General information
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Kingdom part
Netherlands (in Europe)
- Entry into force: 20-11-1967
Netherlands (Bonaire)
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Netherlands (Sint Eustatius)
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Netherlands (Saba)
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Aruba
- Entry into force: 01-01-1986
Curaçao
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Sint Maarten
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Party
Albania
- Ratification: 19-12-2005 (A)
- Entry into force: 17-02-2006
Algeria
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 28-11-1983 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1984
Antigua and Barbuda
- Ratification: 24-11-2015 (A)
- Entry into force: 23-01-2016
Argentina
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 29-01-1980 (R)
- Entry into force: 29-03-1980
Austria
- Ratification: 20-06-1975 (A)
- Entry into force: 19-08-1975
Azerbaijan
- Ratification: 12-06-2006 (A)
- Entry into force: 11-08-2006
Bahamas
- Ratification: 22-07-1976 (A)
- Entry into force: 20-09-1976
Bangladesh
- Ratification: 21-09-2000 (A)
- Entry into force: 20-11-2000
Barbados
- Ratification: 30-09-1982 (A)
- Entry into force: 29-11-1982
Belarus
- Ratification: 05-12-2016 (A)
- Entry into force: 03-02-2017
Benin
- Ratification: 02-03-1992 (A)
- Entry into force: 01-05-1992
Bulgaria
- Ratification: 22-04-1999 (A)
- Entry into force: 21-06-1999
Burundi
- Ratification: 29-09-1998 (A)
- Entry into force: 28-11-1998
Cabo Verde
- Ratification: 28-04-1977 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-06-1977
Cameroon
- Ratification: 10-04-1997 (A)
- Entry into force: 09-06-1997
Canada
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 18-07-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 16-09-1967
Chile
- Ratification: 14-02-1975 (A)
- Entry into force: 15-04-1975
China
- Ratification: 16-01-1995 (A)
- Entry into force: 17-03-1995
- Hong Kong SAR
Entry into force: 01-07-1997Macao SAR
Entry into force: 24-06-2005
Colombia
- Ratification: 03-06-1991 (A)
- Entry into force: 02-08-1991
Côte d'Ivoire
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 16-02-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Croatia
- Ratification: 27-07-1992 (Su)
- Entry into force: 08-10-1991
Cyprus
- Ratification: 09-03-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 08-05-2004
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
- Ratification: 24-04-1992 (A)
- Entry into force: 23-06-1992
Dominica
- Ratification: 31-08-2001 (A)
- Entry into force: 30-10-2001
Dominican Republic
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 11-07-1966 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Ecuador
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 17-05-1988 (R)
- Entry into force: 16-07-1988
El Salvador
- Ratification: 21-12-2006 (A)
- Entry into force: 19-02-2007
Estonia
- Ratification: 22-03-2002 (A)
- Entry into force: 21-05-2002
Fiji
- Ratification: 29-11-1972 (A)
- Entry into force: 28-01-1973
Gabon
- Ratification: 12-04-2005 (A)
- Entry into force: 11-06-2005
Gambia, The
- Ratification: 01-11-1991 (A)
- Entry into force: 31-12-1991
Georgia
- Ratification: 25-08-1995 (A)
- Entry into force: 24-10-1995
Ghana
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 05-11-1965 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Guinea
- Ratification: 19-01-1981 (A)
- Entry into force: 20-03-1981
Guinea-Bissau
- Ratification: 12-05-2022 (A)
- Entry into force: 12-08-2022
Guyana
- Ratification: 10-12-1997 (A)
- Entry into force: 08-02-1998
Honduras
- Ratification: 24-01-2006 (A)
- Entry into force: 25-03-2006
Iceland
- Ratification: 24-01-1967 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
India
- Ratification: 25-05-1976 (A)
- Entry into force: 24-07-1976
Indonesia
- Ratification: 04-11-2002 (A)
- Entry into force: 03-01-2003
Iran
- Ratification: 27-03-1995 (A)
- Entry into force: 26-05-1995
Ireland
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 18-06-1971 (R)
- Entry into force: 17-08-1971
Israel
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 13-10-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 12-12-1967
Jordan
- Ratification: 27-03-1997 (A)
- Entry into force: 26-05-1997
Kenya
- Ratification: 10-11-2006 (A)
- Entry into force: 09-01-2007
Latvia
- Ratification: 20-01-1998 (A)
- Entry into force: 21-03-1998
Lebanon
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 17-07-2001 (R)
- Entry into force: 15-09-2001
Liberia
- Ratification: 14-02-1978 (A)
- Entry into force: 15-04-1978
Libya
- Ratification: 28-04-2005 (A)
- Entry into force: 26-06-2005
Lithuania
- Ratification: 25-01-2000 (A)
- Entry into force: 25-03-2000
Luxembourg
- Ratification: 14-02-1991 (A)
- Entry into force: 15-04-1991
Madagascar
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 08-07-1970 (R)
- Entry into force: 06-09-1970
Malaysia
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 10-04-2019 (R)
