REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation and application of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 amending Directives 2008/94/EC, 2009/38/EC and 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directives 98/59/EC and 2001/23/EC, as regards seafarers
Date: 2024-07-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, collective dismissal, crew, equal treatment, labour law, maritime transport, transfer of businesses, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.7.2024  COM(2024) 291 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation and application of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 amending Directives 2008/94/EC, 2009/38/EC and 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directives 98/59/EC and 2001/23/EC, as regards seafarers  
 
 
1. Introduction 

This report is about the implementation and application of two specific provisions of Directive (EU) 
2015/17941 (‘the Directive’) that bring seafarers2 into the scope of Directive 98/59/EC3 on collective 
redundancies (the ‘Collective Redundancies Directive’) and of Directive 2001/23/EC4 on transfers of 
undertakings,  businesses  or  parts  of  undertakings  or  businesses  (the  ‘Transfer  of  Undertakings 
Directive’). 

The  Directive  brings  seafarers,  who  were  previously  excluded,  into  the  scope  of  five  labour  law 
directives5. According to Article 7 of the Directive, the Commission, after consulting Member States 
and social partners at EU level, is to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report 
specifically  about  the  implementation  and  application  of  Article 4  (amendments  to  the  Collective 
Redundancies Directive) and Article 5 (amendments to the Transfer of Undertakings Directive). 

The report is principally based on information provided by Member States and sectoral social partners 
at EU level6 in a questionnaire on the implementation and practical  application of the Directive. To 
complete the picture, this information is complemented, where necessary, by information from expert 
analyses of the  conformity  of  national provisions  with  the  Directive and  by the  Commission’s  own 
investigations. 

1.1  Background and context 

Over the years, the EU has adopted a substantial number of directives in the field of labour law. These 
essentially aim to ensure that the creation and completion of the single market does not lead to lower 
labour  standards  or  distortions  in  competition  and  to  improve  living  and  working  conditions  in  the 
EU. These directives are generally applicable to all sectors of activity and all categories of workers, 

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 amending 
Directives 2008/94/EC, 2009/38/EC and 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 
and Council Directives 98/59/EC and 2001/23/EC, as regards seafarers (OJ L 263, 8.10.2015, p. 1). 
This report uses the term ‘seafarers’ to refer to the previous exclusion from the scope of the Directives, 
i.e.  of  ‘crews  of  seagoing  vessels’  from  the  Collective  Redundancies  Directive  and  of  ‘seagoing 
vessels’  from the  Transfer of Undertakings Directives. It covers staff on board of vessels of both the 
merchant navy and fisheries. When it is necessary to distinguish between these two sectors, a  specific 
reference to the sector in question is made. 
Council  Directive  98/59/EC  of  20 July 1998  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States 
relating to collective redundancies (OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16). 
Council  Directive  2001/23/EC  of  12 March 2001  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member 
States  relating  to  the  safeguarding  of  employees’  rights  in  the  event  of  transfers  of  undertakings, 
businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16). 
In addition to the Collective Redundancies Directive and the Transfer of Undertakings Directive:  
-   Directive  2008/94/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22 October 2008  on  the 
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ L 283, 28.10.2008, p. 
36–42);  

-   Directive  2009/38/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6 May 2009  on  the 
establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and 
Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees 
(Recast) (OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28);  

-   Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing 
a  general  framework for  informing  and  consulting  employees  in  the  European  Community  (OJ  L 
80, 23.3.2002, p. 29). 

Questionnaire for management sent to the European Community Shipowner’s Association (ECSA) and 
Europêche; questionnaire for labour sent to the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF). 

1 

 
 
 
but different types of seafarers7 were excluded or could be excluded by Member States from the scope 
of several of them. They were specifically excluded from the five directives referred to above. They 
were therefore not granted the same protection as onshore workers in relation to insolvency, collective 
redundancies,  and  transfers  of  undertakings  and  did  not  enjoy  the  same  rights  to  set  up  European 
Works Councils or to information from and consultation by the employer. 

