EDITORIAL COMMENT
Stand back, commissioners at work
Oh Kong-gyun: “Although we do not agree with the Commission’s views, we have offered these commitments in the interests of putting an end to the investigation.”
Classification Societies (IACS) reached a new level of absurdity in June, aſter the Commission emerged triumphant with assurances from IACS that, in large part, it would continue to do what it has always done. The EC’s preliminary remarks on its
T
investigation into the membership criteria of IACS suggested that the approach taken by the class body “may have resulted in a restriction of competition in ship classifica- tion services”. Classification societies which were not
a member of IACS “may face significant competitive disadvantages”. Te Commission’s views focused primarily
on the manner in which IACS establishes and applies its membership criteria and the transparency associated with developing and publishing IACS Unified Requirements and other technical requirements. It is worth quoting the EC’s statement
word for word, in order to get a feel for the fact that it has been framed by lawyers obsessed with what they see as a failing in procedure, perhaps because they now realise that there is no real substance to their argument, because IACS is perhaps the most transparent organisation in shipping. “In particular, the preliminary assess-
ment expressed the concern that IACS may have failed to: (a) enact requirements that are objective and sufficiently determi- nate so as to enable them to be applied uniformly and in a non-discriminatory
The Naval Architect July/August 2009
he European Commission’s (EC) bizarre competition case against the International Association of
manner concerning admission to, as well as suspension and withdrawal of, membership of IACS; (b) apply these requirements in an appropriate, reasonable and non-discrimi- natory way (including the establishment of sufficient safeguards to ensure such kind of application through an independent appeal/ review mechanism); (c) provide an adequate system for including non-IACS members in the process of elaboration of IACS/ technical standards (i.e. IACS/ resolutions), (including the establishment of independent complaint/ grievance and appeal/review mechanisms ensuring access to IACS/ technical working groups); (d) provide for proper dissemina- tion to non-IACS members of technical background documents relating to IACS/ resolutions.” IACS does not agree with the Commis-
sion’s preliminary assessment. However, its members have offered commitments to meet the Commission’s competition concerns. “All IACS members are pleased that
this investigation appears to be nearing a satisfactory conclusion and that the activi- ties of the Association, and the reputa- tions of its member societies, have been maintained without being damaged by this investigation,” said Oh Kong-gyun, the current Chairman of IACS. IACS stressed its belief that its activities
have been compliant with all applicable laws and disputed the specific concerns that the Commission has expressed. However, it has also offered a series of commitments to the Commission that it believes will enable the Commission to close its investigation on mutually acceptable terms.
“Although we do not agree with the
Commission’s views, we have offered these commitments in the interests of putting an end to the investigation to avoid any further diversion of IACS’ and its members’ resources away from their principal mission,” said Mr Oh. These Commitments lay out a new
approach to assessing applications for membership based more on qualita- tive rather than the existing quantita- tive criteria. Tey also propose opening access to IACS’ technical working groups to non-member classification societies and further developing the sharing of background information used in the development of IACS technical require- ments. “The primary concern of all IACS
member societies is to promote the safety of life, property and the natural environ- ment,” Mr Oh said. “We believe that the commitments we have offered to the Commission are in line with these core principles and are also closely aligned with the Commission’s own approach to evaluating Recognised Organisations (RO) under the recently adopted new EU RO Directive and Regulation.” IACS members are confident that
representatives of the other members of the maritime safety regime, particularly underwriters, flag States, ship owners, major charterers and others who place their trust in the classification sector, will use the comment period to communicate their support for IACS’ position to the Commission. NA
7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88