INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
E
IMO
JOINT IMO/ILO AD HOC EXPERT
WORKING GROUP ON LIABILITY AND
COMPENSATION REGARDING CLAIMS
FOR DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY AND
ABANDONMENT OF SEAFARERS
6th session
Agenda item 3
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
27 July 2005
ENGLISH ONLY
EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR CREW
MEMBERS/SEAFARERS AND THEIR DEPENDANTS WITH REGARD TO
COMPENSATION IN CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH AND
ABANDONMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT IMO AND ILO
INSTRUMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW OR LIKELY
TO BE ADOPTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE
Submitted by the ILO and IMO Secretariats
SUMMARY
Executive summary:
This document contains a synopsis of the replies to the questionnaire
on the implementation of resolution A.930(22) and related guidelines,
which was appended to IMO Circular letter No.2531, of
16 March 2004. The annex to this document contains information on
recent cases of abandonment, which were reported by Member States,
ISF or ITF in response to question 7 of the questionnaire. It includes
all cases that arose during the reporting period (January 2004 to
June 2005)
Action to be taken:
Paragraph 21
Related documents:
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 5/2 and Add.1; resolution A.930(22) and related
guidelines
Introduction
1
The Governing Body of the International Labour Office (ILO) at its 282nd session
(November 2001) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Assembly, at its
twenty-second session in November 2001, adopted resolution A.930(22) “Guidelines on
provision of financial security in case of abandonment of seafarers” and resolution A.931(22)
“Guidelines on shipowners’ responsibilities in respect of contractual claims for personal injury to
or death of seafarers”. Both resolutions took effect on 1 January 2002.
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
-2-
2
In order to assess the effect given to resolutions A.930(22) and A.931(22), the fourth
meeting of the Joint IMO/ILO Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on Liability and Compensation
regarding Claims of Death, Personal Injury and Abandonment of Seafarers decided to send out
two questionnaires to all the Member States of IMO and to relevant organizations as appropriate.
3
Prior to the fifth session of the Joint Working Group (January 2004), the Secretariats had
received replies from the following 11 States or territories: Australia, Cyprus, Denmark,
Germany, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Republic of Korea,
Norway and United States.
4
Regarding the question of abandonment, the Shipowners and some Governments were of
the view that, in light of the limited data available together with the fact that the resolution and
the Guidelines had not yet been fully implemented, it would have been premature to recommend
the drafting of a mandatory instrument, as suggested by the Seafarers and some Governments.
Therefore, the Joint Working Group agreed to a renewed attempt to collect additional answers to
the questionnaire concerning resolution A.930(22) and suggested that this questionnaire should
be resent. This request was agreed upon by the Governing Body of ILO at its 289th session as
well as the IMO Legal Committee at its eighty-eighth session.
5
In addition to the 11 replies received prior to the fifth session of the Joint Working Group,
the Secretariat received responses from the following 35 States or territories: Albania,
Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Egypt, Finland, France, Guatemala, Iceland,
India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritius, Netherlands, Oman,
Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom. Shipowner and seafarer
organizations, the International Shipping Federation (ISF) and the International Transport
Workers’ Federation (ITF), provided information on cases of abandonment.
6
This report is based on all answers received and includes those contained in the Report
for the fifth session of the Joint Working Group as well as its Addendum.
7
It tries to determine the effect given to resolution A.930(22) in law and practice and will
be reviewed by the sixth session of the Joint IMO/ILO Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on
Liability and Compensation regarding Claims for Death, Personal Injury and Abandonment of
Seafarers, which is scheduled to take place from 19 to 21 September 2005 in London.
Replies received and commentaries
8
This section contains the substance of the replies to the questionnaire appended to IMO
Circular letter No.2531. Each question is subsequently reproduced and followed by the list of
Governments that replied to the respective question, grouped in accordance with the nature of
these replies. A small number of Member States sent detailed replies that were not directly based
on the questionnaire. However, whenever their answers were relevant to the specific questions
posed, these comments are reproduced.
9
Where replies contain qualifying remarks or explanations, the substance of each
observation is given, country by country, after the above-mentioned list. Responses of a simple
affirmative or negative nature have not been reproduced. Where a reply covers several questions,
the substance of the reply is given under only one of these questions.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
-3-
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
10
Cases of abandonment, which were reported by ISF, ITF or Member States in response to
question 7 of the questionnaire, are found in the annex to this document. It includes all cases that
arose during the reporting period (January 2004 to June 2005). For easier reference, these cases
were grouped in two categories (‘cases reported’ and ‘cases reported to be resolved’). The cases
listed under ‘cases reported to be resolved’ also include cases where at least one party has
reported them to be resolved. Comments provided by ISF and ITF are marked as these
organizations’ comments.
Questionnaire on Monitoring of Resolutions and Guidelines concerning the provision of
financial security in case of abandonment of Seafarers1
Question 1(a):
“Do your laws and regulations contain a definition of abandonment?”
Affirmative: 13. Albania, Australia, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, India,
Lithuania, Oman, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka.
Negative: 34. Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France, Ghana,
Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya,
Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines,
Portugal, Singapore, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, Slovenia, United States.
Comments
Australia: The Navigation Act 1912, Part 2, Division 16 Protection of Seamen prescribes
offences and requirements in relation to circumstances of seafarers being “wrongfully forced
ashore and left behind” and Division 19 defines a “distressed seaman” as one who “is in
distress… by reason of having been discharged or left behind from or being shipwrecked in a
ship.”
Brazil: Brazilian legislation does not have a definition of abandonment. The NORMAM 13, a
regulation issued by the maritime authority, provides, in its Chapter 4 – Section I,
paragraph 0401: “5) to ensure that all on board will know their position and onboard duties in the
case of abandonment”. However, this provision refers to cases where an accident has occurred or
a ship is sinking.
Bulgaria: The Bulgarian legislation does not provide for definition of “abandonment” in the
sense of the Guidelines. Nevertheless the national legislation fully covers this subject. The
Republic of Bulgaria is party to the following fundamental ILO Conventions, related to this
matter: the Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No.68), the Accommodation of
Crews Convention, 1946, (No.75), the Convention Concerning Minimum Standards in Merchant
Ships, 1976, (No.147), the Seafarers’ Welfare Convention, 1987 (No.163), the Repatriation of
Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No.166), Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers
Convention, 1996 (No.179). The relations between the shipowners and seafarers are regulated by
the Labour Code, the Merchant Shipping Code, Ordinance on the terms and procedures for
performing intermediary activities in employment and Ordinance on the relations between the
shipowner and the crew members with regard to labour and labour-related conditions, Ordinance
on Port State Control.
1
Annex 1 of IMO Circular letter No.2531.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
-4-
Canada: While no definition exists, Part IV of the Canada Shipping Act contains provisions for
relief and repatriation of distressed seamen and seamen left behind abroad belonging to a
Canadian ship.
Chile: There is no legal definition of ‘abandonment’ in Chilean law. Protection can, however,
be derived from Article 77 of the Navigation Law (Law-Decree 2,222, 1978) and Articles 105,
120, 126 and 129 of the Labour Code when widely construed.
Cyprus: Sections 67 and 68 of the Merchant Shipping (Masters and Seamen) Law 46 of 1963 as
amended provide for a wider interpretation of abandonment, since they refer to “seamen in
distress”. Repatriation costs and other expenses are borne by a special fund created by the
Department of Merchant Shipping in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance entitled
“Assistance and Repatriation Fund to Indigent Seamen”. When the need should arise, the
Ministry of Finance may approve additional funds to be allocated to e.g. paying for the relief of
the crew of the M/V Aqua Sierra. Furthermore, the Merchant Shipping (Criminal and
Disciplinary Liability of Seafarers, Suspension or Cancellation of Certificates) Law of 2000
(Law 106(I)/2000) is highly relevant. Section 17 refers to the “abandonment of sick persons in a
foreign country” and makes such deeds by a master a criminal offence. Lastly, the Convention
concerning the Repatriation of Seamen (Ratification) and for Matters concerned therewith Law
of 1995 (Law 12(III)/95) makes direct reference to the prohibition of abandonment of a seafarer,
and the responsibility of the Republic for repatriation and other related provisions.
Denmark: Since no definition exists, abandoned seafarers are typically in contact with the
ship’s representative (the ship broker) and the police; their residence rights are governed by the
Danish legislation applying to foreigners.
Finland: The following sections of the Seamen’s Act (423/1978) cover abandonment and are
applicable to Finnish seafarers as well as EU nationals: Section 52 (General provisions as to free
passages home); Section 53 (Free passages arranged on account of communicable diseases or
war risks); Section 54 (Free passages in special cases); Section 55 (Free passages for workers
who are laid off); Section 56 (Arrangements of passages home); Section 57 (Workers’
entitlement to compensation in connection with the transfer of the company); Section 58
(Compensation for unemployment); Section 59 (Workers’ property left on board); Section 60
(Certificates of employment); Section 41a (Failure to observe the period of notice); Section 41b
(Period of notice; compensation as free time and salary during the period of notice); Section 80
(Compensation for loss of personal property).
France: French legislation has not yet integrated a definition of ‘abandonment’, however, a
mechanism to provide urgent social assistance has been created by the government to deal with
cases of abandonment in French ports. The mechanism is based on a budget line that provides a
fund for urgent intervention in cases of abandonment. This fund is entrusted to the ‘Association
pour la gestion des institutions sociales maritimes’ (AGISM). AGISM can timely provide
financial assistance to satisfy the requests of all parties involved in a case of abandonment. To
this effect, an agreement was reached between the Ministry and AGISM. This document
features the definition used in resolution A.930(22). This ensures that the interventions of the
fund will stay within a precise framework regarding abandonment. This mechanism allows
helping crew members of ships flying the French flag which have been abandoned abroad and
seafarers abandoned in French ports, either ashore or on board ships.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
-5-
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Germany: Article 1 of the Law concerning the Obligations of Seafaring Ships to Help Seafarers
to be Repatriated, 2 June 1902 (RGBl S. 212) requires German vessels to take seafarers on board
who are in need of help (hilfsbedürftig). Article 71 No. 1 of the Seamen’s Law of 1957, last
modified in March 2002, prohibits the master of a ship that flies the German flag to leave a
seafarer at a place outside the ambit of the German Constitution without permission of the
responsible German seafarers’ inspectorate.
Greece: Article 29 L 1220/81 covers the non-observance of wages and food provisions by the
shipowner.
India: Although there is no definition of the term ‘abandonment’, reference to these situations is
made under section 3(9) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, which defines ‘distressed’ seaman’
as ‘a seaman […] who, by reason of having been discharged or left behind from, or shipwrecked
in, any ship at a place outside of India, is in distress at that place’. Actions to be taken by the
Indian Consular Office are specified in the M.S. Act and under the M.S. (Distress Seaman)
Rules, 1960. In accordance with Rule 4 of M.S. (Distressed Seamen) Rules, 1960 the Indian
Consular has to be satisfied that the applicant is a distressed seaman who is entitled to relief and
maintenance under the Act. Benefits provided include, amongst others, repatriation. According
to Section 165 of the M.S. Act a certificate of the Central Government to the effect that any
seaman named therein is distressed shall be conclusive evidence that such seaman is distressed.
Lebanon: The Lebanese Law on the Merchant Marine, promulgated on 18 February 1947 has
no direct provisions related to cases of abandonment of seafarers by shipowners. The General
Administration of Land and Maritime Transport supports resolution A.930(22) and notes that it is
in force for IMO Member States as of 1 January 2002.
Lithuania: The Order of the Minister of Transport and Communications of the Republic of
Lithuania concerning Collecting of Information on Cases of Abandonment in Ports of the
Republic of Lithuania and Transfer of Relevant Information to IMO (5 November 2003;
no. 3-610, Official Gazette 2003, no. 112-5044) defines abandonment as follows: ‘Abandonment
is characterised by the severance of ties between the shipowner and the seafarer. Abandonment
occurs when the shipowner fails to fulfil certain fundamental obligations to the seafarers.’
Mexico: Although the term ‘abandonment’ is found in Mexican legislation, it does not refer to
the situations addressed by resolution A.930(22), but deals with the transfer of property of a
vessel.
Netherlands: There is no specific definition in Dutch laws on the abandonment of seafarers.
