the level reached in the process of harmonising the rules and regulations and on mutual recognition. In the event of failure by the recognised organisations to fulfil the provisions relating to harmonisation, the Commission shall propose to the European Parliament and the Council the necessary measures.

T6-0150/2007

Debate in Parliament

A6-0070/2007

A6-0070/2007

The committee adopted the report by Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL (EPP-ED, ES) amending - under the 1st reading of the codecision procedure - the proposed directive on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations:

- for the English version of the text, the committee proposed replacing the term "incident" by "marine casualty";

- whereas the Commission was proposing a minimum amount of financial compensation in the event of personal injury (EUR 4 million) or loss or damage to property (EUR 2 million), the committee said that, where the amount determined in the judgment or settlement is lower, that lower figure should apply;

- the aggregate amount of the fines provided for in Article 12 should be lowered from 10%, as proposed by the Commission, to 5%;

- the Member States, together with the recognised organisations, should set up an Assessment Committee in accordance with the EN 45012 quality standards. The relevant professional organisations working in the shipping industry could participate in an advisory capacity. The committee's tasks would include certifying the quality system of recognised organisations. It should be empowered to act independently of the recognised organisations, be given access to all the resources needed to be able to operate properly, and "possess highly specialised and extensive technical skills";

- the Commission should report to Parliament and the Council within 3 years on "the level reached in the process of harmonising the rules and regulations and on mutual recognition".

PE378.538

PURPOSE: the establishment of common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and related maritime administration’s ship activities.

PROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

CONTENT: the need for appropriate provisions on ship inspections has long been recognised by the Commission, Parliament and Council. More specifically, the need to regulate organisations, known as “classification societies”, which are currently responsible for inspecting ships and issuing their licenses. Current legislation is enshrined in Directive 94/57. This, however, is in urgent need of updating and reforming. The purpose of this proposal, therefore, is to:

- Strengthen the control systems of recognised organisations.

- Harmonise the current dual system of ordinary and limited recognition.

- Simplify and improve the structure of the Community recognition criteria.

- Reform the system of penalties

- Clarify the scope of the Directive.

- Recast the Directive, given that this is its fourth updating.

Currently, two systems of safety standards apply to ship inspections. Firstly, technical safety standards which are developed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) through international conventions. They tend to be referred to as “statutory” requirements. The second set of standards are termed “class rules” and are devised by the classifications society themselves. The class rules cover the structural aspects of the ship such as its strength, stability and buoyancy. It also covers other areas such as machinery, equipment to be fitted on boards and operational aspects such as life-saving equipment. To apply the international conventions, the flag State must carry out the inspection required and issue the relevant certificates. Frequently, however, the flag State will delegate many of its tasks to recognised classification societies. In other words, the classification societies are responsible for approving plans as well as overseeing the construction process and thus are in full control of both the rules of substance and the inspection methods which they apply to certify that a newly built ship conforms to the said rules.

One area of concern raised by the current situation is the lack of cross checks in the system. It is unlikely that the quality of class certificates will ever be questioned when international certificates are issued. Errors made will inevitably lead to potential problems later down the line. An additional concern is that the choice of classification society is very much dependant on the relative strengths of the ship-owners and shipyards. While the major ship-owners generally manage to impose the societies they prefer, other have to accept the choice of the ship yard. Classification societies complain of being subject to pressure from major shipyards. Once a classification society has been chosen for a newly built ship, it is that society which determines the equipment to be fitted on boards since it is in a position of strength vis-à-vis equipment suppliers.

In light of the fact that EU provisions are not allowed to differ from the international regime the Community has thus far (in Directive 94/57) limited it role to setting strict criteria regarding independence and professional capability as a condition for the granting of Community recognition. Under this scheme, the Member States must ensure that ships flying their flags are designed, built and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulation of a recognised organisation or, in exceptional cases, on the basis of equivalent national regulations. In addition, the tasks arising from international conventions may only be delegated to recognised organisations. Prior to presenting this current proposal, the European Commission conducted extensive consultations with interested parties and stakeholders as well as commissioning an impact assessment.