- Entry into force: 09-06-2019
Mali
- Ratification: 12-10-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 11-12-2004
Marshall Islands
- Ratification: 29-11-1994 (A)
- Entry into force: 28-01-1995
Mauritius
- Ratification: 18-06-1990 (A)
- Entry into force: 17-08-1990
Mexico
- Ratification: 31-05-1983 (A)
- Entry into force: 30-07-1983
Monaco
- Ratification: 09-04-1965 (S)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Montenegro
- Ratification: 23-10-2006 (Su)
- Entry into force: 03-06-2006
Nicaragua
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 04-07-2007 (R)
- Entry into force: 02-09-2007
Nigeria
- Ratification: 24-01-1967 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Norway
- Signature: 09-10-1965
- Ratification: 08-09-1966 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Palau
- Ratification: 29-09-2011 (A)
- Entry into force: 28-11-2011
Panama
- Ratification: 01-09-2008 (A)
- Entry into force: 31-10-2008
Peru
- Ratification: 16-07-1982 (A)
- Entry into force: 14-09-1982
Philippines
Republic of Korea, the
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 06-03-2001 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-05-2001
Republic of the Congo
- Ratification: 07-08-2002 (A)
- Entry into force: 06-10-2002
Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Ratification: 07-10-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 06-12-2004
Saint Lucia
- Ratification: 20-05-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 19-07-2004
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Ratification: 02-07-2020 (A)
- Entry into force: 31-08-2020
Samoa
- Ratification: 18-05-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 17-07-2004
Saudi Arabia
- Ratification: 09-05-2018 (A)
- Entry into force: 08-07-2018
Senegal
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 17-10-1980 (R)
- Entry into force: 16-12-1980
Serbia
- Ratification: 27-04-1992 (Su)
- Entry into force: 27-04-1992
Seychelles
- Ratification: 13-12-1989 (A)
- Entry into force: 11-02-1990
Sierra Leone
- Ratification: 10-03-2008 (A)
- Entry into force: 09-05-2008
Singapore
- Ratification: 03-04-1967 (A)
- Entry into force: 02-06-1967
Slovenia
- Ratification: 12-11-1992 (Su)
- Entry into force: 25-06-1991
Sri Lanka
- Ratification: 06-03-1998 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-05-1998
Suriname
- Ratification: 29-11-1975 (Su)
- Entry into force: 25-11-1975
Switzerland
- Signature: 01-09-1965
- Ratification: 23-04-1968 (R)
- Entry into force: 23-06-1968
Tanzania
- Ratification: 23-07-2008 (A)
- Entry into force: 21-09-2008
Thailand
- Ratification: 28-11-1991 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1992
Togo
- Ratification: 08-07-2021 (A)
- Entry into force: 06-09-2021
Tonga
- Ratification: 18-09-2003 (A)
- Entry into force: 17-11-2003
Trinidad and Tobago
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 16-03-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 15-05-1967
Tunisia
- Ratification: 27-01-1969 (A)
- Entry into force: 28-03-1969
Türkiye
- Ratification: 13-05-2016 (A)
- Entry into force: 12-07-2016
Uganda
- Ratification: 03-04-2019 (A)
- Entry into force: 02-06-2019
Ukraine
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 25-10-1993 (R)
- Entry into force: 24-12-1993
United Arab Emirates
- Ratification: 10-04-2018 (A)
- Entry into force: 09-06-2018
United Kingdom
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 24-02-1966 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
- Hong Kong (< 01-07-1997)
Entry into force: 24-09-1970
Termination: 01-07-1997
United States of America
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 17-03-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 16-05-1967
- American Samoa
Entry into force: 09-09-1975Guam
Entry into force: 09-09-1975Johnston Atoll
Entry into force: 18-03-1976Midway Atoll
Entry into force: 18-03-1976Panama Canal Zone (< 01-10-1979)
Entry into force: 09-09-1975
Termination: 31-12-1999Puerto Rico
Entry into force: 09-09-1975Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (< 22-12-1990)
Entry into force: 09-09-1975
Termination: 22-12-1990US Virgin Islands
Entry into force: 09-09-1975Wake Island
Entry into force: 18-03-1976
Vanuatu
- Ratification: 13-01-1989 (A)
- Entry into force: 14-03-1989
Venezuela
- Ratification: 10-05-2002 (A)
- Entry into force: 09-07-2002
Vietnam
- Ratification: 23-01-2006 (A)
- Entry into force: 24-03-2006
Yemen
- Ratification: 06-03-1979 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-05-1979
Yugoslavia (< 25-06-1991)
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 18-07-1966 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Zambia
- Ratification: 14-12-1965 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
Australia
- Ratification: 28-04-1986 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-06-1986
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Belgium
- Signature: 09-09-1965