Directive  2015/1794  was  adopted  on  6 October  2015.  It  aims  to  improve  the  level  of  protection  of 
seafarers  and  to  harmonise  their  social  rights  and  working  conditions,  thus  improving  the 
attractiveness of the profession and  ensuring a level playing field in the sector. It ends the previous 
above-mentioned exclusion of seafarers. The Directive also aims to: (i) ensure that the financial and 
administrative  burden  on  ship-operating  companies  remains  proportionate  to  the  improvements  to 
workers’ rights; (ii) safeguard the objective of increasing the employment of seafarers in the EU; and 
(iii)  reduce  the  risk  of  flagging  out  (where  vessels  are  moved  from  the  national  registry  to  another 
state’s  to  avoid  costs  and  restrictions).  It  takes  account  of  the  specific  nature  of  the  seafaring 
profession and provides for  changes in the characteristics of the sector, such as the frequent sale of 
vessels and the sale of companies operating only one vessel. 

2. 

Implementation of Articles 4 and 5 

Member States had to transpose the Directive by 10 October 20178, and all Member States reported 
transposition measures, including in relation to Articles 4 and 59. 

2.1 Content and objective of Article 4 

Article 4  of  the  Directive  amends  the  Collective  Redundancies  Directive.  That  Directive  aims  to 
protect  workers  in  the  event  of  collective  redundancies  by  means  of  procedures  on  information, 
consultation  and  notification  that  an  employer  must  observe.  An  employer  who  is  considering 
collective redundancies must inform and consult workers’ representatives. The goal is to explore ways 
to avoid collective redundancies or reduce the number of workers affected and to lessen the impact by 
implementing  accompanying  social  measures.  These  measures  may  include  aid  for  redeploying  or 
retraining those workers made redundant. It also provides that projected collective redundancies must 
be notified to the competent public authority and that the dismissals cannot take effect earlier than 30 
days after such a notification. 

Article 4 point (1) of the Directive removes Article 1(2)(c) of the Collective Redundancies Directive. 
This provision set out that the Collective Redundancies Directive was not applicable to the crews of 
seagoing vessels although Article 5 of the Collective Redundancies Directive allows Member States 
to apply or adopt rules that are more favourable to employees. Therefore, before the transposition of 
the Directive, Member States could decide to exclude crews of seagoing vessels from the scope of the 
legislation transposing the Collective Redundancies Directive. 

Moreover,  Article 4  point  (2)  of  the  Directive  inserts  a  new  subparagraph  in  Article 3(1)  of  the 
Collective Redundancies Directive about the notification procedure that reads as follows: 

7  

8  
9  

Share-fishermen  from  the  Directive  on  insolvency,  merchant  navy  crew  from  the  Directive  on 
European Works Councils, crews of vessels plying the high seas from the Directive on Information and 
Consultation,  crews  of  seagoing  vessels  from  the  Collective  Redundancies  Directive,  and  seagoing 
vessels from the Transfer of Undertakings Directive. 
Article 8(1). 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32015L1794 

2 

 
 
 
Where the projected collective redundancy concerns members of the crew of a seagoing vessel, 
the employer shall notify the competent authority of the State of the flag which the vessel flies. 

In general, the notification procedure under Articles 3 and 4 of the Collective Redundancies Directive 
allows the competent authority to seek solutions to the problems that the projected redundancies may 
create, such as by mitigating the socio-economic effects of mass dismissals in a certain area or sector. 
The  insertion  of  Article 4  point  (2)  of  the  Directive  reflects  the  specific  nature  of  the  seafarer’s 
profession by laying down that the notification should be made to the competent authority of the flag 
state.  According  to  its  proposal,  the  Commission  considered that  it  was  necessary  as  a  clarification 
because of the potential coexistence of employment contracts under different national laws10. 

2.2 Member States’ replies on the implementation of Article 4 

2.2.1 Article 4 point (1): ending the exclusion 

A  total  of  11  Member  States  previously  excluded the  crews  of seagoing  vessels  from  their national 
legislation on collective redundancies (BE, DK, DE, IE, EL, EE, CY, LV, LU, MT, SK11). All these 
Member  States  amended  their  national  legislation  to  end  the  exclusion  and  bring  the  crews  of  a 
seagoing  vessel  into  the  scope  of  the  system  governing  collective  redundancies  as  required  by 
Article 4 point (1) of the Directive. 

