L 162/6 Official Journal of the European Union 25.6.2009 I (Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory) DECISIONS COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 16 June 2009 on criteria to be followed in order to decide when the performance of an organisation acting on behalf of a flag State can be considered an unacceptable threat to safety and the environment (notified under document number C(2009) 4398) (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/491/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof, Whereas: (1)  Where a Member State decides, with respect to ships flying its flag, either to authorise organisations to undertake fully or in part inspections and surveys related to certificates in accordance with the relevant international conventions and, where appropriate, to issue or renew the related certificates, or to rely upon organisations to undertake fully or in part the said inspections and surveys, it shall entrust these duties only to organisations recognised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 94/57[EC. () A good record of safety and pollution prevention performance of a recognised organisation — measured in respect of all ships classed by it, irrespective of the flag they fly — is an important indication of the performance of that organisation. () OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20. G) The safety and pollution prevention performance records of recognised organisations must be derived from the data produced by the Paris Memorandum of Under- standing on Port State Control andfor by similar schemes. Other indications may be derived from an analysis of the casualties involving ships classed by the recognised organisations. Since recognised organisations operate all over the world, it is appropriate that their performance records are based on a sufficiently wide geographical area. Both the United States Coast Guard and the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control periodically publish data based on port State control in a similar way to the Paris Memorandum of Under- standing. They should be considered comparably reliable sources in terms of continuity and accuracy of data from which to derive an assessment of the safety and pollution prevention performance records of recognised organisations. The data published by the Paris Memorandum of Under- standing, the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding and the United States Coast Guard are subject to prior appeal mechanisms, allowing the recognised organisations concerned to contest them. Those data should, therefore, be considered as sufficiently reliable sources and should be used for the establishment of the assessment criteria as to the safety and pollution prevention performance of recognised organisations.