Based on the results of the consultation process and the impact assessment the Commission proposes the following:

- Improving the monitoring of recognised organisations : Under this proviso, the Commission proposes that the recognised bodies should establish a joint body for quality system assessment and certification. Importantly, the joint body should act independently and be in a position to propose both individual and collective measures. At the same time it is being proposed that co-operation between the recognised organisations should be extended to ensure that their technical regulations are compatible and that these regulations and international conventions are interpreted and applied in a uniform manner – leading to a uniform level of safety within the EU. In doing so the Commission is hoping that a compatibility between the technical regulations would logically lead to the genuine recognition of class certificates.

- Reform of limited recognition : The Commission proposes to eliminate the principle of limited recognition given that it stifles opportunity amongst the smaller organisations. Thus, Community recognition will no longer depend on size but solely on quality and performance in terms of safety and environmental protection. At the same time the provisions specify that no organisations, regardless of size, will be allowed to work in an area in which is has no expertise – for example, equipping gas tankers or chemical tankers.

- Reform the of the recognition criteria : In its proposal the Commission is seeking to simplify the criteria and make them more legible, to amend those which are difficult to apply and to fill certain gaps. In particular the proposed Directive specifies the need for a clear confirmation of the number of inspectors in proportion to the fleet being classed. Other clarifications include, for example, ending the use of non-dedicated inspectors by recognised organisations and the requirement of legal personality and certification in order to check the financial independence of the recognised organisation.

- Reform of the system of penalties : The Commission states that a policy designed to protect maritime safety and the environment needs to be backed up by a system of penalties. It is essential that the principle of rectifying mistakes at source is upheld and strengthened. In the most serious cases – as in where there is a risk to the environment, the Commission puts forward the option of withdrawing recognition from the organisation in question. The system for penalties has accordingly been simplified and improved upon in order to make it more effective.

- Commission’s powers of inspection . In order to guarantee that recognised organisations apply the same strict standards to ships flying the flag of a third country as to ships flying the flags of a Member States, the Commission is proposing tighter provisions on Community access to recognised organisations for the purpose of evaluation.

- Taking account of the legal structure of recognised organisations . The Commission is proposing the introduction of a broad organisational concept for terming “recognised organisations”, which takes account of any foreseeable relationship of dependence between legal entities whose activities fall under the scope of the proposed Directive.

The proposal has no implications on the Community budget.

COM(2005)0587
EUR-Lex

COMMISSION’S IMPACT ASSESSMENT

For further information regarding the context of this issue, please refer to the summary of the Commission’s proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) – COM(2005)0587.

1- POLICY OPTIONS AND IMPACTS

In view of its three intermediate objectives, and having set aside the possibility of maintaining the regulatory status quo, the Commission considered the following options.

Intermediate objective No. 1 : strengthening control systems.

1.1- Option 1 - separation of functions : The main cause of the problems that persist lies in the accumulation of tasks by the recognised inspection and survey organisations. The first option involves separating statutory tasks from classification tasks.

The objective of separating tasks can be reached in several ways covered by the following sub-options:

Option 1a : resumption of statutory tasks by the Member States, thus putting an end to the current system of delegation; Option 1b : statutory and classification tasks to be undertaken by different inspectors in the same recognised organisation, under similar conditions to those in force under the current system; Option 1c : creation of separate ‘classification’ and ‘statutory’ branches within the recognised organizations; Option 1d : statutory and classification tasks to be carried out by different recognised organizations.

1.2- Option 2: strengthening of control systems in the recognised organisations . The second option would come into play downstream from Option 1 and would seek to make the instruments underpinning the sound management of the recognized organisations more effective. This would involve the strengthening of the recognised organisations’ control systems by means of:

greater transparency; more cooperation between recognised organisations; increased independence of the control system; the specific aim of ensuring the continuing examination recognised organisations’ regulations, procedures and internal controls leading to improvements.

This option involves the recognised organisations establishing a joint body for quality system assessment and certification. The joint body must be independent, have all the necessary resources to enable work to be carried out in-depth and on a continuous basis, and have the necessary authority to impose on the recognised organisations its interpretation of quality standards, as well as to propose corrective action – whether individual or collective - for an improvement in the quality of their work – for example, in the area of risk management.