There were 16  Member States  that had never excluded  the crews of seagoing vessels (BG, CZ, ES, 
FR,  HR,  IT,  LT,  HU,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  FI,  SE)  and  therefore  did  not  need  to  amend  their 
national legislation to bring such crews within the scope of the Directive. 

2.2.2. Article 4 point (2): notification to the competent authority of the flag state 

Article 4 point (2) of the Directive on notifying prospective redundancies to the authority of the flag 
state that the vessel flies was specifically transposed by 13 Member States (BE, DE, IE, EE, EL, IT, 
CY, LU, HU, MT, PL, RO, SK). Of these, three transposed it verbatim (CY, HU, SK), setting out that 
where projected collective redundancies concern crews of seagoing vessels, the notification must be 
made to the competent authority of the flag state that the vessel flies. 

The  other  10  Member  States  determine  which  competent  authority  to  notify  in  a  variety  of  ways 
described below. 

-  Four Member States provide for notifying the authority of the flag state but limit it to vessels 
flying the flag of: (i) another state (EE) that is a contracting party to the European Economic 
Area Agreement; (ii) another EU Member State (DE); or (iii) their own Member State (BE, 
PL). 

-  Greece and Malta oblige employers to notify their own Member State’s competent authority 

of any planned collective dismissals of crew of seagoing vessels. 

-  Two  Member  States  (LU,  RO)  provide  for  additional  notifications  where  collective 
redundancies concern crew of seagoing vessels. In Luxembourg, the employer must notify the 
authorities of the flag state in addition to the own competent national authority. In Romania, 

10  
11  

COM(2013)798 final of 18.11.2013, p. 10 (Detailed explanation of the provisions on Article 4). 
The  abbreviations  for  Member  States  in  this  report  are:  BE  (Belgium),  BG  (Bulgaria),  CZ  (Czech 
Republic),  DK  (Denmark),  DE  (Germany),  EE  (Estonia),  IE  (Ireland),  EL  (Greece),  ES  (Spain),  FR 
(France),  HR (Croatia),  IT (Italy), CY (Cyprus), LV (Latvia), LT (Lithuania), LU (Luxembourg), HU 
(Hungary), MT (Malta), NL (Netherlands), AT (Austria), PL (Poland), PT (Portugal), RO (Romania), 
SI (Slovenia), SK (Slovakia), FI (Finland), SE (Sweden). 

3 

 
 
 
- 

the  notification  must  also be  submitted  to  the  competent  authority  of the  vessel’s  flag  state 
where the collective redundancies concern a seagoing vessel’s crew members. 
Ireland  distinguishes  between  notifying  the  Minister  for  Employment  Affairs  and  Social 
Protection  where  the  vessel  flies  the  Irish  flag  or  the  competent  authority  of  another  state 
where the vessel flies the flag of that other state. 

-  Similarly,  in  Italy,  the  employer  must  notify  the  Italian  competent  authority  where  the 
projected  collective  redundancy  concerns  crew  members  of  Italian  nationality  or  whose 
employment relationship is regulated by Italian law and the competent authority of the foreign 
state where the  crew members concerned are on a vessel flying a flag other than the Italian 
flag. 

The remaining 14 Member States (BG, CZ, DK, ES, FR, HR, LT, LV, NL, AT, PT, SI, FI, SE)  did 
not amend their national legislation on this point and therefore do not specify a competent authority to 
receive notifications when prospective collective redundancies concern the crews of seagoing vessels. 
The Commission understands that the existing national provisions obliging an employer to notify the 
competent  public  authority  of  the  projected  collective  redundancies  also  apply  where  these 
redundancies concern the crews of seagoing vessels. Consequently, in these Member States, Article 4 
point (2) of the Directive is transposed by stipulating that an employer must notify planned collective 
redundancies  of  seagoing  vessels’  crew  members  to  the  same  public  authority  to  which  collective 
redundancies of all other workers must be notified. 

