Verdrag inzake het vergemakkelijken van het internationale verkeer ter zee

Australië

14-05-2007

The Australian High Commission presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization and has the honour to refer to article VIII of Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (the Convention), and specifically the Standards relating to Crew Lists contained in the Annex.
The High Commission has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII(1) of the Convention, Australia deems it necessary for special reasons to adopt formalities, documentary requirement or procedures differing from the Standards relating to Crew Lists.
The High Commission has the further honour to inform the Secretary-General that from 1 july 2007 it will be a requirement for all foreign members of crew on non-military vessels (including supernumerary crew and those persons who may not actually be in the employ of a vessel but who are under offer of a contract of such employment) and any accompanying spouses or dependent children entering an Australian port to have applied for a Maritime Crew Visa prior to entering the Australian migration zone. There will be a transitional period from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2007 to enable crew to secure the new Maritime Crew Visa. During the transitional period the current arrangements will continue.

Bahrein

24-07-2024

For the purposes of applying criterion (4.1) of paragraph (a) contained in Clause (4) of the Annex to the Convention, the Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider itself obligated to implement the provisions of the United Nations Convention concerning the Status of Refugees of 1951, and the United Nations Protocol concerning the Status of Refugees of 1967.

België

19-12-2000

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII […] regarding the following revision of differences between the Belgian legislation and Standards and Recommended Practices of the Convention:
1. Standard 1.5 (as amended by FAL 27) - standard is applied
2. Standard 2.1 - standard is applied
3. Recommended practice 2.2.1 - recommend practice is applied
4. Standard 2.3.4 - reservation is maintained
5. Standard 2.6.2 - standard is applied
6. Standard 2.6.3 - standard is applied
7. Standard 2.7.5 - standard is applied
8. Standard 2.7.6 - reservation is maintained
9. Standard 2.11.3 - standard is applied
10. Standard 2.17 - reservation is maintained
11. Standard 2.18 - reservation is maintained
12. Standard 3.1 - reservation is maintained
13. Standard 3.15 - reservation is maintained with correction (*)
14. Standard 3.21 - reservation is maintained
15. Recommended practice 6.1 - reservation is maintained

(*) correction: The second paragraph of the notification made by Belgium to Standard 3.15 has to be read as follows:
Particular attention is drawn to the content of article 74/4bis by the law of March 8th 1995, modified by the law of April 4th 1996, a penalty of BEF 150.000 can be imposed, per passenger, on carriers (air or sea transport) who brings aliens into Belgium who are not in possession of the proper residence permits or travel documents.

Brazilië

21-08-2002

Standard 2.1
Although the present Standard does not state so, the crew list shall contain dates and ports of departure and be accompanied by the respective "Seamen's Books" or passports with the seafarer situation. The documents specified in the Standard should be extended to include:
a) Drugs and narcotics lists;
b) An International Derating Certificate or Derating Exemption Certificate;
c) A form containing information on ballast water (Res. A.868(20)); and d) Arms, ammunition and dangerous cargo lists.
Standard 2.3.5
No reservation
Standard 3.2
No reservation
Standard 3.22
No reservation
Recommended Practice 3.41
No reservation
Standard 3.47
No reservation
Standard 4.15
No reservation
Standard 5.10
The Brazilian authorities may adopt measures for the disinfection, removal of insects, destruction or rejection of cargo under the provisions of the International Convention for the Protection of Plants and Plant Products and the Animal Health Code, as well as within the international epidemiological context and the health quality standard ofthe imported cargo.