Intermediate objective No. 2: reform of limited recognition. The reform of limited recognition, by extending its validity throughout Community territory and replacing the current quantitative criteria by qualitative criteria was not considered to have an economic impact. Indeed, it does not change the market situation in any way because under the current system limited recognition of an organisation can be extended at any time to any Member States requesting it.

Intermediate objective No. 3: updating of the recognition criteria . The simplification and updating of the recognition criteria, which does not involve new obligations on the recognised organisations, by its very nature, has no appreciable economic impact (except in the case of the prohibition against using non-dedicated inspectors, where the impact will only be moderate and will be spread across the fleet classified by the recognised organisations).

CONCLUSION : Option 2 would appear to offer the best solution in combining a high degree of efficiency and ease of implementation with only a very slight economic impact . It is compatible with the eventual phasing out of non-dedicated inspectors, which means its impact is similar to that of the other options in being low, as well as marginal, for Community ship owners and operators. IMPACTS

Option 1a: resumption of statutory tasks by the Member States, thus putting an end to the current system of delegation.

Advantage : the resumption of statutory tasks by the Member States would be fully in line with their responsibilities as public authorities and would directly get to the root of the problem. Disadvantage : this would require Member States to set up an entity capable of going to inspect ships where they are, something that could not be achieved without considerable costs to national budgets which means that this option is not feasible.

Option 1b: statutory and classification tasks to be undertaken by different inspectors in the same recognised organisation, under similar conditions to those in force under the current system.

Advantage : the possibility of it being implemented by the recognised organisations. It would facilitate the transition from non-dedicated to dedicated inspectors at minimal cost. Disadvantage : the effectiveness of such a measure would be limited because both inspectors would be part of a common organisational structure. The organisations concerned would need to increase their manpower because they would have to be able to respect the separation obligation everywhere.

Option 1c: creation of separate ‘classification’ and ‘statutory’ branches within the recognised organisations.

Advantage : the ‘common organisational structure’ aspect would be weakened in comparison with Option 1b, which would make this a more effective approach. Disadvantage : this option would be more burdensome both in terms of global coverage and the carrying out of unnecessary inspections.

Option 1d: statutory and classification tasks to be carried out by different recognised organisations.

Advantage : the separation of functions would be clear because there would no longer be a common organisational structure. Disadvantage : the measure would most probably generate additional costs because of unnecessary inspections.

Option 2: strengthening of control systems in the recognised organisations.

Advantage : although all the variants of Option 1 only covered ships flying the flags of Member States, Option 2 would contribute to improving the security of all the fleet classified by recognised organisations regardless of the flag they fly - in other words, the majority of the global fleet. In addition to its anticipated high level of efficiency, European ship owners will also benefit from its marginal and non-discriminatory cost. Furthermore, it would only require a short and relatively easy transition period. Disadvantage : as it is downstream from the main problem and demands a high degree of cooperation on the part of the recognised organisations, this option would require extremely careful monitoring by the Commission, including the possible use of its powers of sanction, in order to ensure that all the necessary aspects for its proper operation are at play.

2- FOLLOW-UP

The Commission will monitor the practical implementation by the Member States of the Directive’s provisions. The Member States will communicate to the Commission the text of all the main provisions of domestic national law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

At the operational level, the Commission will continue to evaluate periodically the recognised organisations in order to ensure that they respect the obligations of the Directive that apply to them, and in particular those relating to the implementation of measures recommended in the reform of the Community’s system for the recognition of classification societies.

EUR-Lex
SEC(2005)1498

PURPOSE: the establishment of common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and related maritime administration’s ship activities.

PROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

CONTENT: the need for appropriate provisions on ship inspections has long been recognised by the Commission, Parliament and Council. More specifically, the need to regulate organisations, known as “classification societies”, which are currently responsible for inspecting ships and issuing their licenses. Current legislation is enshrined in Directive 94/57. This, however, is in urgent need of updating and reforming. The purpose of this proposal, therefore, is to:

- Strengthen the control systems of recognised organisations.

- Harmonise the current dual system of ordinary and limited recognition.

- Simplify and improve the structure of the Community recognition criteria.

- Reform the system of penalties

- Clarify the scope of the Directive.

- Recast the Directive, given that this is its fourth updating.

