COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Review of the operation of the provisions with regard to workers on board seagoing fishing vessels contained in Directive 2003/88/EC  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Review of the operation of the provisions with regard to workers on board seagoing fishing vessels contained in Directive 2003/88/EC
Date: 2011-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fishing industry, night work, paid leave, social security, vessel

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 31.5.2011 
COM(2011) 306 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Review of the operation of the provisions with regard to workers on board seagoing 
fishing vessels contained in Directive 2003/88/EC 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Review of the operation of the provisions with regard to workers on board seagoing 
fishing vessels contained in Directive 2003/88/EC 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Communication  reviews  the  operation  of  Article  21  of  Directive  2003/88/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of 
the organisation of working time1 (hereinafter ‘the Directive’) concerning workers on board 
seagoing fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State (hereafter ‘SFVs’), as required by 
Article 25 of the Directive. The Directive is construed in a restrictive way, meaning that only 
those provisions concerning exclusively workers on board SFVs (and not any other workers) 
are analysed.  

Article 21 of the Directive excludes workers on board SFVs from the scope of Articles 3 to 6 
and 8. As a consequence, the general provisions of the Directive governing daily rest, breaks, 
weekly  rest  periods,  maximum  weekly  working  time  and  the  length  of  night  work  do  not 
apply  to  them.  Article  21  lays  down  specific  rules  applicable  to  such  workers  regarding: 
entitlement to adequate rest and limitation of the maximum working time, including specific 
limits of maximum working time and minimum rest (paragraph 1 in fine, 2 and 3); entitlement 
to  an  uninterrupted  rest  not  split  into  more  than  two  periods,  with  a  maximum  interval 
between two consecutive periods of rest (paragraph 4); possibility of allowing, under certain 
circumstances,  exceptions  to  the  limits  set  in  paragraph  1,  3  and  4  (paragraph  5);  work 
necessary for the immediate safety of the vessel or giving assistance to vessels or persons at 
distress at sea (paragraph 6); finally, the option to synchronise annual leave entitlement with 
the period during which fishing vessels are not allowed to operate (paragraph 7). 

The Commission carried out an examination based on the responses of the Member States and 
the social partners at European level to a questionnaire prepared for this purpose.2 It also used 
information available from other sources, such as independent expert reports.  

The  questionnaire  comprised  21  specific  questions  grouped  into  three  sections  on:  (i)  the 
structure  and  organisation  of  sea  fishing  sector;  (ii)  the  specific  provisions  applicable  to 
workers on board SFVs laid down in Article 21 of the Directive; and (iii) other provisions of 
the Directive applicable to workers on board SFVs. 

The main findings are summarised in sections 3 to 9 of this document. 

1 
2 

OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9–19. 
25  Member  States  responded  (no  response  has  been  received  from  Belgium  and  Ireland).  The  Czech 
Republic  and  Slovakia  have  not  transposed  Article  21  since  operation  of  SFVs  is  not  allowed  under 
their  flags.  Luxembourg  has  no  SFV  registered  under  its  flag.  The  social  partners  consulted  (ETF, 
Europeche) submitted a joint response. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

ILO CONVENTION ON WORK IN THE FISHING SECTOR 

On 14 June 2007, the ILO General Conference adopted Convention 188 concerning Work in 
the  Fishing  Sector  (hereinafter  ‘ILO  188’).  Articles  13  and  14  of  the  Convention  contain 
provisions  on  ‘Manning  and  hours  of  rest’,  referring  to  matters  covered  by  the  Directive. 
Article 6 of ILO 188 states that: ‘Nothing in this Convention shall affect any law, award or 
custom,  or  any  agreement  between  fishing  vessel  owners  and  fishers,  which  ensures  more 
favourable conditions than those provided for in this Convention’. 

Ratification of ILO 188, which also regulates coordination of social security systems, under 
exclusive  EU  competence,  was  authorised  by  a  Council  Decision.3  The  Decision 
recommended  prompt  ratification  of  ILO  188  by  the  Member  States,  preferably  before  31 
December 2012. 