Costa Rica

12-02-2019

The Government of the Republic of Costa Rica makes the following reservations to this Convention and its amendments:
1. Standard 2.3, in which it is established that the Cargo Declaration shall be the basic document on arrival and departure providing data required by public authorities relating to the cargo, shall not apply insofar as only the ship's manifest, contemplated in Standard 2.3.4, shall be accepted.
2. In Recommended Practice 2.6.4, which establishes that where a ship, serving in a scheduled programme, calls again at the same port at least once within 14 days and where minor changes in the crew have taken place, public authorities should not normally require a new, full Crew List to be submitted but should accept the existing Crew List with the changes indicated, shall not apply insofar as each time a ship enters a Costa Rican port, coming from a foreign port, it must submit the Crew List.
3. Recommended Practice 2.7.2 – in which it is established that public authorities should not require embarkation or disembarkation cards in addition to Passenger Lists in respect of passengers whose names appear on those Lists; however, where public authorities have special problems constituting a grave danger to public health, a person on an international voyage may on arrival be required to give a destination address in writing – shall not apply given that those passengers disembarking or embarking in Costa Rican ports must complete the respective embarkation/disembarkation document. Regarding cruise ships, those passengers leaving the country in the same ship and by the same port of entry, to the extent possible, shall not be required to submit the said forms.
4. Recommended Practice 2.7.3 shall not apply if in the Passenger List the passport number is not included.
5. In Recommended Practice 3.6, which establishes the information that the embarkation/disembarkation card should contain, the following information should be added:
− type of travel document;
− reason for travel;
− type of transport;
− country of residence; and
− country of destination.
6. Standard 3.10.2 shall not apply insofar as the Costa Rican immigration authorities only accept submission of the passport and the crew member must have a visa for entry into Costa Rican territory in accordance with their nationality.
7. Standard 3.15 shall not be used in Costa Rica, on account of the fact that domestic legislation establishes that if admission of a foreign national to Costa Rican territory is denied, the transport operator by which the said person arrived in the country is obliged to transport him or her at its own cost and risk to the country of provenance or origin or to another country that will accept him or her.
8. Standard 3.31 shall not apply in Costa Rica, given that the legislation does not allow duty-free goods to be sold on board cruise ships during the ship's stay in port.
9. Recommended Practice 3.38 shall not apply, given that the immigration authorities shall require passengers in transit to complete a disembarkation/embarkation card.
10. Standard 3.47 shall not apply in Costa Rica, given that, for the purpose of shore leave, a crew member must obtain a shore leave pass from the immigration authorities.
11. Standard 5.19 shall not apply, given that specific regulations exist to deal with cases where any cargo listed on the Cargo Declaration is not discharged at the port of intended destination, including Act No.7557, General Customs Act, of 20 October 1995.
12. Recommended Practice 6.11 shall not apply, given that animals, plants and animal and plant products prohibited by Costa Rican laws and technical regulations may not be imported even when accompanied by a quarantine certificate. In the case of export, special additional requirements, needs or declarations of quarantine importance for the buyer country must be known in advance.
13. The Republic of Costa Rica makes a reservation to articles VII, VIII and IX of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965, as amended, in the sense that the amendments to the said Convention shall come into force in the country once they have been approved, in accordance with the procedures established in the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica.

Cuba

27-11-1984

The Government of the Republic of Cuba considers that the provisions of article X of the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that it deals with matters of interest for all States, are discriminatory in nature in that they withhold from a number of States the right of signature and accession, which is contrary to the principle of universality.
The Government of the Republic of Cuba considers that the application of the provisions contained in article XII of the Convention is at variance with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in resolution 1514(XV) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1960, which proclaims the necessity of putting a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.

03-07-2009

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII […] from the Government of Cuba regarding differences between the Cuban practices and the present Standards and Recommended Practices of the Convention.
Standard 2.1
In addition to the documents established by Standard 2.1, Cuban law requires, on the arrival or departure of ships, submission of a firearms declaration, a narcotics declaration, a declaration of products of animal or vegetable origin, and either a de-ratting certificate or a de-ratting exemption certificate.
To be able to take appropriate control, safety and security measures in each case. Submission of the above-mentioned documents is required under other international regulations.
Standard 2.16
The Standard provides that public authorities must accept documents which are handwritten in ink or indelible pencil.
Cuban law states that documents submitted to the public authorities must be made by mechanical or electronic means. Documents which are handwritten in ink or indelible pencil do not guarantee legibility, uniformity and security.
Standard 2.3.4.1
This Practice provides for, as an alternative to submission of a Cargo Declaration, submission of a copy of the transport document (bill of lading, charter party, etc.) if the nature and quantity of the cargo make this practicable.
Cuban law requires submission of a Cargo Declaration on the arrival or departure of a ship. The functions and content of transport documents are different from those of cargo declarations, irrespective of the quantity and nature of the cargo that they reflect.
Recommended Practice 2.15
This Recommended Practice states that, as far as possible, public authorities should accept documents written in any language, except for the International Certificate of Vaccination or Re-vaccination, and that they may require a written or oral translation into one of the official languages of their country or of IMO when they deem it necessary.
Cuban law requires documents to be submitted in Spanish or in English, allowing 24 hours in the latter case for translation into Spanish. The objective is to facilitate clearance.
Recommended Practice 3.46
The Recommended Practice provides that crew members should not normally be subjected to personal checks before going or returning from shore leave.
Cuban law requires a personal check based on crew member identification.
Recommended Practice 7.2
This Recommended Practice states, in its first sentence, that the services of public authorities should be provided without charge during normal working hours. It then states that public authorities should establish normal working hours for their port services which are consistent with the usual periods of substantial workload.
The Cuban customs service applies a modest tariff to cover operational costs during normal working hours.