- Ratification: 04-01-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Brazil
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 22-08-1977 (R)
- Entry into force: 21-10-1977
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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
- Ratification: 12-02-2019 (A)
- Entry into force: 13-04-2019
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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
- Ratification: 27-11-1984 (A)
- Entry into force: 26-01-1985
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
reservation
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.
Czech Republic
- Ratification: 19-10-1993 (Su)
- Entry into force: 01-01-1993
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)
- Ratification: 19-12-1966 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Denmark
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 09-01-1968 (R)
- Entry into force: 09-03-1968
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
- Faroes
Entry into force: 09-03-1968Greenland
Entry into force: 09-03-1968
-
reservation
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).
Egypt
Finland
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 20-03-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 19-05-1967
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
reservation
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.
France
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 29-11-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 28-01-1968
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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).
Germany
Greece
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 08-06-1972 (R)
- Entry into force: 07-08-1972
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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).
reservation
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).
Hungary
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 15-12-1976 (R)
- Entry into force: 13-02-1977
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Iraq
Italy
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 25-09-1972 (R)
- Entry into force: 24-11-1972
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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" ....
reservation
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
- Signature: 30-09-1965
- Ratification: 02-09-2005 (R)
- Entry into force: 01-11-2005
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
reservation
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.
reservation
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
- Ratification: 24-09-2002 (A)
- Entry into force: 23-11-2002
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the
- Signature: 06-10-1965
- Ratification: 21-09-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 20-11-1967
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
- Suriname (< 25-11-1975)
Entry into force: 20-11-1967
Termination: 25-11-1975
-
reservation
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).
New Zealand
- Ratification: 27-07-1973 (A)
- Entry into force: 25-09-1973
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Poland
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 25-07-1969 (R)
- Entry into force: 23-09-1969
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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
- Ratification: 06-08-1990 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-10-1990
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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).
Romania
- Ratification: 25-04-2001 (A)
- Entry into force: 24-06-2001
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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).
Russian Federation
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 25-10-1966 (R)
- Entry into force: 05-03-1967
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Slovakia
- Ratification: 30-01-1995 (Su)
- Entry into force: 01-01-1993
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
Spain
- Signature: 09-10-1965
- Ratification: 24-08-1973 (R)
- Entry into force: 23-10-1973
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
reservation
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.
Sweden
- Signature: 09-04-1965
- Ratification: 28-07-1967 (R)
- Entry into force: 26-09-1967
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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).
Syria
Uruguay
- Ratification: 02-12-1992 (A)
- Entry into force: 31-01-1993
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
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.
|
Nieuwe en gewijzigde verdragen. Een overzicht van de nieuwe en gewijzigde verdragen is via het tabblad Home te vinden.
Per verdrag kunt u lezen waar de wijzigingen over gaan: Algemene verdragsgegevens,
Partijen en/of Koninkrijksdelen. Voor toelichting zie de 'Help' onderaan deze pagina.
Print
Download XML