On  1  June  2010,  the  social  partners  of  the  SSDC  Sea  Fisheries  initiated  negotiations  to 
incorporate  aspects  of  ILO  188  into  EU  law  via  a  social  partners’  agreement.4  Such  an 
agreement, if reached, could contain provisions concerning the organisation of working time 
on  board  SFVs.  The  social  partners  expressed  their  position  on  this  in  their  response  to  the 
consultation.  The  social  partners  ‘do  not  wish  any  change  at  EU  level,  other  than  those 
introduced by ILO Convention 188’. 

3. 

PERSONAL  AND  MATERIAL  SCOPE  OF  APPLICATION  (ARTICLE  21.1  FIRST 
SUBPARAGRAPH) 

Article 21 of the Directive applies to all workers on board a SFV flying the flag of a Member 
State.  The  concept  of  a  ‘worker’  is  limited  to  those  with  an  employment  contract  or 
relationship, according to national legislation. Article 2 defines ‘working time’ as ‘any period 
during which the worker is working, at employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or 
duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice’. 

The  impact  of  legislation  concerning  workers on  board  SFVs  differs  very  notably  from  one 
Member  State  to  another.  Some  Member  States  do  not  have  a  fishing  fleet  (Austria,  Czech 
Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia), while others have a very sizeable fleet of SFVs. 
Five  Member  States  have  no  access  to  the  sea.  In  some  Member  States,  the  practical 
experience of operating Article 21 of the Directive is limited, because the transposing national 
legislation  is  not  applied  due  to  lack  of  workers  and/or  fishing  vessels  (Hungary).  Finally, 
broadly speaking, fleets in the Mediterranean comprise smaller vessels, while in the Atlantic 
they comprise larger vessels, which also alters the symmetry of impact. 

The total employment in the fisheries sector in the EU-27 (measured in full-time equivalent) 
was estimated at 141.110 in 20075. 

Several Member  States reported unawareness of the exact number of fishermen working on 
SFVs flying their flag. This is due mainly to the fact that not all workers on fishing vessels are 

3 

4 
5 

2010/321/: Council Decision of 7 June 2010 authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the 
European  Union,  the  2007  Work  in  Fishing  Convention  of  the  International  Labour  Organisation 
(Convention No 188). 
Under Article 155.2 TFEU. 
European Commission, Facts and figures on the Common Fisheries Policy, 2010 Edition 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
employees  and  a  high  proportion  of  small  fishing  vessels  are  manned  by  self-employed 
fishermen (a good example is Greece, where 16 576 fishing vessels out of the total of 17 253 
are coastal and they operate with static gear). Moreover, fishing is often a secondary activity, 
particularly in small-scale coastal fishing (highlighted by Germany and Finland). In Sweden, 
vessels  are  not  subject  to  a  signing-on  requirement,  which  means  the  requisite  statistical 
information is not available. 

Furthermore,  the  statistical  information  gathered  is  not  comparable  between  the  Member 
States due to major methodological differences. For instance, some Member States estimate 
their  population  on  board  fishing  vessels  using  corrected  minimum  manning  levels  while 
others use employment statistics or social security information. 

The  consequences  of  classifying  share-fishermen6  as  employees  or  self  employed  by  the 
national legislation merit particular consideration. Where share fishermen are considered to be 
self employed, the national legislation implementing the Directive normally does not apply to 
them (this is the situation in the UK and Malta). However it does apply to all share fishermen 
considered to be employees (as they are in France, Germany and Spain). The use of the share 
system  has  certain  contractual  consequences,  such  as  the  predominant  use  of  fixed  term 
contracts to synchronise as much as possible the receipt of pay and/or shares with the duration 
of  an  employment  contract  (Denmark).  Furthermore,  it  usually  incentivises  long  working 
hours (Portugal). 

In  its  Report  on  the  practical  implementation  of  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  Directives 
93/103/EC  (fishing  vessels)  and  92/29/EEC  (medical  treatment  on  board  vessels)7  the 
Commission stated that ‘the ‘shared-wage’ system on most small vessels may lead to longer 
working hours, more time spent on board and greater exertion. Effective prevention measures 
are not likely to be a priority under such working conditions and this lack may lead to more 
occupational illnesses and disorders’. 