2.3 Comments from social partners on the implementation of Article 4 

For maritime employers,  the European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) considers that 
all  Member  States  have  transposed  Article 4  of  the  Directive  in  a  satisfactory  way.  Europêche, 
representing  employers  in  the  fishing  sector,  did  not  provide  a  contribution.  For  social  partners 
representing  labour,  the  European  Transport  Workers’  Federation  (ETF)  was  not  able  to  provide 
substantial information  on the  transposition in  Member  States  due to a lack  of  information from  its 
affiliates. However, the ETF criticised the transposition in the UK12, which was a Member State at the 
time13. 

2.4 Content and objective of Article 5 

Article 5 of the Directive amends the Transfer of Undertakings Directive. That Directive sets out the 
rights of employees when there is a transfer of ownership of a company in which they work as well as 
the  obligations  of  the  seller  (‘transferor’)  and  buyer  (‘transferee’).  It  provides  that  the  transfer  of  a 
company is not grounds for dismissal and that employees maintain their rights and obligations from 
an existing employment contract or relationship. Moreover, to reach an agreement, the transferor and 
transferee  must inform  and  consult  employee  representatives  in  good time  before  the  change in  the 
business is carried out and before measures affecting employees are adopted. 

Previously, Article 1(3) of the Transfer of Undertakings Directive provided that that Directive did not 
apply  to  seagoing  vessels  although  Article 8  of  the  Transfer  of  Undertakings  Directive  explicitly 

12  

13  

According  to  which  the  employer  must  give  the  notification  ‘to  the  competent  authority  of  the  state 
where the vessel is registered (instead of to the Secretary of State)’. 
The ETF referred to the case of P&O Ferries. The company was established in the UK and notified the 
Cypriot authorities of collective redundancies relating to crew on their Cypriot-flagged passenger ships. 
In the ETF’s view, this showed that the notification to the competent public authority of the vessel’s flag 
should be additional to the duty to report redundancies to the competent public authority of the Member 
State from which the seafarers operate and not instead of it. 

4 

 
 
 
allows  Member  States  to  apply  or  adopt  rules  that  are  more  favourable  to  employees.  Therefore, 
before  the  transposition  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  could  decide  to  exclude  seagoing  vessels 
from the scope of the legislation transposing it. 

Under Article 5 of the Directive, Article 1(3) of the Transfer of Undertakings Directive is replaced by 
the following: 

This  Directive  shall  apply  to  a  transfer  of  a  seagoing  vessel  that  is  part  of  a  transfer  of  an 
undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business within the meaning of paragraphs 
1  and  2,  provided  that the  transferee  is  situated,  or the  transferred undertaking,  business,  or 
part of an undertaking or business remains, within the territorial scope of the Treaty. 

This  Directive  shall  not  apply  where  the  object  of  the  transfer  consists  exclusively  of  one  or 
more seagoing vessels. 

2.5 Member States’ replies on the implementation of Article 5 

2.5.1. Article 5 replacing Article 1(3) first subparagraph of the Transfer of Undertakings Directive: 
ending the exclusion 

A total of 11 Member States exempted seagoing vessels from the scope of their national rules on the 
transfer of undertakings before the entry into force of Article 5 of the Directive (BE, DK, EE, IE, EL, 
CY, LU, MT, NL, RO, FI). All of them amended their national legislation to bring seagoing vessels 
into the scope of their national legislation. 

However,  16  Member States  had already  applied  their legislation  on  the  transfer  of  undertakings to 
seagoing  vessels  (BG,  CZ,  DE,  ES,  FR,  HR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  HU,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SI,  SK,  SE).  They 
therefore did not need to amend their legislation to bring it into the scope of their national legislation. 

2.5.2 Article 5 replacing Article 1(3) first subparagraph of the Transfer of Undertakings Directive: 
territorial scope 

Article 5  also  permits  Member  States  to  limit  the  territorial  scope  of  the  application  of  the  rules  to 
transfers  of  seagoing  vessels  if  the  buyer  is  situated  in  the  EU  or  if  the  transferred  undertaking 
remains in the territorial scope of the Treaties. 

