EU must speak with one voice on Net Zero Framework

Background  

The International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) Net Zero Framework (NZF) is a draft international regulation designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the global shipping industry. It would amend Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to set binding emissions intensity reduction targets for ships, and require penalty payments for those who fail to meet them.

In October 2025, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) convened for what was expected to mark a pivotal moment in international climate governance: the adoption of the NZF. Instead, the session concluded with a decision to adjourn negotiations for one year.

While the European Union is not a member of the IMO nor a party to MARPOL, EU Member States typically negotiate and act as a bloc at the IMO. A joint position to adopt the NZF was reached ahead of the October MEPC meetings. However, not all EU Member States ended up voting in favour of the NZF’s adoption and against the delay.

In light of this outcome, Opportunity Green sought legal advice on the competence of the EU, and individual Member States, with respect to the adoption of rules governing international shipping emissions reductions at the IMO, and the consequences for exceeding this competence.

What are the key takeaways from the legal opinion? 

1. A persuasive argument can be made that no EU Member State is entitled either to object to the EU position in relation to the NZF, or fail to vote for its adoption.
   
   Ahead of the October MEPC meetings, the Council of the EU adopted a Decision setting out the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf – namely, to agree to the adoption of the MARPOL amendments concerning the NZF.
   
   The Decision was based on a proposal by the Commission, which set out in an Explanatory Memorandum the basis upon which it considered the EU to have exclusive competence in respect of the adoption of the NZF, given that common EU rules such as the MRV Regulation, EU ETS Directive, and Fuel EU Maritime Regulation could be affected. Member States are obliged to comply with Council Decisions in all circumstances, save where a Decision has been quashed by the European Court of Justice.
   
   
2. Were an EU Member State to abstain or vote against the EU’s position, this would likely give rise to an infringement of EU law.
   
   Where the EU has exclusive competence, which is likely in the case of the NZF, a Member State infringes EU law in failing to comply with the approach adopted by the EU, and could be subject to infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission or brought by another Member State. This could result in the Commission, or ultimately the Court of Justice, requiring a non-compliant state to adopt the relevant MARPOL amendment, or the relevant state being subject to a fine.                                                                                                                            
3. A Member State could only act independently of the EU joint position if it successfully argued that the matter was one of shared competence – but this would be challenging.
   
   To start with, any argument challenging the unlawfulness of the mandate on Member States to vote in favour of the NZF in the Decision would have had to have been brought within two months of its publication. Absent a successful challenge, the Decision constitutes a legislative measure that is legally binding on Member States. Were the Decision considered to be no longer applicable, arguably, its position as to exclusive competence still stands and could no longer be challenged. Failing this, the likelihood of a successful argument for shared competence on the NZF is uncertain and would depend on an in-depth analysis of the impact of the NZF on EU measures.  

Legal advice written by Jessica Simor KC at Matrix Chambers.

Download the legal advice