In view of the situation, some Member States consider that extending the scope of the current 
working  time  regulation  to  self  employed  fishermen  could  help  improve  the  situation.  The 
benefits  would,  according  to  them,  be  clear,  as  the  scope  of  the  working  time  regulation 
would  cover  most  small  vessels  (Malta)  and  share  fishermen,  who  receive  a  different  legal 
treatment  in  different  Member  States  (France),  depending  on  their  classification  as  self-
employed or employees.8  

The scope of ILO 188 covers self-employed fishermen and thus ratification of the Convention 
by the Member States could imply including them in the scope of all or part of the provisions 
on working time (as highlighted by France, Denmark, Poland and UK). 

6 

7 
8 

The traditional system of remuneration in the fishing industry is sharing the catch or a share of income 
less costs, or a share-plus-wage system (source: ILO: Fishermen’s conditions of work and life, Geneva, 
Doc. CFI/4/1988/1). In order to maximise their share of the proceeds, fishermen tend to operate with as 
few crew members as possible. 
COM(2009) 599 final. 
Spain  has  an  interesting  hybrid  legal  figure  called  ‘economically-dependent  self-employed’.  It  is 
characterised by  a  practically  exclusive  link  to  the client. The  law  provides  a  series of  specific rights 
such as rest periods or guarantees on cancellation of contract. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

LIMITATION OF WORKING TIME AND GUARANTEE OF REST (ARTICLE 21.1 SECOND 
SUBPARAGRAPH) 

Article 21.1 second subparagraph obliges the Member States to take all measures needed to 
guarantee the rest and limit working time of workers on board SFVs to an average of 48 hours 
per week, calculated over a reference period not exceeding 12 months. 

Specific provisions regulating the working time of workers on board SFVs remains warranted. 
The position of the social partners is clear. They defended the need of specific working time 
legislation for the sector. They insist, in their joint response to the consultation, that ‘it would 
be improper to make use of a directive to impose the same working time restrictions to both 
offshore  and  onshore  fisheries’  workers’.  In  their  opinion,  ‘it  is  inappropriate  to  try  and 
implement measures which would overlook the specificities of our sector’. Furthermore, they 
stress  that  ‘working  time  on  board  fishing  vessels  should  not  be  limited  any  further’  as  ‘it 
would serve neither the fishermen’s interests nor the employers’ ones’. 

Several  Member  States  have  adopted  specific  legislation  regulating  the  working  time  of 
workers  on  board  SFVs,  either  under  regulations  for  seafarers  (Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Poland,  Sweden)  or  water  transport  (Hungary)  and/or  under  specific  instruments  (Germany, 
France, Malta, Poland, Spain, Lithuania). In other Member States, general labour legislation 
applies  without  any  specificity  to  them  (Austria,  Czech  Republic,  Slovakia,  and  Slovenia). 
This  situation  does  not  conflict  with  the  Directive  provided  that  the  applicable  legislation 
guarantees at least the same level of protection as Article 21 of the Directive.  

15  Member  States  used  law  to  transpose  the  Directive,  and  only  one  country  used 
administrative  provisions  (Denmark).  Only  Austria  and  Italy  used  collective  agreements 
(however, it seems that the general working time legislation continues to apply in a subsidiary 
way). In several Member States, collective agreements in the fishing sector do not exist or are 
unusual.  

5. 

MAXIMUM WORKING TIME AND/OR MINIMUM REST TIME CRITERION (ARTICLE 21.2 
– 21.4) 

According  to  Article  21.2,  the  option  to  limit  the  maximum  working  time  and  impose  a 
minimum  rest  within  a  reference  period  can  only  be  exercised  within  the  limits  of  Article 
21(1) second subparagraph (see above).  

France,  Sweden  and  Portugal  highlighted  practical  problems  in  estimating  and  monitoring 
actual working time on board, as well as the possibility of easily circumventing the limits. In 
view of this, they claim that a reference period of 12 months proposed by the Directive is very 
difficult to apply in practice. In order to overcome this difficulty, the French law proposes as 
an  alternative  solution  an  annual  limit  of  225  days  at  sea,9  instead  of  a  48  hours  limit  of 
working time over a reference period not exceeding one year. 

Articles 21.2 and 21.3 of the Directive gives the Member States an option of either limiting 
working hours or defining minimum rest periods within a given reference period. Article 21.4 

9 

The  limit  of  225  days  at  sea  is  regarded  by  the  preparatory  documents  for  the  French  act  as  an 
equivalent of 35 hours per week, which is the legal working time limit in France. There is the option of 
a derogation of up to 250 hours at sea, equivalent to 48 hours per week. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
further  limits  the  possibility  of  splitting  hours  of  rest  into  more  than  two  periods  and  sets  a 
limit of maximum 14 hours between two consecutive periods of rest. 