A total of 13 Member States have transposed this provision, nine of them verbatim (BE, DK, IE, EL, 
EE,  IT,  LV,  NL,  RO).  Of  the  other  four  Member  States,  Finland  sets  out  that  the  rights  and 
obligations  from  the  employment  relationship  and  the  employee  benefits  are  transferred  to  the  new 
owner  of  the  business  unless  the  seller  or  buyer  is  established  outside  the  EU  or  the  European 
Economic Area. Luxembourg and Malta limit the territorial scope by laying down that the buyer must 
be situated in their Member State or that the undertaking must remain in their Member State. Cyprus 
limits the scope to Cypriot seagoing vessels. 

The remaining 14 Member States did not limit the territorial scope. 

2.5.3 Article 5 replacing Article 1(3) second subparagraph of the Transfer of Undertakings Directive: 
exclusion of vessel-only transfers 

The second sentence of Article 5 excludes transfers only involving one or more seagoing vessels. 

A  total  of  13  Member  States  transposed  this  provision  and  thus  exclude  vessel-only  transfers  (BE, 
DK, IE, EL, EE, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO). However, 14 Member States (BG, CZ, DE, ES, 

5 

 
 
FR, HR, LT, HU, AT, PL, SI, SK, SE, FI) did not transpose it and thus do not exclude vessel-only 
transfers from the legislation transposing the Transfer of Undertakings Directive. 

2.6 Comments from the social partners on the implementation of Article 5 

For maritime employers, the ECSA considers that all Member States have transposed Article 5 of the 
Directive  in  a  satisfactory  way.  Europêche,  representing  employers  in  the  fishing  sector,  did  not 
provide a contribution. For the social partners representing labour, the ETF did not provide substantial 
information on the transposition in Member States due to a lack of information from its affiliates. 

3. Application of Articles 4 and 5 

In  addition  to  information  about their  implementation  measures,  Member  States  and  social  partners 
were also asked to provide information on the application of the national rules transposing Articles 4 
and 5. 

3.1. Member States’ replies 

3.1.1. Notifications of projected collective redundancies 

Only  five  Member  States  reported  that  their  competent  authorities  were  notified  of  projected 
collective redundancies of seagoing vessels’ crew members (FR, CY, LV, NL, FI). The other Member 
States were not aware of such cases (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES,  IT, LT, LU, HU, MT, 
AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK),  could  not  distinguish  between  the  professions  of  the  employees  whose 
project redundancies were notified (HR) or did not provide any information (SE). 

In France, the competent national authority was notified six times between 2015 and 2020. 

Cyprus reported that it was aware of one notification concerning P&O Ferries, established in the UK. 
The company had dismissed some 800 seafarers, including on four passenger ships flying the Cypriot 
flag. 

Latvia reported one notification in 2022 affecting 125 employees. 

The Netherlands replied that in 2020 one notification was registered concerning an employer based 
there affecting 63 seafarers. In 2021, a second notification concerned seagoing vessels flying a Dutch 
flag, although the employer was not based in the Netherlands, and affected 28 seafarers. 

Finland is aware of notifications concerning seagoing vessels’ crew members but did not have access 
to precise figures or other information. Furthermore, Finland explained that the national provisions on 
collective redundancies already apply when the employer plans the dismissal of one worker. 

No Member State reported a case in which their competent national authority received notifications of 
projected  collective  redundancies  concerning  crew  members  of  a  seagoing  vessel  flying  the  flag  of 
another Member State. 

3.1.2. Transfers of undertakings involving seagoing vessels 

Only two Member States were aware of transfers of seagoing vessels that were part of a transfer under 
the  Directive  (BE,  FI).  Belgium  stated  that  social  partners  were  aware  of  one  case  where  several 
vessels  of  one  company  were  transferred  to  another  company,  while  Finland  did  not  provide  any 
further  information.  Two  Member  States  did  not  provide  information  on  the  matter  (FR,  SE),  Italy 

6 

 
 
 
reported that there had been no such transfer, and the remaining Member States were not aware of any 
cases. 