However, Dutch maritime labour law in the ‘Code of Commerce’ does contain certain provisions
to protect seafarers (nationals and non-nationals on board vessels flying the Dutch flag) in case of
abandonment. There are also national public funds to provide financial security to national
seafarers and to non-national seafarers working aboard vessels flying the Dutch flag.
Furthermore, there are some public funds to provide financial security to non-national seafarers
stranded in Dutch ports.
Oman: Abandonment is referred to in Omani Maritime Law.
Romania: The definition used is identical to the definition found in resolution A.930(22).
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
-6-
Spain: The ‘resolucion de las convocatorias de prestaciones económicas de caráter social del
Instituto de la Marina’ (Resolution of 22 January 2004, official bulletin no.55, 5 March 2004)
covers Spanish seafarers as well as foreign seafarers, which work on vessels flying the Spanish
flag. The ‘Instituto Social de la Marina’, which is a part of the Ministry of Labour and Social
Issues, provides assistance to seafarers in cases of abandonment due to insolvency of companies,
arrest, shipwreck or other events abroad, in accordance with the Conventions of the ILO and
notwithstanding third parties’ liabilities. ISM provides assistance through Spanish diplomatic
representations, by dealing with the question of repatriation and covering necessary expenses,
which are later recurred from the shipowner, his/her agent or representative.
Sri Lanka: The Merchant Shipping (Engagement and Conditions of Service of Seamen)
Regulations, 1980, contain relevant provisions.
Thailand: At present, no specific law on seafarers exists under the responsibility of the
Department of Labour Protection and Welfare. In this regard, the Ministry of Labour, through
the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, is considering drafting a law governing
seafarer protection, as well as, ministerial regulations to be issued under Section 22 of the Labour
Protection Act 1998 regarding seafarers.
United States: While national statutes do not specifically define abandonment, there are
provisions that protect U.S. mariners that become destitute while in foreign ports. The applicable
46 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 11104 (attached) is entitled “Destitute seamen.” This statute
provides protection to seafarers when the ties between shipowner and seafarer have been severed.
U.S. law provides numerous protections, including repatriation, payment of wages, and
maintenance expenses for sick or injured seafarers.
Question 1(b):
“If yes to (a), does it cover the situation of abandonment occurring both
on board ship and ashore?”
Ashore only: 2. Australia, India.
Situations both on board and ashore are covered: 11. Albania, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland,
Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Oman, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka.
Not applicable: 34. Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France,
Ghana, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Japan,
Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway,
Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab
Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
Comments
Cyprus: The relevant provision is drafted in very general terms, allowing the administration to
decide on a case-by-case basis on the actions to be taken.
France: The mechanism set in place covers the situation of abandonment both on board the ship
as well as ashore.
Netherlands: While no definition exists, both situations are covered under Dutch law.
However, differences exist between arrangements for national and non-national seafarers.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
-7Question 1(c):
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
“If yes to (a) above, to what extent is your definition consistent with the
definition included in resolution A.930 (22)?”
Not applicable: 34. Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France,
Ghana, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Japan,
Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway,
Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab
Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
No comments made: 4. Albania, Finland, India, Sri Lanka.
Comments
Australia: See answer to question (1)(a) above.
Cyprus: The definition used is broader than the one contained in resolution A.930(22).
Egypt: The definition is consistent with resolution A.930(22).
France: The definition used in the agreement concerning the mechanism implemented is
identical to the definition used in resolution A.930(22).
Germany: The definition includes the situations mentioned in resolution A.930(22).
Greece: The definition of resolution A.930(22) is covered to a large extent, as protection is
provided also as regards seafarers’ repatriation.
Lithuania: The definition of abandonment contained in the Order of the Minister of Transport
and Communications of the Republic of Lithuania is consistent with the definition of
resolution A.930(22).
Netherlands: See answer provided above under (a).
Oman: It covers resolution A.930(22).
Romania: The definition used is identical to the definition used in resolution A.930(22).
Spain: The definition in Spanish legislation can be considered to be consistent with
resolution A.930(22).
Question 1(d):
“If no to (a) above, have your courts or other authorities developed a
practical definition of abandonment?”
Not applicable: 13. Albania, Australia, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, India,
Lithuania, Oman, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka.
No comments made: 4. Benin, Ghana, Mexico, Suriname.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
-8-
Comments
Azerbaijan:. Practical issues relate to the repatriation of seafarers are solved by the Azerbaijan
State Caspian Sea Shipping Company.
Brazil: We are not aware of such a definition.
Bulgaria: See answer to (a).
Canada: No such definition exists.
Chile: No practical definition of abandonment exists.
France: French courts accept legal cases brought forward by seafarers to arrest a ship and
generally recognise wages claims. This allows seafarers to regain parts of their wages, within the
limits of the procedures (depending on, inter alia, the number of creditors and the total amount of
all claims). This has been confirmed by jurisdiction from the ‘Cour de Cassation’. A definition
of abandonment was, however, not yet taken up by the courts. In the framework of the
mechanism of urgent assistance to seafarers, described above, and on the initiative of the State
the definition of ‘abandonment’ was been fully taken up and is featured in the agreement
between the State and the association in charge of intervening.
Germany: No case of abandonment has been discovered on ships that fly the German flag
during the last 30 years.
Guatemala: The practical definition used builds on breach of contract rules.
Hong Kong (China): The term “left behind” is used in the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers)
(Repatriation) Regulation. No definition is provided in the Regulation.
Iceland: The Ministry is not aware of such a definition.
Islamic Republic of Iran: Regarding the practical definition and customary practice,
communication with related authorities such as local maritime courts in major Iranian seaports is
on-going. Results will be provided subsequently.
Jamaica: No practical definition of abandonment exists.
Japan: No practical definition of abandonment was developed.
Kenya: The provisions concerning the relief and repatriation of distressed seamen and seamen
left behind found in Section 169 of the Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 389) are applied in these
situations.
Republic of Korea: There is no definition of abandonment as such in Korea. However,
shipowners of ocean-going fishing vessels are required to provide insurance cover for the
repatriation of their seafarers.
Lebanon: A practical definition does not exist.
Madagascar: Currently, no such definition exists, although cases that would fall within the
definition used in resolution A.930(22) have been reported.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
-9-
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Mauritius: No practical definition of abandonment exists.
Netherlands: See answer provided above under (a).
Norway: Norwegian legislation entitles the seafarers to repatriation and eight weeks
remuneration as a result of the institution of bankruptcy/liquidation proceedings of the employing
company.
Philippines: Abandonment is explicitly covered under the provisions on the repatriation of
seafarers provided in Sections 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Standard Terms and Conditions
governing the employment of Filipino Seafarers on-board ocean-going vessels.
The
implementation of the standard terms and conditions are pursuant to Department Order No.04 of
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and Memorandum Circular No.09 of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) both issued in 2000.
Portugal: Although no definition of ‘abandonment’ has been developed, protection for nationals
is provided by legislation concerning nationals on foreign territory and makes use of the
diplomatic representations as well as consulates.
Singapore: A substantially equivalent definition with regard to abandonment is found in
Singaporean law. Section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act states that if a person employed as a
seafarer on a ship is left behind in any country or is taken to any country or being shipwrecked,
the person who last employed him as a seafarer shall make such provision for his return and for
his relief and maintenance as may be required by the Merchant Shipping (Repatriation)
Regulations 1996.
Slovenia: The abandonment of seafarers is not defined in the Slovene legislation. The Maritime
Code (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 37/04-UPB1) in Articles 155 and 156
stipulates, however, that the shipowner is obliged to organise the seafarer’s return to the port of
embarkation, the place of his permanent residence, the place of the shipowner’s head office or to
the place defined in the contract of employment. The resulting costs shall be borne by the
shipowner, unless the seafarer disembarked without permission or through his fault. If the
shipowner does not fulfil this obligation, the seafarer’s return shall be organised by a diplomatic
or consular post at the shipowner’s expense. The costs of the return include the costs of
accommodation, food and transport.
Sweden: No such definition exists.
Thailand: No definition exists.
Tunisia: No practical definition of abandonment is foreseen, but the Code of Maritime Labour
(CTM), promulgated by law 67-52, 7 December 1967 and amended by law 95-59, 3 July 1995,
contains obligatory provisions that can prevent seafarers from finding themselves in these
situations. In accordance with Article 34 the authorisation of the Maritime Authorities as well as
a justification by the master is required before a seafarer can be employed. Authorisation of the
Maritime Authorities is also required before his removal from the ship (Article 38). Moreover,
shipowners’ obligations are contained in Title IV of the CTM. These include: fundamental
obligations, e.g. repatriation and treatment (Article 110 and subsequent Articles); the payment of
wages (Article 55); catering for basic needs (Article 99 and subsequent Articles) and medical
treatment (Article 91 and subsequent Articles).
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 10 -
United Arab Emirates: No such definition exists.
United Kingdom: To deal with individuals who have not been repatriated, the UK has in place
the Merchant Shipping (Repatriation) Regulations 1979 (the Repatriation Regulations”) and
Section 73 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (“MSA 1995”). The Repatriation Regulations
provide that, in respect of seamen employed in UK registered ships, the employer is to repatriate
seafarers, but where he fails to do so, this will be done by the UK government and the cost will
be recovered from the employer.
United States: The practical definition is provided by the statute.
Question 1(e):
(i)
“Who is covered by the definition contained in your national laws or
regulations?”
Nationals under own flag:
Affirmative: 31. Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), India, Kenya, Republic of Korea,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Romania,
Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
Negative: 1. Lithuania.
Not applicable: 9. Brazil, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand,
Tunisia.
No comments made: 6. Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Suriname.
Comments
Canada: Canadian legislation covers Canadian ships, but does not provide a definition of
‘abandonment’.
Finland: This also includes EU nationals.
Islamic Republic of Iran: Clarification should be provided on this question.
Netherlands: National seafarers on board vessels flying the Dutch flag are covered by
legislation and public funding.
Norway: All seafarers employed on board a vessel registered in the Norwegian Ordinary Ship
Register (NOR) are, regardless of nationality, covered by the Norwegian National Insurance
Scheme. Norwegian nationals and EEC citizens are covered by the Norwegian National
Insurance Scheme on ships registered in the Norwegian International Ship Register (NIS). All
other seafarers employed on board a ship registered in NIS are covered by mandatory guarantee
schemes.
Portugal: See comments made above in response to question 1(c).
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 11 -
(ii)
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Nationals under foreign flags:
Affirmative: 18. Australia, Benin, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, India, Kenya,
Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Romania,
Spain, Sri Lanka.
Negative: 14. Albania, Azerbaijan, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, Hong Kong (China),
Lithuania, Mauritius, Mexico, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
Not applicable: 9. Brazil, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand,
Tunisia.
No comments made: 6. Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Suriname.
Comments
Australia: The Navigation Act 1912 Part 2 applies in so far as the majority of crew are residents
in Australia and the ship is operated by an Australian person or company. Section 148A of the
Act, concerning seafarers being “wrongfully left behind”, applies to all ships, whether or not it is
a ship to which Part 2 applies.
Republic of Korea: The manning agent is required to deposit some money for the repatriation
of seafarers when the shipowner can not fulfil his obligation.
Netherlands: National seafarers on board foreign vessels are covered by legislation and public
funding.
Norway: When Norwegian residents are employed by a Norwegian employer on a foreign
flagged ship, they will be members of the National Insurance Scheme and thus covered.
Portugal: See comments made above in response to question 1(c).
(iii)
Foreign seafarers under own flag:
Affirmative: 23. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece,
Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, Netherlands,
Norway, Oman, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom,
United States.
Negative: 9. Albania, Canada, Finland, India, Kenya, Lithuania, Mexico, Philippines, Portugal.
Not applicable: 9. Brazil, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand,
Tunisia.
No comments made: 6. Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Suriname.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 12 -
Comments
Netherlands: Foreign seafarers on board vessels flying the Dutch flag are covered by legislation
and public funding.
Spain: Foreign seafarers are covered, if resident in Spain and working on ships flying the
Spanish flag.
(iv)
Foreign seafarers under foreign flag in ports:
Affirmative: 8. Australia, France, Guatemala, Lithuania, Madagascar, Netherlands, Oman,
Portugal.