Denemarken

15-08-2008

Denmark presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the International Marintime Organization and has the honour to refer to article VIII of Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (the Convention), regarding the following differences between the provisions of Community legislation (*) and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.6.3 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 5.1.a) of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.15 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention
Standard 3.21 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention is partially incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. Denmark, in accordance with the provisions of the existing Community legislation exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going ashore in order to stay in the area of the port or in the adjacent municipalities. This exemption is not applied in cases where seafarers intend to stay outside the municipalities situated in the vicinity of the ports.
Denmark has the further honour to notify the Secretary - General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the Convention, Denmark deems it necessary to maintain the above mentioned EC Law provisions and finds it therefore impracticable to comply with the corresponding Standards of the Convention, which have an important impact on border control procedures.
(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 june 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p.19); Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 lissting the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1) Regulation (EC) NO 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).

Duitsland

01-10-2000

Germany objects to the amendment of 9 September 1999, FAL.6(27).

Egypte

19-02-1987

We declare ... that we accepted, supported and ratified that convention with reservation that this convention does not contradict the terms of the Constantinople Treaty for the year 1888 concerning the Suez Canal.

Finland

29-01-2003

The Embassy hereby informs that the Government of Finland is not able to accept the [amendments adopted by resolution FAL.7(29)] due to the fact that the amendments to some extent contradict the national legislation in force.
The Embassy has, however, the honour to inform the Secretary-General that the Government of Finland intends to carry out the legislative amendments necessary to bring the legislation into accord with the amendments. The Government of Finland shall not fail to inform the Secretary-General of any development in this respect, in accordance with article VIII of the Convention.

14-07-2006

...The Embassy hereby informs that, at this stage, the Government of Finland is not able to accept the aforementioned amendments [FAL.8(32)] due to the national procedural requirements.
The Embassy has, however, the honour to infrom the Secretary-General that the Government of Finland intends to accept the amendments as soon as the national procedural requirements have been carried out.
The Government of Finland shall not fail to inform the Secretary-General of any development in the respect, in accordance with article VIII of the Convention.

Frankrijk

26-05-2011

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII […] regarding the following differences between the provisions of European Union legislation (*) and the Standards or Recommended Practices of the FAL Convention cited below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention is incompatible with paragraph 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.6.3 of the FAL Convention is incompatible with paragraph 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention is incompatible with paragraph 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention is incompatible with paragraph 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention is incompatible with paragraph 1(a) of article 5 of the Schengen Borders Code
Recommended Practices 3.15 of the FAL Convention is incompatible with Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985;
Recommended Practices 3.21 of the FAL Convention is incompatible with paragraph 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Border Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention is partially incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. The French Republic, in accordance with the existing provisions of European Union legislation, exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going n shore leave who remain in the port area or the adjacent municipalities. This exemption does not apply in cases where seafarers intend to travel outside the municipalities neighbouring the port.
The Permanent Representative of France to the International Maritime Organization has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII, paragraph (1), of the FAL Convention, the French Republic deems it necessary to continue applying the above-mentioned provisions of European Union legislation, and consequently deems it impossible to apply the corresponding Standards of the FAL Convention, which have a significant impact on border-control procedures.

(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p.19); Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1); Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).

