MR HASSAN ADEMOV
CHAIRMAN OF
LABOR COMMISSION,
SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC POLICY
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
REGARDING: Bill to amend and supplement the Social Security Code, No. 554-01-86, submitted by Valeri Simeonov and a group of people's representatives
DEAR MR ADEMOV,
In connection with the upcoming examination of the Draft Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Social Insurance Code, No. 554-01-86, submitted by Valeri Simeonov and a group of people's representatives, which proposes an age and insurance length of service for acquiring the right to a pension for seafarers - 60 and 15 years of insurance experience outside of those under Article 2, item 2 of Convention 71, the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria, after consulting with the member companies of KRIB performing economic activity in this area, express the following position:
We support any initiative to change in a more favorable direction the legislation regulating the order of insurance and subsequent retirement of seafarers. In this line of thought, we also support the idea of creating Article 69b (new), accepting that it appears as an alternative option for the retirement of seafarers, but we believe that it should be considered so that it is operational.
Due to the fact that the project provided to us is limited only to the proposal to change three norms of CSR, namely Art. 69b (new), paragraphs 1 and 2, addition to Art. 104, paragraph 10 and addition to §1, / 1/, item 11 of the Additional Regulations, without any other information, we believe that there are many ambiguities and the presence of problematic moments, some of which we present below:
1. It is not clear from the documents at our disposal whether the new Art. 69b should be considered as an addition to the currently existing possibilities for acquiring the right to a pension for length of service and age, regulated in Art. 68, 69, 69a, § 4 and § 5 of the PDR of the CSR or is it intended to limit the possibility of retirement of seafarers only in the order of the proposed change?
2. Problems may arise in the implementation of Art. 69b (new), resulting from its interpretation in relation to § 5a of the DR of the CSO, containing the definition of the term "sea person". In our opinion, the issue should be clearly regulated as to whether the proposed reduced retirement regime will apply only to persons who, at the time of fulfillment of the conditions established in Art. 69b, paragraph 1 have the status of "seafarers" according to the CSR or for persons who have reached the age of 60, who have worked for 15 years as "seafarers" at some previous moment, but as of the date on which they wish to benefit from the right established in art. 69b, para. 1 (new) are not employed as "seafarers".
3. The proposed change does not achieve complete fulfillment of the requirements laid down in Article 3, Item 1, letter "a" of Convention 71. In the pension regime established in the new Art. 69b of the CSR, there is no regulation in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, item 1, letter "a", ii of Convention 71. The method of forming the individual coefficient, on the basis of which the pension will be calculated, has not been determined. In case the general regime of Art. 70 of the CSR, there will be a contradiction with the above-cited norm of Convention 71. An issue which, in our opinion, should be legislatively overcome.
4. It is not clear whether changes are planned to other normative documents related to the present proposal for the creation of Art. 69b of the Social Security Act /related to categorical work, amount of social security contributions, method of formation and granting of pension for social security experience and age, etc./.
5. Art. 69b, para. 1 (new) will create an opportunity for preferential retirement of seafarers who currently do not have the right to such under § 4 of the PPR of the CSR, since they do not work under the conditions of the first or second category. These are persons working in the coastal fleet of ships with more than 200 gross register tons. In this way, the norm will appear to be discriminatory in relation to all other workers working in the conditions of the third category and not benefiting from a flexible retirement system. It is our opinion that in the text of the proposed new option for the retirement of seafarers, a clear distinction should be made for the persons from which labor categories the same can be applied, of course, given that the idea of the drafter of the bill is to preserve the categorical labor and for seafarers.
Not without significance is the fact that for some seafarers the retirement regime under § 4 of the CSO PDR may prove to be more favorable, as it would allow them to retire at a lower age if they have the required years of service , laid under the conditions of the first or second category, regardless of whether the same is laid in their capacity as "seafarers". A right from which we see no sense in depriving them.
Supporting the idea of creating an additional option for a relaxed retirement order for seafarers, but guided by the listed up to here, and many other unspecified issues, we consider it expedient to create an expert group for further development of the project.
With respect,
Eugene Ivanov
Ex. director
http://www.turbulence.tech