<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"Following the recent appeal by the major international shipowners' associations to the High Court in London against the validity of Directive2005/35/EC(1), which provides for penalties for marine pollution from ships, European citizens are once again concerned about the aims of certain circles in shipping which are to the detriment of the marine environment.  Following the Erika and Prestige disasters, in which the two tankers were sailing under flags of convenience (non-Community) on behalf of Greek interests, the EU decided on specific legal measures to support quality European shipping in order to promote the interests of the European shipping industry and, at the same time, safeguard the marine environment, ship safety and seafarers' lives.  Many tried to thwart the EU's objectives, claiming that the measures damage the interests of Community seafarers and penalise seafarers' work, whilst in fact, the uniform rules protect seafarers and extend criminal liability to third parties who are usually hidden behind the ship's captain.  By appealing to the High Court in London, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), Lloyd's Register, the International Salvage Union,etc. are contesting the legality of Directive2005/35/EC, claiming that it conflicts with international law as established by the international Marpol and Unclos conventions. The ultimate aim of the above organisations is that the High Court should refer the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.  1.What is the Commission's response to the shipowners' associations' claims that the directive is incompatible with international law? How has the Court of Justice ruled in similar cases in the past?  2.Should the Court of Justice consider the matter for a preliminary ruling, will the Commission intervene to defend its position?  3.Does the Commission agree with the view that Directive2005/35/EC and supplementary Framework Decision2005/667/JHA(2) penalise seafarers' work and pose a risk to Community seafarers as a whole, as some claim?    (1)OJL255, 30.9.2005, p.11.  (2)OJL255, 30.9.2005, p.164."
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [10]. </s>
Following the recent appeal by the major international shipowners' associations to the High Court in London against the validity of Directive2005/35/EC(1), which provides for penalties for marine pollution from ships, European citizens are once again concerned about the aims of certain circles in shipping which are to the detriment of the marine environment.  Following the Erika and Prestige disasters, in which the two tankers were sailing under flags of convenience (non-Community) on behalf of Greek interests, the EU decided on specific legal measures to support quality European shipping in order to promote the interests of the European shipping industry and, at the same time, safeguard the marine environment, ship safety and seafarers' lives.  Many tried to thwart the EU's objectives, claiming that the measures damage the interests of Community seafarers and penalise seafarers' work, whilst in fact, the uniform rules protect seafarers and extend criminal liability to third parties who are usually hidden behind the ship's captain.  By appealing to the High Court in London, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo), Lloyd's Register, the International Salvage Union,etc. are contesting the legality of Directive2005/35/EC, claiming that it conflicts with international law as established by the international Marpol and Unclos conventions. The ultimate aim of the above organisations is that the High Court should refer the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.  1.What is the Commission's response to the shipowners' associations' claims that the directive is incompatible with international law? How has the Court of Justice ruled in similar cases in the past?  2.Should the Court of Justice consider the matter for a preliminary ruling, will the Commission intervene to defend its position?  3.Does the Commission agree with the view that Directive2005/35/EC and supplementary Framework Decision2005/667/JHA(2) penalise seafarers' work and pose a risk to Community seafarers as a whole, as some claim?    (1)OJL255, 30.9.2005, p.11.  (2)OJL255, 30.9.2005, p.164.