Griekenland

12-02-2009

The Ministry of Mercantile Marine, the Aegean and Island Policy of Greece presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization and has the honour to refer to article VIII of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (the Convention), regarding the following differences between the provisions of Community legislation (*) and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.6.3 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 5.1. a) of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.15 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention
Standard 3.21 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Border Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention is partially incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. Greece, in accordance with the provisions of the existing Community legislation exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going ashore in order to stay in the area of the port or in the adjacent municipalities. This exemption is not applied in cases where seafarers intend to stay outside the municipalities situated in the vicinity of the ports.
The Ministry of Mercantile Marine, the Aegean and Island Policy of Greece has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the Convention, Greece deems it necessary to maintain the above mentioned EC Law provisions and finds it therefore impracticable to comply with the corresponding Standards of the Convention, which have an important impact on border control procedures.
(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p.19); Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1); Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).

26-05-2010

In accordance with the provisions of article […] regarding the differences between the provisions of European Community legislation and the Standards of the Convention.
Standard 2.6.1
Greece maintains the EU Law Provisions: Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code.
Standard 2.6.3
Greece maintains the EU Law Provisions: Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code.
Standard 2.17
According to the new Greek legislation, namely the National Customs Code (Law 2960/2001), as amended, the reservation made by Greece regarding this Standard is not necessary any more.
Standard 2.18
Legal basis remains the same (Law 2960/2001).
Standard 2.19
Legal basis remains the same (Law 2960/2001).
Standard 2.23
Greece maintains the EU Law Provisions: Point 3.1.2. of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code.
Standard 3.10
According to the EU Regulation 562/2006 on Schengen Borders Code.
Standard 3.10.2
Greece maintains the EU Law Provisions: Article 5.1(a) of the Schengen Borders Code.
Recommended Practice 3.15
Greece maintains the EU Law Provisions: Article 26 of the Schengen Convention.
Recommended Practice 3.21
Greece maintains the EU Law Provisions: Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code.
Recommended Practice 3.45
Greece, in accordance with the provisions of the existing Community Legislation EC Regulation 539/2001 article 4 par. 1(b), exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going ashore in order to stay in the area of the port or in the adjacent municipalities.
This exemption is not applied in cases where seafarers intend to stay outside the municipalities situated in the vicinity of the port. Consequently the aforementioned standard is partially incompatible with the Regulation (EC) 539/2001.
Recommended Practice 4.14.3
The Greek immigration authorities deem that the information provided to the master of the ship with regard to a stowaway who found inadmissible by these authorities is sufficient. Accordingly, there is no need to provide the same information to the flag State of the Ship.
Recommended Practice 5.19
Legal basis remains the same (Law 2960/2001).

Hongarije

15-12-1976

The Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that article 10 of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic contains discriminative provisions since it does not give every State an equal right to become a party to the Convention. The Convention regulates such questions which concern all States and, therefore, it should be open for all States, without any restriction and discrimination.

Irak

15-11-1976

Entry into the above convention by the Republic of Iraq shall, however, in no way signify recognition of Israel or be conducive to entry into any relations therewith.

Italië

29-09-2000

... In accordance with article VII(2)(b) of the Convention, Italy hereby notifies that she does not accept the amendments [adopted by resolution FAL.6(27)] to:
- standards norms 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8;
- recommended practice 1.7 - section 1 - "Definition and general provisions", letter c "Electronic data-processing techniques"; and
- recommended practices 4.7 and 4.8 of section 4 "Arrival and departures of cargo and other articles" - letter B "Clearance of export cargo" ....

30-01-2003

In accordance with article VII paragraph (2) of the International Convention on the Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL), and with reference to the amendments to the Annex to the said Convention adopted with Resolution FAL.7(29) of 10 January 2002, hereby are detailed the differences between the Italian legislation and the following amendments:
I D. Deviation from the planned route: it is not acceptable since the last line of 4.8 standard is contrary to the Italian legislation related to immigration (Italian Decree No. 286 of 25 July 1998).
II E. Disembarkation and return of stowaways; the following amendments are not acceptable since they are contrary to the Italian Decree mentioned in the paragraph above.
Sub.4.9 The State of the first port of call according to the voyage plan:
" 4.9.1 Standard;
" 4.9.2 Standard:
" 4.9.3 Standard.
Sub 4.10 Subsequent ports of call
" 4.10.1 Standard.
Sub 4.11 State of Nationality or Right of Residence:
" 4.11.1 Standard;
" 4.11.2 Standard.
Sub 4.14 Return of Stowaways:
Sub 4.14.1 Recommended Practice
Sub 4.14.2 Recommended Practice
Sub 4.15 Cost of return and maintenance of stowaways:
" 4.15.2 Recommended Practice.
" 4.15.3 Standard.