Most  Member  States  define  minimum  rest  periods  either  as  the  sole  criterion  (Denmark, 
Finland, France, Malta, Netherlands and Sweden)  or in combination with a limited working 
time (Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal, Greece). In Denmark, 
maximum  working  time  is  usually  regulated  by  collective  agreements  or  individual 
employment contracts, while the minimum rest periods are set by legislation.  

All the countries which reported using the rest period as an exclusive criterion for workers on 
board SFVs have specific legislation applicable to fishermen (or seafarers and fishermen). A 
rest  period  is  not  always  used  by  these  countries  as  a  criterion  in  the  general  working  time 
legislation, which is applicable to workers in other occupations.  

The Netherlands considers that the minimum rest criterion is the ‘best suited to work systems 
in  the  fishing  industry’.  In  Germany,  even  though  both  criteria  are  used,  a  collective 
agreement  may  provide,  under  certain  conditions,  for  maximum  working  hours  to  be 
exceeded but not for minimum rest periods to be reduced.  

Only Estonia and Romania reported using maximum working time as an exclusive criterion 
regarding workers on board SFVs. 

Catching  and  subsequent  processing  of  products  are  highly  dependant  on  not  always 
foreseeable  meteorological  and  technical  constraints  related  to  the  operation  of  fishing  gear 
and  maritime  safety.  This  justifies  a  call  for  flexibility  of  working  time  expressed  by  the 
social partners. It has also been reported that in some situations, working hours are exceeded 
in practice (Germany).  

It should be highlighted that ILO 188 uses the minimum rest time as the sole criterion limiting 
the working time of workers on board SFVs.10 France, Poland and Denmark made reference 
to this in their responses to the consultation.  

Only France reported practical problems with applying Article 21.4. It proposed allowing for 
a further subdivision of rest periods of six hours as a potential solution, which could only be 
implemented via collective agreements. 

6. 

EXCEPTIONS (ARTICLE 21.5 – 21.6) 

According  to  Article  21.5  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  may  allow  for  exceptions  to  the 
limits  laid  down  in  paragraph  1,  second  subparagraph,  and  paragraphs  3  and  4.  Two 
requirements need to be fulfilled in order to do so: (i) the exceptions must be in accordance 
with  the  general  principles  of  health  and  safety  protection;  and  (ii)  can  only  be  granted  for 
objective or technical reasons or for reasons concerning the organisation of work. There needs 
to  be  a  specific  reason  and  the  exception  should  be  proportional  to  it.  The  same  Article 
recommends that such exceptions may give place to ‘more frequent or longer leave periods or 
the granting of compensatory leave’. 

10 

This  contrasts  with  the  Maritime  Labour  Convention,  2006,  which  keeps  the  alternative  between 
maximum working time and minimum rest as the criterion regarding the working time of seafarers. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Five  Member  States  reported  that  they  had  not  used  the  option  of  exceptions  (Austria, 
Estonia, Finland, Portugal and Romania).  

Denmark,  Germany,  France  and  Poland  allow  for  exceptions  linked  to  fishing  or  fish 
processing conditions (when a ship is directly involved in fishing activities and/or operates on 
the fishing grounds). A compensatory rest is provided for in these cases (except in Poland). 

In  other  Member  States,  exceptions  are  granted  in  a  wide  range  of  different  situations  not 
directly linked to fishing or fish processing. In all cases, they are considered as permanent by 
the Member States that grant them, and they are not likely to be lifted in the short to medium 
term. Some examples are briefly mentioned below. 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  exception  is  ratione  personae  and  it  applies  to  skippers,  managerial 
and support staff on board SFVs.  

In Malta, the exception refers to coastal fishing, but its impact is limited due to the fact that all 
fishermen in Malta are self-employed.  

Spanish legislation allows in general terms for a reduction of rest time on fishing vessels. No 
specific  reasons  are  provided.  Furthermore,  the  provision  seems  to  replace  the  general  rule 
governing fishing vessels rather than constitute an exception applicable under certain, strictly 
defined circumstances.  