Currently, two systems of safety standards apply to ship inspections. Firstly, technical safety standards which are developed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) through international conventions. They tend to be referred to as “statutory” requirements. The second set of standards are termed “class rules” and are devised by the classifications society themselves. The class rules cover the structural aspects of the ship such as its strength, stability and buoyancy. It also covers other areas such as machinery, equipment to be fitted on boards and operational aspects such as life-saving equipment. To apply the international conventions, the flag State must carry out the inspection required and issue the relevant certificates. Frequently, however, the flag State will delegate many of its tasks to recognised classification societies. In other words, the classification societies are responsible for approving plans as well as overseeing the construction process and thus are in full control of both the rules of substance and the inspection methods which they apply to certify that a newly built ship conforms to the said rules.

One area of concern raised by the current situation is the lack of cross checks in the system. It is unlikely that the quality of class certificates will ever be questioned when international certificates are issued. Errors made will inevitably lead to potential problems later down the line. An additional concern is that the choice of classification society is very much dependant on the relative strengths of the ship-owners and shipyards. While the major ship-owners generally manage to impose the societies they prefer, other have to accept the choice of the ship yard. Classification societies complain of being subject to pressure from major shipyards. Once a classification society has been chosen for a newly built ship, it is that society which determines the equipment to be fitted on boards since it is in a position of strength vis-à-vis equipment suppliers.

In light of the fact that EU provisions are not allowed to differ from the international regime the Community has thus far (in Directive 94/57) limited it role to setting strict criteria regarding independence and professional capability as a condition for the granting of Community recognition. Under this scheme, the Member States must ensure that ships flying their flags are designed, built and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulation of a recognised organisation or, in exceptional cases, on the basis of equivalent national regulations. In addition, the tasks arising from international conventions may only be delegated to recognised organisations. Prior to presenting this current proposal, the European Commission conducted extensive consultations with interested parties and stakeholders as well as commissioning an impact assessment.

Based on the results of the consultation process and the impact assessment the Commission proposes the following:

- Improving the monitoring of recognised organisations : Under this proviso, the Commission proposes that the recognised bodies should establish a joint body for quality system assessment and certification. Importantly, the joint body should act independently and be in a position to propose both individual and collective measures. At the same time it is being proposed that co-operation between the recognised organisations should be extended to ensure that their technical regulations are compatible and that these regulations and international conventions are interpreted and applied in a uniform manner – leading to a uniform level of safety within the EU. In doing so the Commission is hoping that a compatibility between the technical regulations would logically lead to the genuine recognition of class certificates.

- Reform of limited recognition : The Commission proposes to eliminate the principle of limited recognition given that it stifles opportunity amongst the smaller organisations. Thus, Community recognition will no longer depend on size but solely on quality and performance in terms of safety and environmental protection. At the same time the provisions specify that no organisations, regardless of size, will be allowed to work in an area in which is has no expertise – for example, equipping gas tankers or chemical tankers.

- Reform the of the recognition criteria : In its proposal the Commission is seeking to simplify the criteria and make them more legible, to amend those which are difficult to apply and to fill certain gaps. In particular the proposed Directive specifies the need for a clear confirmation of the number of inspectors in proportion to the fleet being classed. Other clarifications include, for example, ending the use of non-dedicated inspectors by recognised organisations and the requirement of legal personality and certification in order to check the financial independence of the recognised organisation.

- Reform of the system of penalties : The Commission states that a policy designed to protect maritime safety and the environment needs to be backed up by a system of penalties. It is essential that the principle of rectifying mistakes at source is upheld and strengthened. In the most serious cases – as in where there is a risk to the environment, the Commission puts forward the option of withdrawing recognition from the organisation in question. The system for penalties has accordingly been simplified and improved upon in order to make it more effective.

- Commission’s powers of inspection . In order to guarantee that recognised organisations apply the same strict standards to ships flying the flag of a third country as to ships flying the flags of a Member States, the Commission is proposing tighter provisions on Community access to recognised organisations for the purpose of evaluation.

- Taking account of the legal structure of recognised organisations . The Commission is proposing the introduction of a broad organisational concept for terming “recognised organisations”, which takes account of any foreseeable relationship of dependence between legal entities whose activities fall under the scope of the proposed Directive.

The proposal has no implications on the Community budget.

COM(2005)0587
EUR-Lex