Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government to the effect that section 5(5) of Act No. 2575/98 has repealed section 25(2(a)) of Act No. 792 of 1978 on which the Committee had commented previously. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of this legislation in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to amend section 25(2)(a) of Act No. 792 of 1978 which provides for the forfeiture of the right to a pension if the seafarer has been convicted of collaboration with the enemy, so as to bring it into conformity with this provision of the Convention which allows forfeiture or suspension of the right to a pension only if the beneficiary has acted fraudulently. In its reply, the Government indicates that the Committee's comments were taken into account by the Ministry of the Merchant Marine which shall provide for appropriate amendments to the above-mentioned section of Act No. 792, so that full implementation of the Convention is ensured. The Committee notes this information with interest. It once again hopes that the necessary amendments to the legislation will be made shortly and that the Government will provide a copy of them, as soon as they are adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee raised the question of the compatibility with the Convention of section 25 of Act No. 792 of 1978, of which subsection 2 provides for the forfeiture of the right to a pension if the seafarer has been convicted of collaboration with the enemy. In its reply, the Government once again states that the cases in which the right to a pension is forfeited, as set out in section 25 of Act No. 792 of 1978, are in conformity with the Convention, in view of the fact that the offences which give rise to such forfeiture are punishable by sanctions on the grounds that they have been committed fraudulently. It adds that the Ministry of the Mercantile Marine is now preparing an amendment to the above provision so that the seafarer is deprived of the right to receive a pension when he is convicted by final court decision of treacherous cooperation with the enemy.

The Committee notes this statement. It nevertheless recalls that Article 4, paragraph 3 of the Convention addresses the case in which the person concerned has acted fraudulently with a view to obtaining a benefit in respect of the pension institution. Consequently, the forfeiture or suspension of the right to the pension as a result of a conviction on grounds such as collaboration with the enemy is not covered by this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to amend section 25(2)(a) of Act No. 792 in the light of the above comments in order to ensure the full application of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's report and particularly the information on the following Articles of the Convention: Article 3, paragraph 1(a)(ii); Article 3, paragraph 2; and Article 4, paragraph 2.

Article 4, paragraph 3. In reply to the Committee's previous comments, the Government indicates that the cases in which the right to a pension is forfeited as set out in section 25 of Act No. 792 of 1978 are in conformity with this provision of the Convention. The Committee points out in this connection that paragraph 2(a) of section 25 provides for the forfeiture of the right to a pension if the seafarer has been convicted of collaboration with the enemy. This condition for forfeiture is not compatible with Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Convention which only authorises a forfeiture or suspension of the right to a pension in whole or in part if the person concerned has acted fraudulently. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will take the appropriate measures to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention on this point.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee takes note of the first report of the Government on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if in its next report the Government would provide further information on the following points:

Article 3, paragraph 1(a)(ii), of the Convention. Please describe in detail the rules for the calculation of the pensions payable respectively under the seafarers' scheme and any social security scheme where the second such pension is payable simultaneously with the first.

Article 3, paragraph 2. Please indicate what percentage of the cost of pensions covered by the Convention is paid by seafarers' contributions.

Article 4, paragraph 2. The Committee notes from the Government's report that in case of litigation between a seafarer and the Seamen's Pension Fund the seafarer can have recourse to the Administrative Courts of First Instance, Administrative Courts of Appeal and the Council of State. It also notes that under section 3, paragraph 8, of Law No. 1711/1987, to which the Government refers in its report, a period of two months from the publication of the above-mentioned Law is granted to insured persons for recourse to the Administrative Court. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate what provision in the national legislation grants a right of appeal in any dispute arising under the scheme, after the above-mentioned period of two months has come to an end.

Article 4, paragraph 3. The Committee notes that section 25 of Law No. 792/1978 provides for forfeiture of the right to a pension, in particular, in the following cases: (a) if a seafarer has been convicted of collaboration with the enemy by final court decision, and (b) if he has lost Greek nationality. As Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Convention allows for such forfeiture or suspension in whole or in part only where the person concerned has acted fraudulently, the Committee hopes that the Government will take appropriate measures in order to bring the national legislation into line with the Convention in this respect.