Negative: 24. Albania, Azerbaijan, Benin, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Hong Kong (China), India, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Philippines,
Romania, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Spain, Sri Lanka, United States.
Not applicable: 9. Brazil, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand,
Tunisia.
No comments made: 6. Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Suriname.
Comments
Australia. The Navigation Act 1912 Part 2 applies in so far as the ship is licensed to engage in
the Australian coasting trade. Section 148A of the Act, concerning seafarers being “wrongfully
left behind”, applies to all ships, whether or not it is a ship to which Part 2 applies.
Netherlands: Foreign seafarers stranded in Dutch ports can benefit from private funds
(sometimes also financed by port-municipalities).
Portugal: Notwithstanding the lack of specific framework legislation, the authorities ensure that
foreign seafarers abandoned in Portuguese ports are given necessary assistance on an individual
basis, particularly in respect to the basic needs of the crew. Assistance is also provided by
national trade unions, either on their own or in cooperation with their corresponding international
organizations, which play an important role and contribute actively to the resolution of cases of
this nature.
Office summary
11
As already indicated by the answers received before the preceding fifth session of the
Joint Working Group, many Member States do not have a legal definition of ‘abandonment.’ In
many cases, however, mechanisms exist to address these problems at national level. Due to
Member States’ different legal systems, mechanisms to deal with abandonment vary greatly.
12
In one case, for example, while no legal definition exists, the exact definition of
‘abandonment’ as contained in the Guidelines to resolution A.930(22) is de facto applied to all
cases of abandonment. Since the legal form of the administration’s action is, however, a
private/public contract, a definition does not strictly exist in the laws and regulations of that
State.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 13 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
13
It should also be noted that Member States that have indicated to have a definition often
choose other points of linkage than those in the definition contained in the Guidelines to
resolution A.930(22). These alternative points of linkage often focus on the individual seafarer
as being ‘in distress’ and do not encompass all aspects of the definition developed by the Joint
Working Group.
14
In answering question 1(e), it appears that most Member States understood that this
question was not limited to the application of specific definitions. Some Member States did not
answer, since they had neither definitions of abandonment in laws or regulations nor relevant
case law and, therefore, deemed this question not to be applicable. However, a large number of
States outlined the coverage of their alternative approaches under this section. These answers
suggest that a clear majority of Member States responding have mechanisms or systems in place
concerning ships flying their flag. These systems or mechanisms apply to their nationals, as well
as (to a lesser extent) foreign seafarers. This clearly contrasts with the situation regarding foreign
seafarers on board foreign-flagged ships in Member States’ ports; for these cases, a clear
majority of those responding does not have such mechanisms. It is also remarkable that only a
little more than half of the Member States, which replied to this question, extend coverage to
nationals on board of ships flying foreign flags.
Question 2:
(a)
“Do your existing laws and regulations contain protection for seafarers,
which give effect to or are substantially equivalent to the provision of the
Guidelines in respect of:”
Repatriation
Affirmative: 38. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland,
France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), India, Islamic Republic of
Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands,
Norway, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia,
United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
Negative: 7. Albania, Canada, Iceland, Lebanon, Lithuania, Sweden, Thailand.
No comments made: 2. Denmark, Slovenia.
Comments
Brazil: Brazil has ratified the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No.166).
In accordance with the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, the ratification of a self-executing
instrument is automatically reflected in positive law, thus the Convention’s provisions are in
force. This has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court and is also reflected in
Law no. 9,537/97, which in its Article 8 provides that “it is the responsibility of the Commander
to comply with the laws, regulations as well as international resolutions ratified by Brazil and to
ensure that they will be complied with on board.” Article 34 clarifies that “in the case of a ship,
the owner, the charterer or substitute are individually as well as jointly liable for non-compliance
with this law”.
Canada: However, repatriation of seafarers is from a Canadian ship is covered under
sections 282, 287 of the Canada Shipping Act. In addition, section 298(3) of the Act also covers
the obligation of the owner of the ship to pay the expenses of returning a seafarer to his proper
return port.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 14 -
Chile: Article 77 of the Navigation Law (Law-Decree 2,222, 1978) and Articles 105, 120, 126
and 129 of the Labour Code are applicable.
France: French legislation already contains provisions concerning the repatriation of seafarers.
These will be reinforced and completed following the recent ratification of ILO Convention
No.166 (Law no.2004-146, 16 February 2004).
Germany: Yes, Article 72 of the Seamen’s Law.
Ghana: Repatriation at the expense of the master or owner of the ship constitutes an implied
term of every employment agreement for a seafarer on a Ghanaian ship.
India: Section 161(1) of the M.S. Act provides for the complete scope of relief to be provided to
a ‘distressed seaman’ (as defined above in the answer to question 1(a)). It states that the Indian
Consular Officer shall provide for the return of the seaman to a proper return port and also for the
said seaman’s necessary clothing and maintenance until his arrival at such port. Repatriation
expenses are defined in Section 3(36). These are expenses incurred in returning the distressed
seaman to a proper return port and in providing him with the necessary clothing and maintenance
until his arrival at such port, and includes in the case of shipwrecked seamen the repayment of
expenses incurred in conveying them to port after shipwreck and maintaining him while being so
conveyed. Said section also stipulates that ‘excepted expenses’ are repatriation expenses
incurred in cases where the cause of the seaman being left behind is desertion, or discharged
from his ship by a Marine Board on the ground of misconduct. In addition to the M.S. Act, the
M.S. (Distressed Seamen) Rules, 1960 are relevant: Rule 5 instructs the Consular Officer to find
employment for the seaman, which seafarers will have to take up if they should want to continue
to be entitled to any relief or maintenance. Rule 6 establishes that the relief and maintenance till
arrangements are made for the seafarers’ return or suitable employment is found shall consist of
maintenance, essential clothing and bedding and, where necessary, medical care and reasonable
medical expenses. Rule 6 also obliges the Consular Officer to ensure that the expenses are kept
to a minimum and establishes that no money payment should be made to the seafarer. Rule 7
determines that the Consular Officer will have to decide upon the length of time for which relief
will be given and also provides that, should relief be paid for longer than a month, the
Director-General will need to be informed.
Japan: Protection exists only for ships flying the Japanese flag.
Republic of Korea: This is only a partial cover, however, since it applies to ocean-going fishing
vessels only.
Netherlands: The Code of Commerce contains such a provision.
Spain: As outlined in the answer to question (1)(a), the resolution from 22 January 2004 ensures
that ISM will provide assistance to abandoned seafarers in accordance with the Conventions and
Recommendations of the ILO. Financial assistance provided by ISM covers the costs of
accommodation and food as well as other necessary expenses. Expenses incurred are later
recouped by ISM. Spanish nationals and nationals of EU Member States are also paid
repatriation fees, independent of whether this expense can later be recovered from the shipowner
or his/her agent. In these cases, the Provincial Directorates of ISM contact shipowners, their
agents or representatives or the consular or diplomatic representation asking them to deal with
this issue and to cover the expenses incurred. Should no response be received, the Provincial
Directorates will inform the competent authorities so that they can take care of the affected.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 15 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Suriname: Articles 5, 6(3), 534(3) and 544 of the Commercial Code are applicable.
Sweden: Law (2003:491) provides that Swedish subjects, and others residing in Sweden, who
get into financial need abroad, may receive a consular financial assistance. The assistance is
given for necessary expenses, and shall be repaid by the seafarer or – if assistance has covered
expenses that the shipowner is due to pay according to laws or agreements – the shipowner.
United Kingdom: In recent years, we have no knowledge of any cases of abandonment of
seafarers from UK ships either abroad or in the UK. There are no specific procedures for cases
of abandonment from UK ships. The only procedures relate to repatriation of seafarers from UK
ships. These are set out in the Instructions to UK Consuls (overseas) and Instructions to
Superintendents (UK), and in the Merchant Shipping (Repatriation) Regulations 1979. In the
case of non-UK seafarers abandoned in the UK from non-UK vessels these are invariably
assisted by local Seamen's Missions and/or representatives of the International Transport
Workers Federation (ITF).
(b)
Payment of wages
Affirmative: 29. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Egypt, Finland, France,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan,
Kenya, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Oman,
Philippines, Romania, Singapore, Sri Lanka, United States.
Negative: 15. Albania, Canada, Cyprus, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Lebanon, Lithuania, Spain,
Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom.
No comments made: 3. Denmark, Portugal, Slovenia.
Comments
Australia: The master is obliged to account in full and to deliver to the seafarer or a proper
authority the wages due to the seafarer.
Benin: The Maritime Administration monitors rigorously that the wages are being timely paid.
Brazil:. A specific provision for cases of abandonment does not exist under Brazilian law, but
the general provisions found in the Consolidation of Labour Laws (CLT, Law-Decree 5.452 from
1 May 1943) guarantee the payment of wages until the end of the contract, for any kind of
employment.
Bulgaria: According to the national legislation the failure of a shipowner to pay the wages of
crew members is considered as unilateral termination of the contract of employment. The
compensation due to crew members in these cases is specified in the collective agreements and
the individual contracts.
Canada: Under section 198 of the Canada Shipping Act a seafarer belonging to any foreigngoing or home-trade Canadian ship is entitled to wages for the time of service prior the
termination but not for any further period.
Chile: Article 77 of the Navigation Law (Law-Decree 2,222, 1978) and Articles 105, 120, 126
and 129 of the Labour Code are applicable.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 16 -
Cyprus: Seaman in distress may receive relief assistance. However, this does not cover the
payment of outstanding wages.
Egypt: Wages are covered in their totality.
France: The seafarers are covered by the ‘fonds national de garantie des salaires’ to which the
employer contributes in the more general framework of unemployment protection. Should a
company stop the payment of wages, the fund will allow seafarers to obtain the payment of
wages due. A case must be brought before the commercial court. The administration, in
particular the maritime labour inspector, can draft a ‘procès verbal’ regarding the non-payment
of wages, which constitutes a penal infraction, as well as request the courts to open a case
allowing the guarantees to be put in place for the benefit of the seafarers. In this case, wages due
are guaranteed to an extent limited by a complex calculation based on contributions of land-based
workers. In practice, cases of non-payment of wages are known before any deadlines are passed,
thus allowing the administration to ensure the timely functioning of the mechanism. Legal
measures allowing for the implementation of resolutions A.930 and A.931 and their respective
Guidelines are being prepared.
Germany: In cases where the ship is lost because of an unforeseen event or if the voyage cannot
be commenced or continued because of war or other warlike events, embargo or blockade the
ship owner may cancel the employment contract with the seafarer in consideration of an adequate
period. In these cases the seafarer is entitled to basic pay for each day of de facto unemployment
for a maximum period of two month. If the repatriation is only possible at a later date, the
seafarer is entitled to payment of the basic pay until the date of repatriation. If the repatriation is
not possible for reasons for which the ship owner is not responsible, the seafarer is entitled to
basic pay for a maximum period of three months. According to Articled 67 and 70 of the
Seamen’s Law a seafarer, who denounces the employment contract due to the shipowners
defaulting, is entitled to one month‘s pay.
Ghana: The law states that the master or owner of the ship shall pay the seafarers’ wages within
two days after the arrival of the ship at the port where the crew is to be discharged or upon the
seafarers’ discharge, whichever happens first.
Hong Kong (China): The Regulation specifies that the wages due under a crew agreement shall
be paid to him in full, in the case the seafarer is left behind in any place.
India: Under Rule 5 of the Merchant Shipping (Distressed Seamen) Rules, 1960, the Indian
Consular Officer, wherever possible, can find an employment for the seaman in the same or
similar capacity.
Islamic Republic of Iran: Wages are paid for the period of the contract.
Japan: Protection exists only for ships flying the Japanese flag. It is limited to the time the
employment agreement is in effect.
Kenya: Payment of wages is covered for the duration of the engagement.
Republic of Korea:
outstanding wages.
Shipowners need to provide financial security for three months of
Madagascar: Wages are paid until seafarers disembark.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 17 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Mauritius: Protection exists for wages for the period worked.
Netherlands: The periods of the payment of wages are/should be part of the labour agreement
between the seafarer and shipowner. In practice, wages are paid on a monthly basis.