3.1.3. Legal proceedings 

Member  States  did  not  report  any  legal  proceedings  in  its  national  courts  related  to  the  national 
provisions transposing Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive. 

3.1.4. Impact of the Directive 

The Commission’s reporting obligation under Article 7 of the Directive was introduced, in particular, 
to assess the impact of the new Directive on two issues: (i) flagging out vessels to other states; and (ii) 
the level of employment of EU seafarers. Changes to the fleet under the flag of a Member State can 
give an accurate view of the ‘flagging out’ phenomenon. The level of employment in a specific sector 
is more difficult to assess, but trends in the number of people working as seafarers makes it possible 
to draw some provisional conclusions on this issue. 

3.1.4.1. Impact on the number of vessels flying the flag of a Member State 

Overall, Member States’ replies do not show that implementation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive 
were  detrimental  to  the  number  of  vessels  flying  the  flag  of  Member  States.  This  suggests  that  the 
entry into force of these two articles and their transposition by Member States did not lead to flagging 
out. 

Of  the Member  States  that  amended their  national  laws  to  bring crews  of  seagoing  vessels into  the 
scope  of  their  legislation  transposing  the  Collective  Redundancies  Directive,  only  five  noted  a 
decrease in the number of seagoing vessels flying their flag (BE, EE, EL, IT, PL). In addition to these 
five Member States, the Netherlands also reported a decrease after they had brought seagoing vessels 
into the scope of its legislation transposing the Transfer of Undertakings Directive.  

Some Member States provided more detailed information on the decrease. Belgium reported that the 
number of merchant vessels registered there decreased very slightly from 238 to 237 in more than 5 
years  between  2016  and  2022  but  that  the  gross  tonnage  increased  from  7 750 000 GT  to 
9 780 000 GT.  The  country’s  number  of  fishing  vessels  decreased,  but  it  did  not  specify  by  how 
much. In Italy, the number of merchant navy vessels over 100 GT decreased by 8% between 2017 and 
2020 (from 1 448 to 1 334). Poland reported that the number of vessels and gross tonnage decreased 
between  2015  and  2021  from  151  to  134  vessels  and  from  around  80 000  to  69 000 GT.  In  the 
Netherlands,  the  number  of  vessels  decreased  from  1 233  to  1 212  between  2014  and  2021. 
Nevertheless, these Member States assume that this trend is not linked to the entry into force of the 
Directive but is due to: (i) cheaper registration of vessels under other flags (PL); (ii) better conditions 
when flying the flag of another state (EE); (iii)  flagging out (NL); and (iv) many of the protections 
provided for in the Directive were already applicable to seagoing vessels’ crew members before the 
Directive (IT). 

In contrast, Ireland and Portugal observed an increase in the number of seagoing vessels flying their 
flags.  They  did  not  provide  detailed  data,  and  Ireland  did  not  provide  any  possible  reasons  for  the 
increase.  Portugal  does  not  believe  this  increase  is  due  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive:  it 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
assumes that it is linked to the 2015 simplifications in the legal regime of the International Shipping 
Register of Madeira along with existing tax reductions. 

Seven  Member  States  that  brought  crews  of  seagoing  vessels  into  the  scope  of  their  legislation 
transposing the Collective Redundancies Directive did not report any change (DE, CY, MT, LV, LU, 
HU) or any significant change (HR) in the number of vessels flying their flags. These Member States, 
along with Lithuania, indicated no change in connection with including seagoing vessels in the scope 
of the legislation transposing the Transfer of Undertakings Directive.  

Three Member States reported they did not have any data related to extending the rules on collective 
redundancies to crews of seagoing vessels (BG, DK, LT). Four Member States also reported having 
no data concerning extending legislation on the transfer of undertakings to include seagoing vessels 
(BG,  DK,  RO,  SK).  Those  reporting no  impact  were seven Member  States  who  had  not  previously 
excluded  seafarers  from  national  laws  transposing  the  Collective  Redundancies  Directive  (ES,  FR, 
NL, RO, SI, SE) and five Member States who had not previously excluded seagoing vessels from the 
national law transposing the Transfer of Undertakings Directive (ES, FR, SI, SE).  

