The new enlistment contract ahead of the 2026 season

Contribution signed by attorney Michael Tirrito *

*Slt Yacht

Procedural simplification and the transfer of responsibilities to the shipowner and captain following Law 182 of 2025

The reform of the Navigation Code introduced by Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025, which came into force on 18 December 2025, is part of a broader process of rationalizing and digitalizing the administration of seafarers.

This regulatory intervention, immediately followed by the implementing circular from the General Command of the Port Authorities of 19 December 2025, has significantly impacted the regulation of the recruitment contract, modifying not only its form and management methods, but above all the legal locus of responsibility.

It is precisely this last aspect that deserves in-depth analysis. The reform, in fact, does not simply simplify administrative procedures, but determines a structural shift in the control of legality: from the Port Authority to the vessel, and therefore to the owner and the captain.

The logic of the reform: less public proceedings, more private responsibility

The 2025 legislator made a clear choice, consistent with the path already established in previous years: to reduce the Maritime Authority's direct intervention in the day-to-day management of maritime employment relationships, focusing its role on guidance, control, and eventual verification.

This approach is clearly evident in the new provisions of Articles 328 and 331 of the Navigation Code, as reinterpreted and made immediately operational by the circular of 19 December 2025. The resulting system is formally more streamlined, but substantially more demanding in terms of organisation and documentation than previous practices.

This simplification only apparently represents a reduction in obligations, but on closer inspection it actually acts as a reallocation of them: what was previously filtered, controlled, or otherwise intercepted by the Maritime Authority during the enrollment phase now falls directly on the ship's organization.

The double track: continuity for the commander, discontinuity for the crew

The reform maintains a quasi-traditional approach to the captain's enlistment contract. The public deed remains the standard, confirming the public nature of the relationship and the captain's institutional role in the regulation of navigation. The Maritime Authority remains the body responsible for receiving the contract and maintaining its annotations, albeit with methods that can now make use of digital tools and electronic communications.

The underlying message behind this choice of subject seems to be tied to having control over the central embarkation of the maritime unit. In short, it seems to be taken for granted that a captain is always present on board (something that isn't always the case in recreational shipping) and that this figure should have the closest connection to public authorities.

But the real break occurs with the remaining crew members.

For all other crew, the enlistment contract is classified as a private document, exempt from receipt and regularization by the Port Authority.

The circular is explicit in clarifying that such contracts must be stipulated in writing, in the presence of two witnesses, and above all kept on board under penalty of nullity.

This transition marks a profound change: the contract is no longer "constituted" by the Maritime Authority, but derives its effectiveness from its correct form and its availability on board. The ship becomes, from a legal perspective, the center of attribution and verification of the employment relationship.

The new system appears peculiar, to be honest. Indeed, the presence of witnesses seems atypical in Italian labor law, especially considering that the contract is only one of the requirements required for enlistment. Consider, for example, the UniMare reporting requirement. Not to mention that on vessels with only two people on board, the captain and another seaman, witnesses will have to be found—not easily—in navies or ports around the world.

Onboard conservation as a validity requirement: a paradigm shift

The connection between the validity of the contract and its preservation on board cannot be reduced to a merely formal requirement. It introduces a new evidentiary and inspection logic: the contract must exist not only in abstract form, but as a document immediately available within the vessel.

For the pleasure boating and yachting sector, this aspect is particularly relevant. In contexts characterized by complex shipowner structures, external management, and international relations, the risk of misalignment between documentation "on land" and documentation "on board" is high. The reform, instead, requires perfect consistency between the contract, crew role, notes, and the actual presence of the seafarer.

The invalidity of the contract due to failure to maintain on board is not a theoretical hypothesis: it can impact salary, social security, insurance and, last but not least, litigation.

Not only that. From an administrative standpoint, the UniMare communication replaces and "communicates" the start of the employment relationship to all state agencies. In the event of an investigation, the authorities have always had the right to request copies of signed employment contracts and therefore verify their accuracy and consistency.

The different model adopted appears to be unsuitable for the vaunted digitalization, since it will be difficult to determine which document is the original if the parties have an electronic signature. Indeed, the very requirement for witnesses and the presence of the document on board (assuming the original is required) appears to conflict with any real procedural streamlining.

It's strange that no one thought to include Port Authorities among those authorized to receive information from UniMare. This would have kept them informed of "who is on board where," and would have avoided attributing decisive force to a "sheet" present or not on board.

In truth, it should be noted that the Port Authorities also act—at least until now—as UCGM (Seafarers' Employment Office)—art. 5, paragraph 5 of Presidential Decree 231/2006—and that this peripheral office of the Ministry of Labor is informed of UniMare communications sent pursuant to art. 4 bis of Legislative Decree 181/2000. Therefore, they already have the recruitment information, even if not in real time, given the deadlines established by law for sending mandatory communications in the maritime sector.

Verification of professional qualifications and certifications: the control that no longer exists (or that arrives later)

Leaving aside the more formal aspects of the recruitment contract, it should be noted that in the context outlined by the new legislation, specific and in some respects critical aspects emerge: the verification of professional qualifications, certificates, attestations and embarkation requirements (e.g., preventive medical examination).

In the previous system, the transition to the Harbour Master's Office was, in effect, a preliminary check. Despite all the limitations involved, the public record identified inconsistencies, omissions, or errors relating to qualifications, authorizations, and the consistency between job description and qualification.

Today, this filter is no longer applied to crew members other than the captain. The circular clarifies that the Maritime Authority neither receives nor approves the contract. Consequently, verifying professional qualifications essentially becomes a burden on the shipowner and the captain, who are responsible for ensuring that the crewmember has the qualifications required for the job.

Public oversight, if and when it occurs, tends to shift downstream: during an inspection, during a targeted assessment, or, worse, during litigation. This is a non-neutral step, because it transforms a preventive oversight into an ex post risk.

Concluding remarks: simplification as an organizational risk

The reform of the recruitment contract, viewed as a whole, does not appear to reduce the system's burden of responsibility. It redistributes it. The Maritime Authority is stepping back on the procedural level, while the responsibilities of the shipowner and the captain, who are required to oversee the form, content, and consistency of onboard documentation, are advancing.

From this perspective, enlistment can no longer be considered an automatically delegated administrative obligation or a mere pre-printed document at the Port Authority. It becomes an internal compliance process, requiring method, awareness, and knowledge of the National Collective Bargaining Agreements (CCNL), as well as appropriate organizational practices.

Simplification, if not accompanied by clear operational standards and consultants who, rather than "proxies," should be called agents (Article 5 of Law 135/1977), risks becoming a source of uncertainty. And it is precisely in this area that the recreational boating and yachting sector will be called upon, in the coming months, to bridge the gap between regulations and operational reality.

In the absence of such tools, simplification risks resulting in increased operational and legal risk, precisely for those entities the reform was intended to facilitate.

SUBSCRIBE TO FREE SUPER YACHT 24 NEWSLETTER

SUPER YACHT 24 IS ALSO ON WHATSAPP: JUST CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL AND ALWAYS BE UPDATED

Michael Tirrito

Here are the two panels and the first speakers confirmed for the 8th SUPER YACHT 24 Forum