Norway: Seafarers covered by the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme are entitled to
remuneration accrued before the deadline. Remuneration is limited to three times the national
insurance system’s basic amount, which to day constitutes NOK 162,510.- (USD 23,778.-).
Seafarers on NIS ships covered by the mandatory guarantee schemes are entitled to eight weeks
of remuneration. The right to remuneration must have been earned within the last 18 months of
the contract of employment or the course of employment before the deadline. Remuneration is
equally limited as under the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme.
Philippines: Monthly payment of wages (Section 6 of the Standard Employment Contract of
Seafarers).
Romania: Two months’ wages are covered by the mechanism in place.
Singapore: Section 56 of the Merchant Shipping Act states that wages due to a seaman under
the crew agreement relating to a ship shall be paid to him in full at the time when he leaves the
ship on being discharged. In practice, the employer is advised to pay their crew on a monthly
basis. The seafarers are also advised to report to the Authority if they are not being paid their
monthly wages.
Suriname: Article 512 of the Commercial Code is applicable.
Tunisia: The following provisions of the Maritime Labour Code are relevant. Upon
commencement of a seafarer’s employment, he/she is entitled to a wage (Article 62). Payments
are due monthly or at the end of the voyage (Article 78). After 12 consecutive months of service,
the seafarer has the right to paid vacation (Article 112). In exceptional cases, other provisions
apply: a) in case of force majeure, the wages are paid based on the days worked. Seafarers have
the right to an indemnity equivalent to the half of the wages foreseen for the whole voyage. This
indemnity should not, however, exceed thirty days’ wages (Article 63). If the vessel is lost due
to shipwreck, the wages are paid until the day of the event. From this day on, the seafarer is
entitled to indemnity equivalent to the wages foreseen in the seafarers’ contract. This indemnity
should not exceed two months’ wages (Article 64). In cases where the ship is arrested, captured
or no longer seaworthy without the shipowner’s action or fault, wages are paid for days worked
(Article 65). Should the contract have been abusively terminated by the shipowner, the wages
are paid for the days worked. Seafarers are additionally given the right to an indemnity either on
basis of the employment contract or court’s orders, including possible interest (Articles 67, 68
and 69). Should the seafarer die, his next of kin will receive wages for days worked (Article 70).
In cases where the seafarer is repatriated, wages are paid at the return of the seafarer at his place
of repatriation (Article 79).
United Arab Emirates: As indicated in the seafarer’s contract.
United States: Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 11106, U.S. consular officers can require a master to pay a
U.S. seafarer who has been wrongfully discharged in a foreign port all wages due plus one
month’s additional wages.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
(c)
- 18 -
Food and accommodation
Affirmative: 30. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of
Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Oman, Philippines, Singapore, Spain,
Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States.
Negative: 13. Albania, Brazil, Canada, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Lebanon, Lithuania,
Norway, Romania, Thailand, United Arab Emirates.
No comments made: 4. Denmark, India, Portugal, Slovenia.
Comments
Australia: Items c) and d) are covered under national legislation, which specifies that the costs
of repatriation include the costs of maintenance of the seafarer during the period the seafarer is
entitled to repatriation, in accordance with relevant industrial awards or the ILO Repatriation of
Seafarers (Revised) Convention, 1987.
Brazil: This case is not foreseen in national legislation.
Canada: Accommodation is covered under sections 231 and 391(3) of the Canada Shipping Act
for the crew of a Canadian ship.
Chile: Article 77 of the Navigation Law (Law-Decree 2,222, 1978) and Articles 105, 120, 126
and 129 of the Labour Code are applicable.
Cyprus: Decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis.
France: The mechanism put in place can cover food and accommodation as well as other basic
expenses. Legal measures allowing for the full implementation of resolutions A.930 and A.931
and their respective Guidelines are being prepared.
Germany: Article 72 Paragraph 2 states that repatriation comprises food and accommodation.
Ghana: The 1963 Ghana Merchant Shipping Act has been replaced by the new Ghana Shipping
Act, 2003 which came into force in July 2003. This new law requires the Minister responsible
for Maritime Transport to make regulations dealing with provisions and crew accommodation to
be provided for seafarers employed in Ghanaian Ships. The Administration is in a process of
engaging a consultant to work on these regulations. It is expected that when these regulations are
enacted, they will include the provisions contained in the Guidelines in relation to food and
accommodation.
India: No comments made. See answer to question 2(a) above, however.
Japan: However, food and accommodation are provided during repatriation.
Mexico: The length of time for which wages are paid is subject to collective bargaining
agreements.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 19 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Suriname: Article 507 of the Commercial Code is applicable.
Sweden: Law (2003:364) on ship security is applicable.
United Kingdom: Whilst on board the ship the seafarer is entitled to be fed and accommodated
in accordance with the relevant provisions made under the MSA 1995. On leaving the ship the
seafarer should be fed and accommodated at the expense of the employer. If he is not, then he
will be maintained at UK government expense and the cost recovered from the employer.
(d)
Health care
Affirmative: 34. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), India, Islamic Republic of Iran,
Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Oman,
Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United States.
Negative: 10. Albania, Canada, Ghana, Iceland, Japan, Lebanon, Lithuania, Norway, Romania,
Thailand.
No comments made: 3. Denmark, Portugal, Slovenia.
Comments
Australia: See comment under (c).
Brazil: In accordance with Article 2 of Decree 3,048/99, which establishes the universal right to
free health care, all workers that are unable to work for longer than 15 days, are covered.
Additionally, employers are responsible for the payment of wages for the first 15 days a worker
is unable to work due to work-incurred sickness or accident. Thereafter, the National Institute
for Social Security (INSS) is responsible for paying monthly instalments in accordance with
Decree 3,048/99.
Canada: Section 284 of the Canada Shipping Act states that the expenses of medical attendance
in case of injury for a master or seafarer belonging to a Canadian ship must be paid by the owner
of the ship.
Chile: Article 77 of the Navigation Law (Law-Decree 2,222, 1978) and Articles 105, 120, 126
and 129 of the Labour Code are applicable.
Cyprus: Decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis.
Germany: Article 42 Paragraph 1 of the Seamen’s Law and Article 617 of the German Civil
Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) contain such provisions.
France: The social security mechanism administered by the ‘Etablissement National des
Invalides de la Marine’ covers health care. Legal measures allowing for the implementation of
resolutions A.930 and A.931 and their respective Guidelines are being prepared. Moreover, all
foreign seafarers abandoned in French ports can benefit from health care in cases of need.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 20 -
Ghana: The New Ghana Shipping Act 2003, (Act 645) empowers the Minister responsible for
Maritime Transport to publish regulations on seafarers’ conditions of service (e.g. wages, health
and welfare of seafarers). These regulations are currently being drafted and will comprise the
health care provisions contained in the Guidelines.
India: See answer to question 2(a) above.
Republic of Korea: Health care is covered by the national health insurance and occupational
accident insurance.
Norway: EEC citizens are entitled to medical care in accordance with the EEA agreement, while
they are in the EEA.
Suriname: Article 516 of the Commercial Code is applicable.
United Kingdom:
accommodation.
Question 3:
(a)
The same provisions apply for health care as apply for food and
“In the framework of question 2 above, what systems or mechanisms
concerning financial security concerning question 2 above do you have in
place to give effect to the laws and regulations in respect of:”
Your nationals on board ships entitled to fly your flag
No comments made: 5. Denmark, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname.
Albania: Systems or mechanisms for nationals on board ships flying the national flag exist.
Australia: Australia has a well developed business environment, encompassing corporations
law, workplace relations and agreements, social security and related matters. Australian
shipowners would be expected to comply with relevant standards regarding corporate
management and financial probity without the need for specific regulation requiring financial
security for all aspects of their operations. The Navigation Act 1912 Part 2 does not require the
provision of financial security by a shipowner, but does place obligations on shipowners in
respect of repatriation, payment of wages and maintenance of seafarers that are partially
equivalent to the Guidelines for seafarers covered by the Act. In practice, Australian shipowners
will have a P&I or other insurance to cover their obligations concerning repatriation of seafarers
as part of their normal business operations. In addition, all seafarers have access through the
Admiralty Act 1988 to seek arrest of ships and to sue for recovery of unpaid wages and related
costs.
Azerbaijan: Systems or mechanisms for nationals on board ships entitled to fly the national flag
exist.
Benin: Nationals are taken care of by the national shipping company.
Brazil: Brazilian citizens onboard ships flying the Brazilian flag are protected by the rights
found in the Consolidation of Labour Laws (CLT, Law-Decree 5,452 from 1 May 1943) and are
covered by the INSS, as mentioned under 2 (d), as well as by the Workers’ Assistance
Fund (FAT).
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 21 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Bulgaria. The Ordinance on the relations between the shipowner and the crew members with
regard to labour and labour-related conditions is applicable, which stipulates the obligations of
the shipowner, including those in case of failure to repatriate the crew members.
Canada: Legislatory framework set out in the answers to question 2.
Chile: No such mechanisms exist.
Cyprus: Although the Government has extensively inquired into this possibility with major P&I
clubs, insurance companies, mortgagees and other interested parties, none of these entities is
prepared to provide financial security for such risks. Cyprus believes that this matter requires a
global solution of a mandatory character.
Egypt: Article 136 of the Merchant Shipping Act provides for penalties, if shipowners wilfully
cause situations of abandonment.
Finland: For Finnish seafarers as well as EU nationals the legislatory framework described
under question 1 applies.
France: Until the draft bill allowing for the implementation of resolutions A.930 and A.931 and
their respective Guidelines is enters into force, the current mechanism described above in the
answer to question 1(a) covers all cases referred to.
Germany: According to Article 823 No. 2 of the German Civil Code any person is entitled to
compensation from another person who has violated a law which has been established for the
protection of the former. This means that a German seafarer, who according to the German
Seamen’s Law is entitled to repatriation and financial compensation at the ship owners’ costs and
who did not receive this compensation, may sue the ship owner at the German Labour Court for
compensation. In case of abandonment a German seafarer may appeal to the nearest consulate.
German Consulates are obliged to provide help to German citizens including the facilitation of a
voyage to a place, the person usually lives (Article 5 No. 4 of the German Consular Law).
Article 2 of said law specifically requires the consulates to fulfil their tasks and warrants on
behalf of the seafarers.
Ghana: Currently no such system exists. However, the new shipping legislation will cover this
aspect.
Greece: Payment of arrears of wages up to three months and reimbursement of immediate
repatriation expenses by a special fund for Greek seafarers.
Guatemala: No specific mechanism exists.
Hong Kong (China): It is the employer’s responsibility to provide such provisions under the
Regulation.
Iceland: Repatriation, payment of wages, food and accommodation as well as health care are
covered. If a seafarer is abandoned in a place other than where he was contracted, he is entitled
to travel expenses and food allowance to the place of contract. He is entitled to pay for the time
he worked on board. If the seafarer is sick, he is entitled to medical care for up to 12 weeks to be
paid by the shipowner. He is also entitled to travel expenses and food allowances to his home.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 22 -
India: Section 163(3) of the M.S. Act provides that all repatriation expenses, other than
excepted expenses, incurred by or on behalf of the Central Government shall constitute a debt
due to the Central Government for which the owner or agent of the ship to which the seaman in
respect of whom they were incurred belonged at the time of his discharge or other event which
resulted in his becoming distressed seaman shall be liable; and the owner or agent shall not be
entitled to recover from the seaman any amount paid by him to the Central Government in
settlement or part such a debt.
Islamic Republic of Iran: Financial security is provided.
Jamaica: Established systems in respect of compulsory insurance or a national fund are not in
place. The Government by law is required to pay the expenses and recover same form the owner
or agent of the ship.
Japan: Japan has a financial security system for wages to be paid to nationals ordinarily resident
in national territory.
Kenya: Currently, no systems or mechanisms exist. However, the Government is looking into
the matter.
Republic of Korea: National legislation exists.
Lebanon: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Madagascar: The Ministry informed the Secretariat that in all categories, the shipowner is
requested to request cover through P&I clubs. According to additional information provided by
the Syndicat des Travailleurs Maritimes, in practice, no mechanism exists in regard of
repatriation, the payment of wages or food and accommodation. Health care varies from
shipowner to shipowner. Only seafarers on board ships flying a foreign flag are covered through
an agreement between ITF and P&I clubs.
