4 General principles of EU law
As outlined, the legal framework and interpretation of Article 10(1) already, in themselves, restrict the far-reaching expansion of mutual recognition in the maritime industry. Yet, this limitation does not arise solely from the interpretation of specific wording of Article 10(1); but is instead also constrained by the bedrock principles of competence, subsidiarity, proportionality, and the precautionary principle, as well as core concepts, such as legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
More specifically, the principle of competence defines the Union’s power to legislate and sets essential boundaries on how broadly the EU ROs may rely on mutual recognition in maritime matters. Subsidiarity stipulates that legislation should only be enacted at the Union level where Member States cannot sufficiently achieve the intended objectives, while proportionality ensures that no Union measure exceeds what is strictly necessary to meet legitimate aims. Likewise, the precautionary principle underscores the need to err on the side of safety in contexts of scientific uncertainty, thus supporting a measured approach to mutual recognition for complex or safety-critical components.
In addition, concepts such as legal certainty and legitimate expectations require that any mutual recognition scheme adopted under Article 10(1) be clear, predictable, and administered fairly. These principles guard against sudden or arbitrary shifts, which is particularly relevant where class certificates bear critical consequences for shipowners, insurers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders.
Within this section, we examine how Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and its Article 10(1) operate alongside these principles. We begin by addressing the European Union’s constitutional underpinnings of competence and the legislative constraints deriving from subsidiarity and proportionality. We then go on to consider how the precautionary principle can circumscribe the mutual recognition regime, especially for high-risk or safety-critical items. We also look at how if legal certainty and legitimate expectations may have an impact on the acceptance (or refusal) of class certificates.
Ultimately, we contend that while Article 10(1) can foster both harmonisation and administrative efficiency through mutual recognition, it must be applied and construed in a manner consistent with essential EU norms. Crucially, no Union measure may impinge on Member State prerogatives beyond what is warranted, thereby upholding maritime safety and enabling each EU RO to refuse recognition where serious safety concerns arise.
To that end, the subsequent sections provide a systematic evaluation of Article 10(1) in light of these fundamental EU principles, referencing pertinent case law and relevant statutory provisions. We also address the potential challenges posed by an expanded scope of mutual recognition. The section thus aims to highlight a balanced, “safety-first” interpretation of Article 10(1) – one aligned with the EU’s harmonisation objectives, while discharging the obligation to preserve robust safety and environmental standards. The analysis of these principles is done at a relatively high level and is meant to introduce the principles and how they can arguably be applied. Based on this, the analysis will demonstrate that, while certain interests may desire a more expansive interpretation of the Art 10(1) mutual recognition scheme, the legal realities significantly limit the extent to which such expansion can be justified or implemented.(1) Report from the Commission to Parliament and Council, COM(2015) 382 final, cit. above.