Finland reported that there were no significant changes as the national law on collective redundancies 
already applied to seafarers before and as seafarers had already partial rights in connection with the 
transfer of undertakings. Two Member States stated that they were not flag states for vessels falling 
under  Articles  4  and  5  of the  Directive  (CZ,  AT).  Slovakia  reported  that it  was  not  a  flag  state  for 
vessels falling under Article 4 of the Directive. 

3.1.4.2. Impact on the number of seafarers 

Overall, Member States’ replies also show that the implementation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive 
were not detrimental to the number of seafarers. This suggests that the entry into force of Articles 4 
and  5  of  the  Directive  and  the  related  national  provisions  did  not  have  an  impact  on  the  level  of 
employment of seafarers on vessels registered in Member States. 

Only two Member States observed a decrease in the number of seafarers (EE, EL). Greece reported a 
decrease in seafarers employed on vessels flying the Greek flag since it had transposed the Directive 
in  2018,  but  it  did  not  provide  any  specific  figures.  Estonia  reported  a  decrease  in  the  number  of 
merchant navy crew members and a slight decrease in the number of fishers but also did not provide 
specific  figures.  Both  countries  did  not  link  the  decrease  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive. 
Estonia  explained  that  the  working  assumption  is  that  there  are  other  reasons  at  play,  such  as  the 
COVID-19 pandemic and the reduction in the number of voyages taken. 

In  Belgium,  social  security  data  showed  a  slight  decrease  in  employment  in  the  merchant  navy 
sector14 while the number of fishers remained stable. In connection with having included seafarers in 
the  scope  of  national  law  transposing  the  Directive  on  collective  redundancies,  Latvia  reported  a 
decrease in the number of seafarers with merchant fleet qualifications and an increase in the number 
of seafarers with qualifications to be part of a fishing vessel’s crew. Both countries could not link this 
development  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive.  Latvia  presumed  the  main  drivers  were 

14  

On the other hand, data from the joint committee for the merchant navy sector showed a strong increase 
in employment, explained, however, by the recent inclusion of the dredging and off-shore sectors into 
the merchant navy sector. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
competition  with  Asian  seafarers,  opportunities  to  redeploy  ashore,  and,  specifically  for  fishers, 
changes to qualification requirements for boat captains. 

Two Member States (IE, PT) observed an increase in the number of seafarers. They did not provide 
any detailed data, but neither link it to the entry into force of the Directive. For Ireland, the increase is 
the result of the increase in the number of merchant ships. Portugal assumes that, like the increase in 
the  number  of  vessels,  the  increase  in  the  number  of  seafarers  is  also  linked  to  the  2015 
simplifications in the legal regime of the International Shipping Register of Madeira. 

Three  Member  States  did  not  note  a  significant  change  in  the  number  of  seafarers  (HR,  IT,  FI).  In 
Italy, the number of seafarers remained essentially unchanged between 2017 and 2020 (-1.4% from 
26 105 to 25 744): the decrease in the number of cargo vessels had been partly offset with more staff-
intensive  passenger  vessels,  and  many  of  the  protections  provided  for  in  the  Directive  had  already 
applied  to  seagoing  vessels’  crew  members.  The  number  of  seafarers  in  Finland  did  not  change 
significantly from 2017 to 2019; a decrease in the number of seafarers in 2020 was considered to be 
linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Four  Member  States  did  not  report  any  change  in  the  number  of  seafarers  (CZ,  HU,  MT,  PL). 
Lithuania did not report any change in connection with having included seagoing vessels in the scope 
of the legislation transposing the Transfer of Undertakings Directive. Czechia explained that, as there 
are  no  commercial  seagoing  vessels  registered  under  the  Czech  flag,  the  unchanged  number  of 
seafarers concerns seafarers with a seaman’s book issued by the Czech Maritime Authority  who are 
employed on seagoing vessels operating under various EU and non-EU flags. Germany stated that the 
entry into force of Article 4 of the Directive did not have any effect on the number of seafarers.  