Mauritius: No system or mechanism is yet in place.
Mexico: Article 209 of the Federal Labour Law provides that when a vessel is lost, the
shipowner is obliged to repatriate the seafarers and pay their wages until their repatriation or
return to the port stipulated in the contract as well as other claims they might have. Should the
shipowner be unable to provide work that is similar to the one originally agreed to and no new
agreement can be reached, seafarers are given a right to indemnity in accordance with
Article 436.
Netherlands: As stated in the answer to question 1(a) the Dutch Code of Commerce does
specify certain situations in which the seafarer does have certain financial rights and claims
vis-à-vis the shipowner. These situations are varying from cases of non-payment of wages,
illness, injuries, invalidity benefits and death of seafarers. Also abandonment in the sense of
leaving seafarers in foreign ports is part of these regulations.
Norway: All seafarers engaged in service on a vessel registered in the NOR are, regardless of
their nationality, covered by the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme. Norwegian nationals
and EEC citizens are covered by the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme on ships registered
in the NIS. All other seafarers in service on a ship registered in NIS are covered by mandatory
guarantee schemes.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 23 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Oman: A system or mechanism exists.
Philippines: Nationals on board ships entitled to fly the Filipino flag, whose employment
contracts were processed by POEA are covered by the standard terms and conditions governing
the employment of seafarers as provided under answer to question 1(d) above.
Portugal: As outlined above under the answer to question 1(c), Portugal, protection for
nationals is provided by legislation concerning nationals on foreign territory and makes use of the
diplomatic representations as well as consulates.
Romania: Shipowners and recruitment agencies have the obligation to establish a bank depot of
at least USD 100,000 or an insurance on the same amount that covers repatriation fees and the
payment of wages for two months. These funds can be claimed by the Romanian Maritime
Authorities, after consultation with an ITF inspector or an organization representing the seafarers.
Singapore: The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore maintains a fund called the
Singapore Seafarers’ Stranded Fund (SSSF) with an initial sum of USD 300,000. This fund is
used to ensure that crew welfare on board is being taken care of in the event the employers fail to
fulfil their obligations due to bankruptcy or insolvency.
Sri Lanka: A mechanism or system exists.
Sweden: Law (2003:364) on ship security is applicable to these cases in relation to food and
accommodation as well as health care.
Thailand: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Tunisia: No specific system or mechanism exists. However, should the employer not fulfil
his/her obligations, the Maritime Authority will intervene.
United Arab Emirates: National labour law as indicated in the seafarer’s contract as well as
applicable regulations are given effect by local courts.
United Kingdom: The Regulations merely place the onus on employers to comply with
repatriation provisions but there is no requirement for a shipowner to be covered by a financial
security system.
United States: 46 U.S.C. § 11106 ensures repatriation and payment of wages for U.S. seafarers
serving aboard U.S. flag vessels. U.S. seafarers have the common law remedy of maintenance
and cure to ensure that the shipowner provides food, accommodation, and health care. Under
certain circumstances these expenses may be borne by the U.S. Government. Further, U.S.
seafarers may avail themselves of all services the United States provides to any of its citizens
who may find themselves in distress while overseas.
(b)
Your nationals on board foreign-flagged ships
No comments made: 6. Azerbaijan, Denmark, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname.
Albania: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Australia: See answer to question (a) above.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 24 -
Benin: These seafarers are taken care of by the shipowner or his/her representative.
Brazil: These seafarers can only rely on social security coverage, if they themselves decide to
voluntarily contribute to the INSS. A specific provision for financial guarantee does not exist for
these cases.
Bulgaria: In this case the Ordinance on the terms and procedures for performing intermediary
activities in employment applies.
Canada: No systems or mechanisms exist for these cases.
Chile: See answer to question (a) above.
Cyprus: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Egypt: No mechanism exists.
Finland: No systems or mechanisms exist.
France: Until legislation implementing resolution A.930(22) has entered into force, this case is
covered by the current mechanism.
Germany: Article 823 No. 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) applies also to seafarers on board
foreign flagged ships, if the employment contract has been concluded under German jurisdiction.
Article 2 of the German Consular Law applies in any case.
Ghana: Please refer to the answer provided for question 3(a).
Greece: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Guatemala: No specific mechanism exists.
Hong Kong (China): It is the employer’s responsibility to provide such provisions under the
terms of service of the crew agreement.
Iceland: No specific system or mechanism exists.
India: In these cases the provisions in Article 19 and Article 20 made under IBF-MUI,
NON-IBF-MUI Agreement for Indian Officers and TCC and IBF-TCC Agreement for Indian
Ratings concluded with the ITF are relevant.
Islamic Republic of Iran: These situations need to be covered by P&I clubs or consular
authorities.
Jamaica: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Japan: No such systems or mechanisms exist.
Kenya: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Republic of Korea: National legislation exists.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 25 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Lebanon: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Madagascar: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Mauritius: No system or mechanism is yet in place.
Mexico: No specific mechanism exists.
Netherlands: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Norway: Norwegian residents employed by a Norwegian employer on a foreign flagged ship are
members of the National Insurance Scheme. Voluntary members of the National Insurance
Scheme are also covered.
Oman: No system or mechanism exists.
Philippines: Nationals on board foreign-flagged ships are covered by the standard terms and
conditions governing the employment of seafarers as provided under answer to question 1(d)
above.
Portugal: Protection is provided as outlined in the answer to question 3(a) above.
Romania: The mechanism set out in the answer to question 3(a) above also applies to these
cases.
Singapore: No arrangement exists.
Sri Lanka: No mechanism or system exists.
Sweden: These seafarers are not covered.
Thailand: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Tunisia: No specific system or mechanism exists. However, the requirement to attain
authorization by the Maritime Authorities to join ships flying a foreign flag is a measure
providing protection to Tunisian seafarers.
United Arab Emirates: No systems or mechanisms exist.
United Kingdom: The Regulations merely provide for repatriation of UK seafarers left behind
from non-UK ships outside the UK, but only where the seafarer is left behind from a ship
registered in that country. There is no requirement for the provision of other financial security.
United States: No statutory remedies, but the mariner may bring suit for various tort causes of
action.
(c)
Foreign seafarers on board ships entitled to fly your flag
No comments made: 7. Denmark, India, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname.
Albania: See answer to question 3(a) above.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 26 -
Australia: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Azerbaijan: Such systems or mechanisms exist.
Benin: These seafarers are taken care of by the shipowner or his/her representative.
Brazil: The rules outlined under 3(a) apply.
Bulgaria: The Ordinance on the relations between the shipowner and the crew members with
regard to labour and labour-related conditions is applicable, which stipulates the obligations of
the shipowner, including those in case of failure to repatriate the crew members.
Canada: No systems or mechanisms exist for these cases.
Chile: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Cyprus: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Egypt: Article 136 of the Merchant Shipping Act is applicable, if the contract was signed within
the Arab Republic of Egypt (see above in the answer to question 3(a)).
Finland: No systems or mechanisms exist.
France: Until legislation implementing resolution A.930(22) has entered into force, this case is
covered by the current mechanism.
Germany: Article 823 No. 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) applies to foreign seafarers on
ships flying the German flag.
Ghana: Please refer to the answer provided for question 3(a).
Greece: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Guatemala: No specific mechanism exists.
Hong Kong (China): It is the employer’s responsibility to provide such provisions under the
Regulation.
Iceland: Repatriation, payment of wages, food and accommodation as well as health care are
covered. If a seafarer is abandoned in a place other than where he was contracted, he is entitled
to travel expenses and food allowance to the place of contract. He is entitled to pay for the time
he worked on board. If the seafarer is sick, he is entitled to medical care for up to 6 weeks to be
paid by the shipowner. He is also entitled to travel expenses and food allowances to his home.
Islamic Republic of Iran: Financial security is provided.
Jamaica: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Japan: Japan has a financial security system for wages to be paid to foreign seafarers only in
some special circumstances.
Kenya: See answer to question 3(a) above.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 27 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Republic of Korea: National legislation exists.
Lebanon: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Madagascar: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Mauritius: No system or mechanism is yet in place.
Mexico: No specific mechanism exists.
Netherlands: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Norway: All seafarers engaged in service on a vessel registered in the NOR are, regardless of
their nationality, covered by the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme. EEC citizens are also
covered by the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme on ships registered in the NIS. All other
seafarers in service on a ship registered in NIS are covered by mandatory guarantee schemes.
Oman: A system or mechanism exists.
Philippines: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Romania: The mechanism set out in the answer to question 3(a) above also applies to these
cases.
Singapore: The fund outlined in the answer to question 3(a) above can also be used for these
cases.
Sri Lanka: A mechanism or system exists.
Sweden: Law (2003:364) on ship security is applicable to these cases in relation to food and
accommodation as well as health care.
Thailand: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Tunisia: No specific system or mechanism exists. However, should the employer not fulfil
his/her obligations, the Maritime Authority will intervene, since the same rules apply to
non-nationals as nationals on ships flying the Tunisian flag.
United Arab Emirates: National labour law as indicated in the seafarer’s contract as well as
applicable regulations are given effect by local courts.
United Kingdom: See answer to question 3(a) above.
United States: Non-U.S. citizens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence
serving as crew members aboard U.S. flag vessels enjoy the same statutory and common law
remedies as U.S. citizens.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
(d)
- 28 -
Foreign seafarers on board ships flying foreign flags in your port
No comments made: 7. Azerbaijan, Denmark, India, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname.
Albania: See answer to question (a) above.
Australia: See answer to question (a) above.
Benin: These seafarers are taken care of by the shipowner or his/her representative.
Brazil: No specific provision on a financial guarantee exists for these cases.
Bulgaria: With regard to foreign flag ships visiting Bulgarian ports (d) the Ordinance on Port
State Control and ILO Convention No.147 are applicable
Canada: No systems or mechanisms exist for these cases.
Chile: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Cyprus: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Egypt: No mechanism exists.
Finland: No systems or mechanisms exist.
France: Until legislation implementing resolution A.930(22) has entered into force, this case is
covered by the current mechanism.
Germany: There is no system or mechanism at place in Germany for securing financial security
concerning question 2 for foreign seafarers on ships flying a foreign flag.
Ghana: Please refer to the answer provided for question 3(a) above.
Greece: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Guatemala: These seafarers are covered by P&I.
Hong Kong (China): No local legislation exists.
Iceland: No specific system or mechanism exists.
Islamic Republic of Iran: These situations need to be covered by P&I clubs or consular
authorities.
Jamaica: There is no established system, however, Jamaican law requires all ships trading in
Jamaican waters to have evidence of financial responsibility in respect to such matters.
Japan: No such systems or mechanisms exist.
Kenya: See answer to question 3(a) above.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 29 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Republic of Korea: National legislation does not exist.
Lebanon: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Madagascar: See answer to question 3(a) above.
Mauritius: No system or mechanism is yet in place.
Mexico: No specific mechanism exists.
Netherlands: For foreign seafarers stranded in Dutch ports no specific legal regulations exist.
In cases of abandonment or cases of serious material hardship, however, seafarers can have
financial assistance from several private funds. In practice, however, hardly any cases are
known, where help from these funds was necessary.
Norway: No arrangement exists.
Oman: A system or mechanism exists.
Philippines: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Portugal: As explained above in the answer to question 1(e)(iv), assistance is provided in these
cases.
Romania: No arrangement exists.
Singapore: No arrangement exists.
Sri Lanka: A mechanism or system does not exist.
Sweden: These seafarers are not covered.
Thailand: No systems or mechanisms exist.
Tunisia: The Maritime Administration intervenes, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to
inform the flag State, the State of nationality and the consular authorities and invites them to deal
with the situation of the seafarers or to take steps for their repatriation, as necessary.
United Arab Emirates: No systems or mechanisms exist.
United Kingdom: There is no requirement for the provision of financial security.
United States: No statutory remedies, but the mariner may bring suit for various tort causes of
action, provided certain jurisdictional conditions are met.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Question 4:
- 30 -
“Have there been any changes in your laws, regulations or practice since the
adoption of the above-mentioned resolution and its entry into force on
1 January 2002?”
Affirmative: 6. Albania, Bulgaria, France, Lithuania, Singapore, Spain
Negative: 40. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), India, Islamic Republic of Iran,
Iceland, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Norway, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mauritius,
Mexico, Netherlands, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Suriname,
Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
No comments made: 1. Denmark.