Bulgaria applies to the fishing sector its general legislation governing overtime. Working time 
allowed  under  this  legislation  may  in  some  cases  exceed  the  limits  set  by  the  Directive. 
However, an annual limit of overtime is set (150 hours) and circumstances under which it is 
allowed are strictly defined. 

Generally,  exceptions  are  introduced  by  law.  However,  in  some  Member  States  (e.g. 
Germany, Hungary or Sweden), they can also be introduced by collective agreements. 

Article  21.6  concerns  the  right  of  the  master  of  an  SFV  to  require  workers  on  board  to 
perform any hours of work necessary for the immediate safety of the vessel, persons on board 
or cargo, or for the purpose of giving assistance to other vessels or persons in distress at sea. 
No problems regarding the application of this provision were reported. 

7. 

ANNUAL LEAVE (ARTICLE 21.7) 

Article 7 of the Directive concerns the annual leave entitlement and covers workers on board 
SFVs.  The  only  specific  regulation  applicable  exclusively  to  workers  on  board  SFVs  is  in 
Article  21.7,  which  allows  the  Member  States  to  stipulate  that  workers  on  board  SFVs  not 
allowed  operating  in  a  specific  period  exceeding  one  month  of  the  calendar  year  must  take 
annual leave within this period. 

12  Member  States  stated  that  they  had  not  used  this  option  (Austria,  Bulgaria,  Denmark, 
Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland and Portugal). Only 
Malta and Romania declared that they had used the provision. However, in Malta, its practical 
impact is insignificant due to the fact that all fishermen are self employed. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
8. 

GENERAL  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  DIRECTIVE  APPLICABLE  TO  WORKERS  ON  BOARD 
SFVS (IN PARTICULAR, NIGHT WORK) 

Article  21.1  excludes  the  application  of  Article  8  on  the  ‘Length  of  night  work’  of  the 
Directive  to  workers  on  board  SFVs.  Articles  9  to  11  (on  health  assessment  and  transfer  to 
day work, guarantee for night-time working and notification of regular use of night workers) 
remain applicable to them. 

It  is  therefore  necessary  to  assess  whether  a  specific  regulation  of  the  length  of  night  work 
performed by night workers on board SFVs is warranted. 

A number of Member States decided to apply their general legislation concerning night work 
to  workers  on  board  SFVs  (Spain,  Portugal,  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Finland,  Hungary, 
Netherlands),  even  though  some  Member  States  have  specific  legislation  regulating  other 
aspects of working time on board SFVs.  

Other Member States stated that there was no indication of any adverse effects of the current 
lack  of  regulation  regarding  the  length  of  night  work  on  the  health  and  safety  of  workers 
(Germany,  Lithuania).  Some  fishing  methods  require  operation  during  night  time.  Poland 
stated that stricter provisions on night work on board SFVs ‘would be strongly opposed by the 
workers  themselves’.  Finally,  the  UK  points  out  that  fishermen  are  hunter  gatherers  and  it 
would be impractical to constrain their activities with the conventional framework applied to 
land based workers with regard to night work. 

It was underlined that it would be justified to focus on the medical supervision of fishermen 
called upon to work at night (France).  

Even though some fishing methods require work during night time, workers on board SFVs 
cannot always be considered ‘night workers’ in terms of Article 2.4 of the Directive, which 
requires a certain proportion of working time to be performed during night time.  

Note that specific rules apply to young workers under Directive 94/33/EC.11  

9. 

GENERAL ASSESSMENT 

Member States and the social partners consulted by the Commission were requested to give 
their  overall  assessment  of  Article  21  of  the  Directive,  stating  in  particular  whether  its 
provisions  remain  appropriate,  in  particular  as  far  as  health  and  safety  are  concerned.  The 
main conclusions are summarised below: 

(1) 

Special provisions concerning workers on board SFVs contained in Article 21 of the 
Directive should continue to apply. The article was considered to be appropriate by 12 
Member  States  and  the  social  partners  were  strongly  in  favour  of  maintaining  a 
specific  regulation  concerning  workers  on  board  SFVs.  However,  the  social  partners 
stated  that  ‘the  clear  limitations  laid  down  in  Article  21  of  the  current  Directive 
concerning workers on board fishing vessels must be considered adequate’. 

11 

Its practical implementation was recently analysed by the Commission in Report (SEC (2010) 1339). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Although  not  all  the  Member  States  stated  their  position,  nine  indicated  that  they 
considered the current personal scope of application of the Directive to be adequate. 

