Greenpeace falls under merchant shipping pension fund

The Koopvaardij Company Pension Fund had a dispute with the Greenpeace Council Foundation (hereinafter: Greenpeace) about compulsory membership of the industry pension fund. The Company Pension Fund believed that seafarers employed by Greenpeace were subject to the mandatory requirement, so that Greenpeace was obliged to join the Company Pension Fund for Merchant Seafarers and was therefore obliged to pay the necessary contributions for these seafarers. Greenpeace, on the other hand, believed that it was exempt from this requirement.

In 2020, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that the seafarers were not subject to the mandatory requirement, but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overturned that ruling. The Court of Appeal ruled that Greenpeace’s ships cannot be regarded as ‘pleasure craft’, so that Greenpeace’s seafarers are not exempt from participation in the Bedrijfspensioenfonds Koopvaardij. After all, Greenpeace’s seagoing vessels are not used as pleasure yachts, i.e. for recreational purposes. Greenpeace is therefore obliged to register these seafarers and pay contributions to the pension fund.

The case was then referred to the Supreme Court. In its judgment of February 24, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This means that it is now irrevocably established that seafarers working on board Greenpeace ships are subject to the mandatory participation in the Koopvaardij Company Pension Fund.

The Koopvaardij Company Pension Fund was assisted by Aldert van der Bent and Kirsten Boele. In cassation, the fund was also assisted by cassation lawyer Hans van Wijk of Pels Rijcken.

Photo: Evangelos Mpikakis

‘At first glance, it was not obvious that Greenpeace falls under the merchant shipping industry. However, this case shows that the name of a pension fund does not determine its scope. For a helmsman, it makes no difference whether he sails for Greenpeace or for a commercial shipping company.’

Aldert van der Bent