Comments
Albania: Approval of the Albanian Maritime Code.
Australia: See answer to question 3. above.
Bulgaria: The Ordinance on the terms and procedures for performing intermediary activities in
employment was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 17.05.2003, promulgated in the State
Gazette on 27.05.2003 and entered in force on 27.05.2003. The Ordinance on the relations
between the shipowner and the crew members with regard to labour and labour-related
conditions employment was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 14.10.2003, promulgated in
the State Gazette on 21.10.2003 and entered in force on 22.01.2004. The Ordinance of the
Minister of Transport and Communications on the Port State Control was promulgated on
17 June 2003.
France: Law no.2004-146, 16 February 2004, has allowed for the ratification of eight maritime
ILO Conventions, including ILO Convention No.166 concerning the repatriation of seafarers.
A fund for urgent intervention in favour of abandoned seafarers was set in place and is financed
by the State, in order to allow for timely and efficient intervention measures. The experiences
thus gained are very helpful in the context of the law project to implement resolutions A.930 and
A.931.
Lithuania: The Order of the Minister of Transport and Communications of the Republic of
Lithuania concerning Collecting of Information on Cases of Abandonment in Ports of the
Republic of Lithuania and Transfer of Relevant Information to IMO was adopted on
5 November 2003.
Singapore: The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore has promulgated the MS
(Repatriation Amendments) Regulations in April 2002. The amended regulation empowers the
Director to make arrangements and to meet the cost of repatriation of the seafarers in advance to
ease the hardship of these seafarers, if the employer, due to unforeseen circumstances, fails to
fulfil his responsibility. Any costs and expenses incurred by the Director in making such
provision would be later recovered from the employers.
Spain: The resolution outlined above in answers to questions (1)(a) and (2) dates from
27 January 2004.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 31 Question 5:
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
“Do you have any plans to change your laws, regulations or practice to
comply with the requirements of the above-mentioned resolution in the near
future?”
Affirmative: 11. Albania, Guatemala, Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kenya, Lebanon,
Madagascar, Norway, Oman, Romania, Thailand.
Negative: 31. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Egypt, Finland,
France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong (China), Jamaica, Japan, Republic of Korea, Lithuania,
Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname,
Sweden, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
Other: 4. Cyprus, Greece, India, Portugal.
No comments made: 1. Denmark
Comments
Albania: Official acts in addition to Maritime Code.
Australia: See answer to question (3) above.
Brazil: At this time, there are no set plans to change legislation, regulations or rules in response
to resolution A.930(22).
Bulgaria: Since the mentioned ordinances being brand-new and transposing the latest
international and European legislation in the field, including the essence of the resolution, it is
not envisaged to make any changes in the near future. Currently C 178 on labour inspections
(Seafarers), C 164 on Health Protection and Medical Care and the Protocol to C147 are in
process of ratification and will be ratified by the end of 2004 – beginning 2005.
Cyprus: A long-term solution of a mandatory character should be sought to address the
problem; it ought to work in parallel with and not replace any rights or remedies a seafarer may
enjoy in a particular State und an existing legal framework.
France: A law is drafted to implement the measures necessary for compliance with the
eight ILO Conventions recently ratified by France. This piece of legislation will also include
provisions allowing the implementation of resolution A.930(22).
Ghana: Regulations that will be enacted by virtue of the new Ghana Shipping Act, 2003 will
comply with the requirements of the resolution.
Greece: The concerned legislation is under constant review in order to be adapted to changing
requirements of modern maritime activities.
Iceland. Resolution A.930(22) is being looked at and possible changes are being considered.
India. A decision will be taken after due examination of the resolution.
Islamic Republic of Iran: In order to cover the provision of financial security in cases of
abandonment, the Ports and Shipping Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran has signed a
contract to amend the Maritime Code to comply with the requirements of the resolution.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 32 -
Kenya: The Kenyan parliament is currently working on a Merchant Shipping Bill.
Lebanon: The Administration will, in the near future, examine and discuss resolution A.930(22)
with the Ministry of Labour, with some Lebanese shipowners and with representatives of the
General Federation of Workers in order to take an appropriate decision in this respect.
Netherlands: In accordance with paragraph 13 of resolution A.930(22), no action needs to be
taken, since additional mechanisms need not be adopted, if national legislation already meets or
exceeds the provisions of the resolution.
Norway: The Norwegian guarantee scheme is linked to the institution of bankruptcy/liquidation
proceedings. Seafarers might, however, experience hardships equivalent to abandonment before
this stage has been reached. In these situations, seafarers are not yet entitled to profit from the
guarantee scheme. In order to avoid this from happening, Norway is currently considering
amending national legislation in order to allow for coverage before the employer has formally
reached the stage of bankruptcy/liquidation.
Oman: The law has already been drafted.
Portugal: Consideration is currently being given to the possibility of developing a procedure
with a view to assessing the need for the creation of a regulatory framework and identification of
instruments that best address these cases.
Romania: The government wants to amend legislation to fully comply with the provisions of
resolution A.930(22).
Spain: At this time, changes to legislation, regulations or rules are not envisaged.
United States: U.S. statutory and common law provide greater protection for the abandoned or
destitute seafarers than that provided in the Guidelines to the resolution.
Question 6:
“Do you have any difficulties in implementing the above-mentioned
Resolution and Guidelines?”
Affirmative: 10. Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Japan, Kenya,
Republic of Korea, Norway.
Negative: 29. Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Egypt, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hong
Kong (China), Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritius,
Mexico, Netherlands, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain,
Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom.
Other: 6. Greece, India, Lebanon, Sweden, Thailand, United States.
No comments: 2. Benin, Denmark
Comments
Australia: While national law does not require the provision of financial security by shipowners
against abandonment of seafarers as noted under question 3, Australian law and practice provides
an appropriate framework in regard to matters covered by the Resolution and Guidelines.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 33 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Azerbaijan: Problems exist due to a lack of national legislation in this field.
Brazil: The Guidelines would need to be specifically defined under Brazilian law.
Canada: There is currently no legislative framework in place to protect foreign seafarers in
Canadian ports.
Cyprus: See answer to question (3).
Finland: The implementation of the Resolution and Guidelines is problematic, given that
Section 52 of the Seamen’s Act (423/1978) contains restrictions based on a seafarers domicile
and nationality, as well as the duration of the seafarer’s contract (at least 6 consecutive months).
France: One of the difficulties is how best to determine the role of the administration of the flag
State under these circumstances. Practically, any administrative intervention seeks to reduce the
risk covered by the entity, which provides the guarantee. Deep knowledge of cases of
abandonment, the possibility to intervene timely enough, in the case of non-payment of wages,
the possibility to make the shipowner responsible to ensure that he/she brings an end to the
situation and to take all measure to repatriate the seafarers, can minimise the risk to be covered
through a mechanism providing financial security. Given that costs resulting from abandonment
are linked to the duration of the situation as well as the duration of non-payment of wages, all
measures that may allow to shorten such situations, should, therefore, be envisaged, particularly
in relation to the administrative and judicial framework (e.g. the role of the maritime labour
inspectorate).
Greece: This issue has not been sufficiently considered in order for the Greek government to
draw any final conclusions yet.
India: This will be known after due examination of the resolution.
Japan: At first, this problem should be resolved between the shipowner and the seafarers
employed by him. It might be difficult to persuade parliament to establish such financial security
systems or mechanisms only in the maritime labour sector in our country in view of the present
severe financial situation since similar problems are also to be occurred in on-shore labour sector,
which usually do not have such systems. Therefore, it would be necessary to give further
deliberate consideration.
Kenya: Implementation would require adoption of the awaited amended Shipping Act.
Republic of Korea: Since the Resolution and Guidelines are of a recommendatory nature, it is
difficult to persuade shipowners that they are obliged to provide for such financial security
systems.
Lebanon: No difficulties in implementing resolution A.930(22) were encountered, since the
Administration has not implemented it yet. We will inform you soon about the developments
concerning the procedures of the implementation of this resolution.
Norway: The Norwegian guarantee scheme is limited to eight weeks of wages. The guidelines,
however, provide cover for all outstanding remuneration without any limitation. Without this
limitation no financial institution is willing to take over the responsibility of furnishing a
guarantee. Unless necessary amendments are made in this regard, Norway will find it difficult to
ratify a binding instrument. Moreover, the definition of abandonment is difficult to put into
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 34 -
practice.
This Government would prefer the wage guarantee to be linked to the
bankruptcy/liquidation proceedings. As to the seafarers’ fundamental needs as repatriation we
are considering making the guarantee effective before the institution of bankruptcy/liquidation
proceedings.
Spain: No difficulties are known.
Sweden: This question has not been analysed.
Thailand: Since legislation does not exist yet, this question cannot be answered. See comment
above in answer to question 1(a).
United States: Not applicable.
Question 8:
(a)
“What are the major difficulties you encounter in dealing with foreign
seafarers abandoned in your ports?”
Contact with flag State or consular authorities
Affirmative: 12. Albania, Benin, Brazil, Egypt, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Netherlands,
Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.
Negative: 35. Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, India, Islamic
Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway,
Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand,
United Kingdom, United States.
Comments
Australia: Adequate legal, consular, immigration and welfare mechanisms are in place for
dealing with foreign seafarers who may be abandoned in Australian ports. These involve a mix
of government and non-government services. The ease of resolution of abandonment cases
depends on the individual circumstances of each case or seafarer.
Bulgaria: Since no cases of abandonment have been registered yet, difficulties could not be
encountered.
Cyprus: A global workable solution to this problem should be sought.
France: In general, contacts with flag or port States have been made informally. These
procedures might be improved once States have consistently nominated focal points for cases of
abandonment.
Ghana: No cases of abandonment exist.
India: No information is available.
Islamic Republic of Iran: No major difficulties have been encountered.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 35 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
Netherlands: No serious cases took place in which national seafarers of vessels flying the Dutch
flag were involved. The cases registered were all cases in Dutch ports involving ships flying a
foreign flag. Some difficulties were reported in contacting foreign authorities and the States of
nationality of seafarers concerned.
Philippines: No cases of abandonment of foreign seafarers in Filipino ports were reported.
(b)
Contact with State of nationality
Affirmative: 12. Albania, Brazil, Cyprus, Egypt, Guatemala, Republic of Korea, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Netherlands, Oman, Slovenia, Spain.
Negative: 35. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, India, Islamic Republic of Iran,
Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Romania,
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United States.
Comments
Australia: See answer to question (a).
Bulgaria: See comment made under (a).
Ghana: No cases of abandonment exist.
India: No information is available.
Philippines: No cases of abandonment of foreign seafarers in Filipino ports were reported.
(c)
Contact with other organizations
Affirmative: 3. Guatemala, Oman, Slovenia.
Negative: 44. Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus,
Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, India,
Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Lithuania,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Netherlands, Philippines, Portugal, Romania,
Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United States.
Comments
Australia: See answer to question (a).
Bulgaria: See comment made under (a).
Ghana: No cases of abandonment exist.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 36 -
India: No information is available.
Philippines: No cases of abandonment of foreign seafarers in Filipino ports were reported.
(d)
Absence of national arrangements for dealing with abandonment
Affirmative: 12. Albania, Brazil, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon,
Romania, Suriname, Slovenia, Spain.
Negative: 35. Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt,
Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong (China), India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Oman,
Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United States.
Comments
Australia: See answer to question (a).
Bulgaria: See comment made under (a).
Ghana: No cases of abandonment exist.
India: No information is available.
Philippines: No cases of abandonment of foreign seafarers in Filipino ports were reported.
(e)
Other
Affirmative: 8. Canada, France, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Lebanon, Norway, Slovenia,
United States.
Negative: 39. Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark,
Egypt, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Islamic Republic of Iran,
Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands,
Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden,
Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom.
Comments
Australia: See answer to question (a).
Azerbaijan: No cases of abandonment have been observed during the last years.
Bulgaria: See comment made under (a).
Canada: The absence of international arrangements dealing with abandonment poses a problem.