Some Member States raised doubts as to whether the criterion of maximum working 
time was adequate, in view of the particular work patterns in the fishing industry and 
the difficulty of  control and enforcement. The difficulty in precisely determining the 
actual  working  hours  on  board  is  considered  to  be  the  most  frequent  inspection 
problem.  Moreover,  the  inspection  is  usually  carried  out  in  ports  only.  According  to 
some Member States, monitoring rest periods is less difficult to carry out in practice. 

Compliance  with  the  uninterrupted  six  hours  of  breaks  poses  practical  problems  in 
some Member States. 

It is generally accepted that Article 8 concerning the length of night work should not 
apply  to  workers  on  SFVs.  Specific  legislation  covering  the  length  of  night  work  of 
workers on board SFVs was not considered warranted either. 

The  scope  for  granting  exclusions  from  the  general  working  time  patterns  set  for 
workers on SFVs was considered a necessary mechanism of flexibility. 

10. 

CONCLUSIONS 

(1)  With  full  respect  for  the  autonomy  of  the  social  partners,  the  Commission  will 
continue to follow the negotiation process concerning incorporation of aspects of ILO 
188  into  EU  law  via  a  social  partners'  agreement  in  order  to  identify,  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  social  partners,  any  potential  areas  in  which  EU  action  is 
necessary or warranted. It will tie in any such action with the current revision of the 
Directive. 

(2) 

As  a  result  of  the  consultation,  the  Commission  has  identified  a  number  of  areas 
requiring further attention. These are: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

The situation of the self-employed, who usually work on small vessels and are 
frequently share-fishermen, deserves a special focus, particularly in the context 
of ratification and implementation of ILO 188 by the Member States. 

The  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  is  not  sufficient  to  ascertain 
whether  the  reference  period  not  exceeding  12  months  referred  to  in  Article 
21.1 second subparagraph is always provided and respected.  

ILO 188 only refers to minimum rest as a criterion to limit working time, while 
the  Directive  allows  for  alternative  use  of  either  minimum  rest  or  maximum 
working  time.  Therefore  the  Member  States  could  either  implement  the 
minimum  rest  criterion  alone  or  both  maximum  working  time  and  minimum 
rest in order to comply with both instruments. This solution is compatible with 
this Directive, as long as any provisions of the latter which are more favourable 
for  the  workers  are  respected.  The  right  to  uninterrupted  periods  of  rest  is 
particularly important (as no similar provision exists in ILO 188) and should be 
respected. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(d) 

(e) 

Special  attention  should  be  paid  to  the  medical  supervision  of  seafarers 
working during night periods.  

In one case (Spain) the exception from working time rules is not justified under 
any  of  the  circumstances  listed  in  Article  21.5.  Exceptions  should  be 
proportional  to  the  circumstances  justifying  them  and  should  not  cover  the 
whole scope of the provision. The Commission will pay particular attention to 
verifying that the use of exceptions granted under Article 21.5 of the Directive 
respects these principles. 

(3) 

In a broader context, the Commission notes that the prime objective of the Community 
strategy  2007-201212  on  health  and  safety  at  work,  supported  by  the  Council 
Resolution  of  25  June  200713,  remains  the  continued  improvement  of  working 
conditions,  notably  through  a  sizeable  reduction  in  work  accidents  and  occupational 
diseases. In order to achieve this goal, the correct and effective implementation of EU 
health and safety legislation must be reinforced while supporting SMEs, particularly in 
‘high-risk’  sectors,  such  as  construction,  agriculture,  fishing  and  transport.  For  this 
purpose,  the  Commission,  through  the  new  PROGRESS  programme  and  in 
cooperation with the Advisory Committee, is currently preparing non-binding practical 
guides on the correct application of the Directives, particularly in the fisheries sector 
(for vessels less than 15 metres in length). 

12 

13 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  —  Improving  quality  and 
productivity  at  work:  Community  strategy  2007-  2012  on  health  and  safety  at  work  [COM(2007)  62 
final of 21 February 2007]. 
Council Resolution of 25 June 2007 on a new Community strategy on health and safety at work (2007-
2012), OJ C 145, 30.06.2007, p. 1. 

EN 

9 

   EN