Six  Member  States  were  unable  to  provide  data  on  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on  the  number  of 
seafarers  in  connection  with  extending  the  rules  on  collective  redundancies  to  crews  of  seagoing 
vessels (BG, DK, CY, LT, LU, RO). These Member States, along with Latvia and Slovakia, reported 
that they did not have data on the number of seafarers in connection with extending legislation on the 
transfer of undertakings. On the same topic, the Netherlands explained that, while it had 2021 data on 
staff on Dutch-flagged vessels (4 600 Dutch staff, 16 000 foreign staff), it had no reliable earlier data 
for comparison. 

Five Member States (ES, FR, NL, SI, SE) had not previously excluded seafarers from national laws 
transposing  the  Collective  Redundancies  Directive  and  therefore  did  not  report  any  impact  on  the 
number of seafarers. Similarly, four Member States (ES, FR, SI, SE) that had not previously excluded 
seafarers  from  their  national  laws  transposing  the  Transfer  of  Undertakings  Directive  reported  no 
impact.  Austria  stated  that  it  is  not  a  flag  state  for  vessels  falling  under  Articles  4  and  5  of  the 
Directive,  and  Slovakia  reported  that  it  is  not  a  flag  state  for  vessels  falling  under  Article 4  of  the 
Directive. 

3.2 Comments from social partners 

For  maritime  employers, the  ECSA  considered  that Member  States applied  and  enforced  Articles 4 
and 5 of the  Directive satisfactorily. According to the  ECSA, both the number of vessels flying the 
flag of a Member State and the number of seafarers were stable. Europêche, representing employers in 
the fishing sector, did not make a contribution. 

9 

 
 
For the social partners representing labour, the ETF could not provide substantial information on the 
application  of  Article 5  of  the  Directive  concerning  transfers  of  undertakings  due  to  the  lack  of 
information from its affiliates.  On the application of Article 4 of the Directive concerning collective 
redundancies,  the ETF  stated that it did not receive information from all its affiliates and that those 
affiliates that did reply did not register a change in the number of vessels flying the flag of a Member 
States or in the number of seafarers. 

4.  Conclusions 

All  Member  States  have  reported  transposition  measures  for  the  amendments  to  the  Collective 
Redundancies  Directive  that  includes  the  crew  of  seagoing  vessels  in  its  scope  and  that  include 
seagoing vessels in the scope of the Transfer of Undertakings Directive. Not all of them passed new 
laws or amended existing acts as this was not required in those Member States that had not already 
exempted (the crew of)  seagoing vessels from the scope of application of their national rules in the 
past. This has improved the rights of seafarers who previously lacked the protection afforded by these 
directives. 

Article 4 point (2) of the Directive obliging employers to notify planned collective redundancies to the 
competent  authority  of  the  vessel’s  flag  state  has  been  transposed  by  most  Member  States  as 
notification to their own competent authority. As a result, the authority will be the same as the one to 
which  collective  redundancies  of  all  other  workers  have  to  be  notified.  Only  a  few  Member  States 
transposed it as an obligation to notify the flag state. 

Experience with the practical application of the amendments to the Collective Redundancies Directive 
and the Transfer of Undertakings Directive is very limited. Only five Member States reported between 
one and six notifications of collective redundancies involving the crew of a seagoing vessel, and two 
Member  States  reported  one  or  two  transfers  of  seagoing  vessels.  No  Member  State  reported  legal 
proceedings. 

Concerns  that the amendments would  harm the maritime sector by causing flagging out and loss of 
jobs have proven to be unfounded. In connection with having brought crew of seagoing vessels into 
the  scope  of  the  Collective  Redundancies  Directive  and  seagoing  vessels  into  the  scope  of  the 
Transfer of Undertakings Directive, most Member States and the sectoral social partners representing 
management  and  labour  did  not  report  any  change  in  the  number  of  vessels  flying  the  flag  of  a 
Member State or in the number of seafarers. Where Member States reported a decrease or an increase 
in the number of such vessels or the number of seafarers, they stated that these developments were not 
linked to including (crew of) seagoing vessels in the scope of these two directives. 

10