There is no immediate mechanism to respond to urgent basic needs of seafarers such as food,
clothing, water and shelters. Port State Control Officers should have access to immediate funds
to initiate actions to protect abandonment of seafarers. Such international arrangement should
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 37 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
provide sufficient time for Member States to give adequate protection to seafarers until the
shipowner fulfils his/her responsibilities.
France: It is difficult to clearly determine the precise amount and the follow-up of seafarers’
claims. The administration is not in the position of being able to know these, particularly when
based on agreements between seafarers and shipowners, shipbuyers or the insurers’ of the cargo.
Moreover, rulings might not always be effective, since the amount raised in the ship’s sale might
not cover all claims or because the seafarers are often not the only creditors.
Ghana: No cases of abandonment exist.
Hong Kong (China): From time to time Hong Kong is faced with problems of abandonment as
a result of financial difficulties, which lead to the arrest of ships due to unpaid loans. Experience
has shown that in most cases the flag State authorities or consulates are unlikely to be of help.
Furthermore, the situation is very often complicated due to unpaid wages and lack of water and
food on board.
India: No information is available.
Japan: Contacting shipowners creates difficulties.
Lebanon: The administration found it difficult to attain the correct address of abandoned
vessels’ shipowners.
Norway: The absence of flag State arrangements ensuring/requiring that the shipping company
responsible for the abandoned seafarers needs to have necessary financial resources.
Philippines: No cases of abandonment of foreign seafarers in Filipino ports were reported.
Slovenia: All listed difficulties were encountered. Moreover, the seafarers’ living conditions
were unsuitable.
United States: While repatriation of foreign seafarers is generally accomplished by the
assistance of the flag State and their consular officials, a number of States whose seafarers have
been abandoned in U.S. ports lack established procedures and funding to effectuate repatriation.
Question 9:
“As provided for in paragraph 7 of the resolution, have you nominated a
focal point(s) for dealing with cases of abandonment?”
Affirmative: 19. Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong (China),
Republic of Korea, Jamaica, Kenya, Lithuania, Mauritius, Netherlands, Oman, Philippines,
Romania, Singapore, Sri Lanka.
Negative: 28. Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Finland,
Germany, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Lebanon, Madagascar,
Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab
Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
Comments
Australia: The appropriate government or non-government agency with lead responsibility for
handling abandonment cases will depend on the individual circumstances of each case.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
- 38 -
Brazil: Since the maritime labour inspection units’ inspectors have been designated focal points
for cases of abandonment, it could be considered that the creation of these maritime labour
inspection units, which were created in accordance with Normative Instruction no.14 and
reorganized by the Intersecretarial Normative Instruction no.32 issued by the Ministry of Labour
and Employment of 27 November 2002, relates to the implementation of resolution A.930(22).
These units have succeeded in repatriating foreign seafarers also in cases of abandonment, where
shipowners had not taken advance measures. The measures taken are generally of a practical
nature and rely on negotiations as well as the legal framework outlined above. In addition,
provisions applicable to foreign seafarers are also found in: Law no. 6,815 (19 August 1980),
amended by Law no. 6,964 (9 January 1991), on non-nationals in Brazil; Law no.9,537
(11 December 1997) on the safety of water transport; Normative Instruction no.19 issued by the
Secretariat of Labour Inspection SIT/MTE (27 September 2000) on onboard inspection
procedures.
Cyprus: All cases of abandonment are handled by the Administration of the Department of
Merchant Shipping (“D.M.S. administration”).
Germany: The German water police is responsible for dealing with cases of abandonment.
Greece: According to Operation Regulation of the Ministry of Mercantile Marine, the Seamen’s
Labour Division is competent for the provision of necessary protection to abandoned seafarers.
Hong Kong (China): The Chief Assistant Registrar in the Shipping Registry & Mercantile
Marine Office is assigned as focal point.
India: Focal point will be determined after due examination of the resolution.
Republic of Korea: The Deputy Director of the Seafarers & Labour Policy Division in the
Shipping and Logistics Bureau is assigned as focal point.
Mexico: The Mexican Government has not designated specific a focal point, but the Maritime
Authorities are currently handling these cases.
Office summary
15
The additional information collected confirms that national systems in place to deal with
abandonment cases vary widely.
16
A large majority of Member States has laws and regulations that contain protection for
seafarers in respect of repatriation and health care. A clear majority of Member States does also
provide protection in respect of payment of wages and the provision of food and accommodation.
17
However, as can be seen from the responses to question 3 the systems or mechanisms
differ widely. They do not only vary from State to State, but also within a Member State in
respect of different groups of seafarers. Particularly foreign seafarers on board foreign-flagged
ships are often only partially covered by national laws and practice of the Member State, in
whose ports they are.
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
- 39 -
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
18
There have been no changes to legislation of Member States as a result of the Guidelines.
However, eleven Member States have indicated that they are willing to amend their legislation
accordingly. In a few cases interim measures have been established to provide adequate
protection even before legislation is changed.
19
The replies show that contacting flag States and States of nationality as well as the
absence of national arrangements for dealing with abandonment represent the main difficulties
encountered when dealing with actual cases of abandonment.
20
Given that focal points for cases of abandonment should facilitate contact between
Member States, it is important to note that a majority of Member States has not yet nominated
focal points, as provided for in operative paragraph 7 of resolution A.930(22).
Action requested of the Joint Working Group
21
The Joint Working Group is invited to take note of the information contained in this
document and to make such comments and recommendations as it may deem appropriate.
***
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
ANNEX
CASES OF ABANDONMENT REPORTED TO BE ONGOING (JUNE 2005)
Ship name
Flag and
IMO Number
Port of
abandonment
Date of
abandonment
Date of
notification
Reporting
entity
No. of
seafarers
Nationalities
Circumstances
Actions taken
Repatriation and payment
status
Comments
Capbreton 1
St. Vincent &
Grenadines
Lagos
20/01/04
20/01/04
ICFTU/ITF
10
Benin; Burkina
Faso; Côte
d'Ivoire; Togo
ICFTU/ITF:
Arrrested by Nigerian
navy.
ICFTU/ITF:
Maintained contact with crew’s
lawyer and contacted
embassies of countries of origin
to request their intervention
ICFTU/ITF:
Repatriation pending;
Payment pending, claim for wages
outstanding
ICFTU/ITF:
Ship arrested by the Nigerian navy in July
2003;
The crew was reportedly promised that the
arrest would soon be lifted and agreed to
stay on board to maintain the vessel;
By September provisions were starting to run
out;
The crew engaged a lawyer to assist with
their claim for unpaid wages;
They reportedly refused to discharge the
cargo of oil when required by the owner and
were subsequently arrested and jailed,
allegedly for vandalizing pipelines;
It is alleged that the cargo of oil comes from
a vandalized pipeline – a charge that
seafarers refute;
Their trial has been adjourned several times
and there is no obvious date for release. The
seafarers got in touch with the ITF in
January 2004
UPDATE
(06/05)
Originally
18
seafarers
8308977
UPDATE (06/05)
Vessel arrested
17/07/03 – irregular
documentation and
illegal bunkering.
Under navy control
until 20/02/04, then
transferred to police
cell, then prison in
Lagos;
Lack proper food,
water, clothing and
medical attention
UPDATE (06/05)
ITF contributed towards
provision of welfare for crew in
prison and an advance for crew
members’ families. Requested
help from International Red
Cross and Avocats sans
Frontiéres
UPDATE (06/05)
Recruited 02/02; from 05/03
shipowner stopped paying regular
wages; 14 months’ backdated
wages paid, but in blocked bank
account;
4 months’ wages still outstanding.
ISF (04/05)::
Vessel arrested, crew in jail
ISF (04/05):
Contacted ITF
UPDATE (05/05)
Received information that 14 months’ wages
being held by the Embassy of Togo in Lagos
to be paid out when the crew is released.
UPDATE (06/05)
Crew liaised with embassies, lawyer and
media in an attempt to retrieve outstanding
wages;
Crew state that oil on board was delivered by
supply ships owned by the same owners as
the Capbreton 1
Carl Philipp
Belize
Port-au-Prince
7604714
18/06/04
18/06/04
ICFTU/ITF
3
Ukraine(3)
ICFTU/ITF (06/05):
Vessel abandoned in
Haiti;
crew abandoned by
owner;
ship immobilized in
Port-au-Prince
ICFTU/ITF:
11/10/2005: flag State (Bolivia)
informed;
ITF contacted Ukrainian
Embassy in Washington
ICFTU/ITF:
Repatriation pending;
Payment Pending
ICFTU/ITF:
Crew contacted the ITF directly and
indirectly through other seafarers;
Crew reported that they had not received
wages from 7 to 11 months;
Owner failed to supply provisions for a
number of months
UPDATE (06/05)
No replies from Bolivian Registry or
Ukrainian Consulate;
No means of contacting crew
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
ANNEX
Page 2
Ship name
Flag and
IMO Number
Port of
abandonment
Date of
abandonment
Date of
notification
Reporting
entity
No. of
seafarers
Nationalities
Circumstances
Actions taken
Repatriation and payment
status
Comments
China Sea
Discovery
Liberia
Kaohsiung
08/04
08/04
ICFTU/ITF
36
China;
Philippines;
Ukraine; Viet Nam
ICFTU/ITF:
Ship arrested.
ISF (04/05):
Wrote to ISF members in Liberia
and Philippines and contacted
ITF
ICFTU/ITF:
Partially paid
ICFTU/ITF:
Fairplay International reported that the ship
was under arrest in Taiwan following a
hunger strike by its crew who had not been
paid for 15 months;
An agreement was reached with the ship's
local agent to pay the crew part of their
wages;
The agent had requested that the vessel be
arrested and sold to pay for debts owed to
both the port and seafarers
5063629
UPDATE (06/05)
All crew members now repatriated
to the Philippines;
court case for 29 crewmembers’
wages ongoing
ISF (04/05):
Vessel arrested, crew repatriated,
not received wages
Maha
Belize
Abidjan
05/03/04
05/03/04
ICFTU/ITF
10
Ghana
6509709
ICFTU/ITF:
Extended stay in the
port of Abidjan due to
mechanical problem
UPDATE (06/05)
Ship arrested; court
on strike for months
Silva
Cambodia
Esbjerg
26/02/04
26/02/04
ICFTU/ITF
11
ICFTU/ITF:
Ship unseaworthy.
Towed by tug into
prot. Detained by
PSC
7203857
ICFTU/ITF:
ITF provided assistance and
advice.
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF
ICFTU/ITF:
Repatriation pending;
Payment pending, claim for wages
outstanding
ISF (04/05):
Still there, no crew on board
ICFTU/ITF:
ITF paid for repatriation of the
11 seafarers.
ICFTU/ITF:
30 March 2004: repatriated
(ITF paid for repatriation of the 11
seafarers)
Payment pending, claims for
wages outstanding
ICFTU/ITF:
Assistance, including contacting
Pakistani and Bangladeshi
Consulates and the Red Cross,
provided by ICFTU/ITF affiliate
ICFTU/ITF:
Repatriation pending;
Payment pending
UPDATE (06/05)
Vessel arrested;
awaiting auction
Spirit II
Honduras
Naples
7648162
23/06/04
02/09/04
ICFTU/ITF
10
Bangladesh;
Pakistan
ICFTU/ITF:
Ship arrested for
safety reasons - all
documents expired
UPDATE (06/05)
5 Pakistani seafarers still on
board, awaiting outcome of sale of
vessel
Wages not paid since 01/04
UPDATE (06/05)
New crew recruited;
vessel now trading in Taiwan
ICFTU/ITF:
Crew contacted ITF for assistance;
Informed the ITF that they were signed off by
the shipowner in December 2003;
They reported being forcibly removed from
the ship although they held contracts running
to May 2004;
The seafarers were claiming two months
wages;
Reported that the shipowner had not
provided funds since December 2003;
Actions undertaken locally - case reported to
the Maritime Labour Inspection, and the
Labour Court
ICFTU/ITF:
On 26/2/04 ITF inspector received a copy of
a fax from the US shipping company dated
25/2/04, addressed to the Harbour Master
and copied to whom it may concern;
They confirmed that they were the owners of
the ship, which had been in port since
24/10/03, stated that they had run out of
funds and gave notice that they were
abandoning the vessel;
The fax informed the harbour master that he
should feel free to auction the vessel to
settle claims
ICFTU/ITF:
The ship arrived in Naples after sailing from
Malta without proper authorizations;
It was arrested for safety reasons;
The crew received food and medical
assistance from the Italian authorities;
Later also assisted by the Red Cross;
The ship was only fit to be sold as scrap;
The crew had not received wages since
January 2004
UPDATE (06/05)
National TV RAI 2 reported case – PSC and
ITF took part;
Food supplied to crew by Red Cross and
Caritas
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
ANNEX
Page 3
Cases of abandonment reported to be resolved (June 2005)
Ship name
Flag and
IMO Number
Port of
abandonment
Date of
abandonment
Date of
notification
Reporting
entity
No. of
seafarers
Nationalities
Ajmanz
ICFTU/ITF:
Mexico
Guam
23/08/04
23/08/04
Govt. of
Romania
14
Piraeus
17/06/04
17/06/04
ICFTU/ITF
6
ISF:
North Korea
Circumstances
Actions taken
Repatriation and payment
status
Comments
Indonesia
(1);
India(5);
Romania(8)
ISF (04/05):
Wrote to ISF member in Korea
ICFTU/ITF (05/05):
Repatriated
ICFTU/ITF (06/05):
Resolved
Romania(6)
ICFTU/ITF:
ITF inspector asssisted crew
with advice and negotiations.