Japan

08-07-2010

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII […] regarding differences between Japanese practices and the present Standards and Recommended Practices of the Convention.
Standard 3.32
The Customs authorities require all the cruise passengers to provide the “Declaration of Personal Effects and Unaccompanied Articles”.
Recommended Practices 3.15
Acceptable
Recommended Practices
Due to the modification of customs procedures, Japan withdraws the notification of acceptance, which it made on 2 September 2005.

09-01-2018

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII […] regarding differences between Japanese practices and the present Standards and Recommended Practices of the Convention:
Standard 2.1
Due to the enforcement of the Ordinance for the Act on Regulation of Fishing Operation by Foreign Nationals (February 4, 2017), the Japanese authorities require the following documents which are not stipulated in this Standard.
- Notification of pre-arrival of foreign fishing vessels
- Notification op pre-departure of foreign fishing vessels
(* Japan has already notified the differences to this Standard. The above-mentioned notification is to added to the existing list.)

Besides Japan withdraws the following, which it previously notified, from the notification of the difference to this Standard.
- Arrival notice ( to the Immigration Authority)
Standard 2.8.1
In Dangerous Good Manifest, the Japanese authorities require “master’s name”, which is not stipulated in this Standard.
Standard 2.24
In General Declaration (notice of arrival and departure), the Japanese authorities require “position of the ship in the port”, which is not stipulated in this Standard.
Standard 3.44bis
The Immigration Authorities of Japan do not communicate reasons for shore leave denial to the seafarer concerned in writing.
Recommended Practices 1.6ter, 2.1.3bis, 5.3bis
Acceptable.

30-09-2021

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII (1) […] regarding differences between Japanese practices and the present Standards of the Convention.
Standards
2.6.1 The Customs authorities require the name of master, authorized agent or officer.
2.7.3 The Customs authorities require the name of master, authorized agent or officer.
Standards
2.6.1 Immigration Services Agency requires the name of master, authorized agent or officer.
2.7.3 Immigration Services Agency requires the name of master, authorized agent or officer.

Malta

24-09-2002

Standard 2.6.3 - a crew list has to be submitted by every ship calling in a local port after an international
voyage; and
Standard 2.22 - ships calling in a port to disembark a sick or injured person have to submit all the applicable documents to the relative public authority, but this will not delay clearance.

Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der

26-11-2008

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Kingdom of the Netherlands presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization and has the honour to refer to article VIII of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (the Convention), regarding the following differences between the provisions of European Community legislation (*) and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.6.3 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 5.1. a) of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.15 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention
Standard 3.21 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Border Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention is partially incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, in accordance with the provisions of the existing European Community legislation exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going ashore in order to stay in the area of the port or in the adjacent municipalities. This exemption is not applied in cases where seafarers intend to stay outside the municipalities situated in the vicinity of the ports.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Kingdom of the Netherlands has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the Convention, The Kingdom of the Netherlands deems it necessary to maintain the above mentioned EC Law provisions and finds it therefore impracticable to comply with the corresponding Standards of the Convention, which have an important impact on border control procedures.
(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p.19); Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1); Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).

Nieuw-Zeeland

01-08-2019

Standard 2.19
Section 12 and section 24 of New Zealand’s Customs and Excise Act 2018 requires ship owners or masters to provide an advance notice of arrival and an inward report.
Section 37 of the Act also requires ship owners or masters to provide required information to obtain a ‘Certificate of Clearance’ before departing New Zealand.
It is an offence under the Act to provide any documents under these provisions that are erroneous, misleading, or defective in any material particular; or any supporting document that is erroneous, misleading, or not genuine.
Under section 54 of the Act, it is a defence to a prosecution if the defendant proves-
a) that, in any case where it is alleged that anything required to be done was not done, the defendant took all reasonable steps to ensure that it was done; or
b) that, in any case where it is alleged that anything unlawful was done, the defendant took all reasonable steps to ensure that it was not done.
New Zealand is therefore unable to implement Standard 2.19, since to do so would undermine enforcement by putting the onus on the public authority to prove faulty information was deliberately supplied.
Standard 4.7.1
Since New Zealand does not collate information on stowaways, it is unable to report such instances to the Secretary-General, as required under Standard 4.7.1.