ICFTU/ITF:
Repatriated: 3 seafarers; ICFTU
reports 3 seafarers staid on board
Paid: 3 seafarers;
Payment pending for 3 seafarers
ICFTU/ITF:
Crew contacted ITF complained that not
receiving wages, provisions and had no
contact with managers/owners of vessel;
The remaining seafarers - Master and Chief
Engineer - decided to deal with their
situation themselves
7501302
Alma
North Korea
6403254
ISF (04/05):
Contacted ITF; Advised that
case is resolved
Government of Romania (10/04):
All seafarers were repatriated
UPDATE (06/05):
Resolved
Arca
Panama
ISF (06/05):
Now ‘Lian’
7727126
Nantes St-Nazaire
13/03/04
13/03/04
Govt. of
France
4
Indonesia(1);
Philippines(3)
Government of
France:
Detention by PSC.
Aka Alliance.
ISF (06/05):
Now Venezuela
Government of France:
Assistance provided by French
authorities and ITF;
Follow up by maritime
administration
ISF (04/05):
Wrote to ISF members in
Panama and Philippines;
Wrote to contact in Panama
Maritime Law Association
Atlantica
Honduras
Bram
8317459
Belize
East US, Carr, US
Gulf
14/10/04
14/10/04
ICFTU/ITF
13
Ukraine
Lagos
20/08/04
20/08/04
Govt. of
Romania
5
Romania(5)
ICFTU/ITF:
Crew abandoned
ICFTU/ITF:
Assistance with wage claim by
ICFTU/ITF affiliate.
ISF (04/05):
Contacted ITF
Government of France:
Repatriated: Cost of repatriation
6301.80 EUR per seafarer.
Payment pending: seafarers not
paid since they boarded vessel (end
of November 2003).
ICFTU/ITF:
Repatriated (6 seafarers were
deported).
Government of Rumania:
Repatriated
ISF (04/05):
Resolved
Government of France:
Vessel sold, part of the original crew rehired;
Settling of seafarers financial situation by
the new shipowner
ISF (06/05):
Changed name to Lian and flag to
Venezuela. No reported incidents.
ICFTU/ITF (06/06)
Resolved
ICFTU/ITF (06/05):
Resolved
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF that case is resolved
7127950
ICFTU/ITF (I06/05):
Resolved
Claudia Trader
Antigua &
Barbuda
Barcelona
8223098
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
03/04
03/04
Government
of Spain
7
Russian
Federation
(7)
Arrest.
Government of Spain:
Repatriated
Government of Spain:
A new crew has embarked on vessel
ICFTU/ITF (06/06)
Resolved
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
ANNEX
Page 4
Ship name
Flag and
IMO Number
Port of
abandonment
Date of
abandonment
Date of
notification
Reporting
entity
No. of
seafarers
Nationalities
Circumstances
Actions taken
Repatriation and payment
status
Comments
Debbie
Tanzania
Mombasa
06/05/04
06/05/04
ICFTU/ITF
2
Tanzania, United
Republic of
ICFTU/ITF:
Substandard vessel.
Arrested by crew for
unpaid wages.
ICFTU/ITF:
May 2004: ITF paid for
repatriation;
31 July 2004: crew's lawyer
notified flag State
ICFTU/ITF:
May 2004: Repatriated (ITF paid for
repatriation)
ICFTU/ITF:
Long-standing case;
Crew requested ITF's assistance with
repatriation;
13 other crew members had been
repatriated earlier with the help of the
Mission to Seamen
6608737
ISF (04/05):
Contacted ITF
Egalabur
Spain
ISF (04/05):
Fishing vessel
8127244
Eureka III
Malaysia
Villagarcia
Miri
28/09/04
15/10/04
28/09/04
15/10/04
Government
of Spain
ICFTU/ITF
4
10
Senegal(4)
Indonesia
Government of Spain:
29 September 2004: Flag State
informed;
Repatriation
ICFTU/ITF:
Crew abandoned.
ISF (04/05):
Wrote to ISF member in Spain
ICFTU/ITF:
27/10/04: Flag State informed;
ICFTU/ITF affiliate provided
advice and assistance, including
contacting the Consulate and
flag State
Payment pending: Claim for wages
outstanding.
ISF (04/05):
Court case ongoing, crew
repatriated
UPDATE (06/05)
Resolved
Government of Spain:
Repatriated
ISF (04/05):
Resolved – but fishing vessel
ICFTU/ITF (06/05):
Resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
05/11/04: repatriated;
Paid
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF that case
resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
ITF contacted by the crew;
The vessel was abandoned by its owners;
The Master and crew had not received
wages since May 2004;
The owners did not supply provisions for a
number of months;
The case was reported in the Malaysian
press;
Following the intervention of the Ministry of
Transport of Malaysia, the matter was
resolved and the crew paid and repatriated
UPDATE (06/05)
Resolved
Flash
Cambodia
Augusta, Sicily
06/10/04
06/10/04
ICFTU/ITF
13
Greece; Pakistan
6723800
Hellin (AB
Success)
Panama
Bangkok
8131609
02/07/04
02/07/04
ICFTU/ITF
24
Indonesia; India;
Pakistan; Taiwan
(China)
ICFTU/ITF:
Detained by PSC;
Court of Syracuse
later ordered arrest of
the vessel
ICFTU/ITF:
Shipowner
encountered financial
difficulties
ICFTU/ITF:
ITF contacted lawyer on behalf
of the crew
ICFTU/ITF:
February 2004: Repatriated
Payment pending: Claim for wages
outstanding.
ISF (04/05):
Wrote to ISF members in
Greece and Pakistan
ICFTU/ITF:
Flag State informed;
Provided advice and assistance,
including contacting Consulates
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF that case
resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
Paid (the charterer settled the
outstanding wages of crew)
ISF (04/05):
Resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
Crew sought ITF assistance;
nformed ITF that they were owed 3 months
wages;
Repatriation paid for by cargo owners
UPDATE (06/05)
Resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
The company encountered financial
difficulty leaving crew unpaid;
They were also without provisions for a
month;
Master personnally paid for water;
Shipowner negotiated with charterer, who
eventually took over the new rights to
running the ship
UPDATE (06/05)
Resolved
ISF (04/05):. Resolved
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
ANNEX
Page 5
Ship name
Flag and
IMO Number
Port of
abandonment
Date of
abandonment
Date of
notification
Reporting
entity
No. of
seafarers
Nationalities
Circumstances
Actions taken
Orión 1
Nigeria
Ceuta
09/07/04
09/07/04
Government
of Spain
11
Georgia(2);
Nigeria(7);
Turkey(2)
Government of Spain:
Ship detained by
PSC. Crew was left
without food, water
and had not been
paid.
Government of Spain:
Nigeria informed of detention;
Provisions provided (Spanish
authorities provided food, water
etc);
Spanish authorities established
contact with ITF
7303229
Shamrock
France
Portland (United
States)
20/07/04
20/07/04
Government
of France
11
France(3);
Poland(8)
9208435
STM Taurus
Honduras
Abidjan
19/07/04
04/08/2004
ICFTU/ITF
10
Government of
France:
Ship arrested on
behalf of creditors.
Claim of crew for the
non-payment of
wages.
ISF:
Advised by ITF that resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
Flag State informed : Flag state
responded on 26/10/2004, after
the matter had been resolved
with a request for the crew list,
seeking confirmation as to
whether the crew certificates
had been endorsed by the
Maritime Administration of
Honduras.; Other : Advice and
assistance including contacting
the Flag State.
Ukraine(10)
6828040
Yang Xho
Bolivia
ICFTU/ITF
(06/05):
Yang Zho
7723027
Otaru
23/06/04
14/09/04
ICFTU/ITF
15
Ukraine(15)
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF that resolved
Government of France:
Assistance provided by
American authorities.
Intervention of FUMA for the
benefit of seafarers' families;
Measures taken by French
authorities to secure fast
repatriation of seafarers on
behalf of seafarers. Follow-up
by French maritime authority
ICFTU/ITF (06/05):
Some of the money
for wages an
repatriation paid;
ITF inspector agreed
with new owner that
seafarers should
receive a further USD
40,000 by 05/05 – not
received
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF that case
resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
16 November 2004: Flag State
informed : Bolivian Embassy
contacted in Japan. The
Embassy replied that the
Bolivian International Ship
Registry had been trying to
contact the owner without
success, and that issues of
labour should be dealt with by
parties to the employment
agreement.; Provisions
provided; Other : Repatriation
and financial assistance
provided
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF that case
resolved
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc
Repatriation and payment
status
Comments
ISF (04/05):
Resolved
ICFTU/ITF (I06/05):
Resolved
Government of France:
Repatriated: 3 seafarers
repatriated.; Repatriation pending :
8 seafarers staid on board;
Partially paid: Wages unpaid since
June 2004. Partial payment of
seafarers still on board in the
framework of the follow-up in the
United States
ISF (04/05):
Resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
August 2004: Repatriated
Partially paid: ITF cooperated with
crewing agency in trying to assist
the crew. Eventually, the
shipowner's representative got in
touch and crew were repatriated
with part of their wages.
ICFTU/ITF:
Crew contacted ITF for assistance;
Crew had not been paid wages since April
(one since February);
Most crew members had contracts starting
late February, and Master mid-March;
Crew was left without adequate provisions
ICFTU/ITF (I06/05):
Resolved
UPDATE (06/05)
Resolved
ISF (04/05):
Resolved
ICFTU/ITF:
27 October 2004: Twelve seafarers
repatriated
Payment pending
UPDATE (06/05)
Port paid 25% of claim; balance
outstanding
ICFTU/ITF:
Shipowner ran out of funds leaving crew
unpaid and without provisions; ITF Affiliate
in Japan provided provisions and took a
collection from its members for the crew
who were repatriated by the ITF;
Three remaining seafarers refused
repatriation because of their outstanding
wage claims
ISF (04/05):
Resolved
IMO/ILO/WGLCCS 6/3/1
ANNEX
Page 6
Ship name
Flag and
IMO Number
Port of
abandonment
Date of
abandonment
Date of
notification
Reporting
entity
No. of
seafarers
Nationalities
Circumstances
Actions taken
Repatriation and payment
status
Comments
Zurbagans
Lithuania
Boulogne/Mer
12/06/04
12/06/04
Government
of France
12
ISF (04/05):
Fishing vessel
7319541
Estonia(1);
Latvia(8); Russian
Federation
(2); Ukraine(1)
Government of
France:
Ship arrested by
French Customs
Authorities on behalf
of French creditors.
Government of France:
Provisions provided;
Support by French Maritime
Authorities and of ITF
Government of France:
22 July 2004:
Ship left Boulogne after release of arrest
and settling of seafarers’ financial situation
ISF (04/05):
Advised by ITF that case
resolved
ISF (04/05):
Resolved – but fishing vessel
ICFTU/ITF (I06/05):
Resolved
__________
I:\LEG\IMO-ILO-WGLCCS\6\3-1.doc