Polen

18-10-2011

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII […] regarding the following differences between the provisions of European Union legislation (*) and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 5.1. a) of the Schengen Borders Code
Recommended Practices 3.21 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Border Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention is partially incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. The Republic of Poland, in accordance with the provisions of the existing European Union legislation, exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going ashore in order to stay in the area of the port or in the adjacent municipalities. This exemption is not applied in cases where seafarers intend to stay outside the municipalities situated in the vicinity of the ports.
The Permanent Representative of Poland to the International Maritime Organization has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the FAL Convention, the Republic of Poland deems it necessary to maintain the above mentioned EC Law provisions and finds it therefore impracticable to comply with the corresponding Standards of the Convention, which have an important impact on border control procedures.

(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p.19); Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1); Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).

Portugal

13-03-2009

The Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos, as Portuguese maritime administration, presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization and has the honour to refer to article VIII of [the] Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (the Convention), regarding the following differences between the provisions of Community legislation (*) and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.6.3 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 5.1. a) of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.15 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention
Standard 3.21 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Border Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. However, there is no incompatibility to the extent that a Member State of the EU has provided for an exception to the visa requirement for civilian sea crew in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. [XX (name of country doing the individual notification) has applied this option]
The Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the Convention, Portugal deems it necessary to maintain the above mentioned EC Law provisions and finds it therefore impracticable to comply with the corresponding Standards of the Convention, which have an important impact on border control procedures.
The Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos has the further honour to notify the Secretary General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the Convention, Portugal noted the following differences between national law provisions and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
- 2.16
- 2.19
- 3.47
- 4.9.1.
- 4.9.2.
- 4.10.1.
- 4.12.2.
(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p.19); Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1); Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).

Roemenië

21-03-2008

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization and has the honour to refer to article VIII of Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (the Convention), regarding the following differences betweeen the provisions of Community legislation (*) and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.6.3 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention - Incompatible with Article 5.1.a) of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.15 of the FAL Convention - Incompatible with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention
Standard 3.21 of the FAL Convention - Incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention is partially incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. Romania, in accordance with the provisions of the existing Community legislation exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going ashore in order to stay in the area of the port or in the adjacent municipalities. This exemption is not applied in cases where seafarers intend to stay outside the municipalities situated in the vicinity of the ports.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the Convention, Romania deems it necessary to maintain the above mentioned EC Law Provisions and finds it therefore impracticable to comply with the corresponding Standards of the Convention, wich have an important impact on border control procedures.
(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 june 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p 19): Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001.p.l); Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movements of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).

Russische Federatie

25-10-1966

The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics states that the provision in paragraph 2, article X of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965, under which the Governments of a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties to this Convention, is of a discriminatory nature and believes that in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States the Convention should be open for participation to all interested nations without any discrimination or limitation.

Slowakije

30-01-1995

In accordance with relevant principles and rules of international law and to the extent defined by it, the Slovak Republic, as a successor State, born from the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considers itself bound, as of 1 January 1993, i.e. the date on which the Slovak Republic assumed responsibility for its international relations, by multilateral treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party as of 31 December 1992, including reservations and declaration[s] made earlier by Czechoslovakia as well as objections by Czechoslovakia to reservations formulated by other treaty-parties.

Spanje

23-08-2000

In accordance with the provisions of Article VII […] regarding the following differences between the Spanish practices and present Standards of the Convention:
Standard 2.7.6:
Spain considers that the presence of stowaways on board a ship should be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities of the port to which the ship is sailing with as much advance notice as the crossing or voyage permits. Notification of stowaways can be made by a notation in the “Remarks” area of the General Declaration or by using a Passenger or a Crew List with the title amended to “stowaway list.
Justification: Advance notice is essential to enable the preventive measures required in each case to be taken, and to enable any offences that may be committed to be dealt with.
Standard 3.3.3:
Spain considers that this standard implicitly establishes an obligation on the part of the shipowner to transport a person away from the territory of a State in all cases where that person is inadmissable, and that the said obligation, conceived as generic and initially as unconditional (it terminates only from the moment such a person has been definitely admitted into that State) is open to objections and is not in line with Spanish practice.
Recommended Practice 3.49:
Spain reserves the right to prohibit the disembarkation of the crew, shore leave permits, and ship operations, in order to protect the interests of third parties, including on ships which call regularly at its ports.

31-01-2003

The Embassy of Spain in London presents its compliments to the International Maritime Organization and has the honour to notify it that, in accordance with the provisions of article VII, paragraph 2(b) of the Convention on the Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965, as amended, Spain does not accept the following Standards and Recommended Practices of the new Chapter 4 of the Annex to the above-mentioned Convention, which were approved by Resolution FAL.7(29) of 10 January 2002, and which will enter into force on 1 May 2003:
Questioning and notification by the ship's master
Paragraph 4.6.1
Paragraph 4.6.3
Deviation from the planned route
Paragraph 4.8
State of the first port of call according to the voyage plan
Paragraph 4.9.2
Paragraph 4.9.3
Return of stowaways
Paragraph 4.14
Paragraph 4.12.2
Cost of return and maintenance of stowaways
Paragraph 4.15.

Syrië

06-02-1975

... this accession ... to this Convention ... in no way implies recognition of Israel and does not involve the
establishment of any relations with Israel arising from the provisions of this Convention.

Tsjechië

19-10-1993

The Czech Republic ... , as [a] successor State[...] to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, consider[s itself] bound by the multilateral international treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party, as of 1 January 1993, including reservations and declarations made earlier by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.

Tsjechoslowakije (<01-01-1993)

19-12-1966

In acceding to the Convention, the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic regard it necessary to call attention to the discriminatory nature of article X of the Convention since its provisions do not provide to all States the equal right to accede to the Convention and in their consequences deprive certain States of the possibility to become Contracting Parties to it. The Convention regulates questions concerning all States and accordingly it should be open to participation of all States without limitations. In harmony with the principle of sovereign equality no States have the right to exclude other States from participation in treaties, especially in treaties of this kind.

Uruguay

02-12-1992

Where, during the unloading of goods from ships or on their receipt in national warehouses, differences in packages are found, in terms of plus or minus quantities, in relation to what is stated in the consular cargo manifest, or where differences occur between the cargo of a ship and the manifest originating at the last port of call, unless those documents have been corrected in accordance with the regulations, the seizure of the excess packages shall be declared or a fine equal to the value of the missing goods shall be imposed.
In the case of goods carried in bulk or without packaging, the sanction shall be applied on the plus or minus differences with respect to the weights or quantities declared in the above-mentioned documents.
The determination of these differences shall invariably be subject, for the sole purpose of exemption from the sanction, to a tolerance of up to 5% (five per cent) with respect to the amount declared. This tolerance shall be applied to the amount declared for each ship and for each consignment.
The value of missing goods shall be established on the basis of the original documents, if they are not subject to a tariff, or on the basis of the maximum indicated by the tariff.
If the value cannot be determined, a fine of between $200.00 (two hundred pesos) or $10,000.00 (ten thousand pesos) shall be imposed.
If the difference relates to missing goods, liability shall be invoked only where it appears, from the circumstances of the case, that the shortfall occurred subsequent to the time at which the master took receipt of the goods or effects.
The consular manifest shall contain in generic form all the details provided by the regulations in order to identify the goods.

Zweden

17-01-2011

In accordance with the provisions of article VIII […] regarding the following differences between the provisions of Community legislation (*) and the Standards of the Convention listed below:
Standard 2.6.1 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.2.4 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.6.3 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 2.23 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3 of Annex VII to the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.10.2 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 5.1.a) of the Schengen Borders Code
Standard 3.15 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention
Standard 3.21 of the FAL Convention - incompatible with Point 3.1.2 of Annex VI of the Schengen Border Code
Standard 3.45 of the FAL Convention is partially compatible with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. Sweden, in accordance with the provisions of the existing Community legislation exempts from the visa requirement seafarers going ashore in order to stay in the area of the port or in the adjacent municipalities. This exemption is not applied in cases where seafarers intend to stay outside the municipalities situated in the vicinity of the ports.
The Swedish Maritime Administration , on behalf of the Swedish Government, has the further honour to notify the Secretary-General that, in accordance with article VIII (1) of the Convention, Sweden deems it necessary to maintain the above mentioned EC Law provisions and finds it therefore impracticable to comply with the corresponding Standards of the Convention, which have an important impact on border control procedures.

(*) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p.19); Regulation 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders (OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1); Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006).