The legislation concerning part-time work, unpaid leave, state aid for purposes of job retention and all other means of job sharing and preservation of employment is different from country to country. And that was cited as one reason why redundancies were favoured to some sort of job preservation scheme. Allegedly, setting up such a scheme was too complicated because of said differences in national legislations.
However, with that comes one more inconvenience. Legislation concerning the obligation of an employer to re-hire those made redundant instead of offering their jobs to external applicants is also different from country to country. In some countries, you cannot appoint an external applicant to a position without first offering it to those made redundant from it within the last 12 months. However, in other countries, the period is far shorter than 12 months. It could be as short as 2 or 3 months. So, those are the countries where those made redundant are entirely at the mercy of the HR department now. There's nothing that entitles them to any new opening any longer.
But what about the other countries, with a long protection period? Here, they seem to have found a fix as well. Temporary relocation of personnel from bases in other countries who hold local contracts there. In this way, no new labour contract is signed in breach of the redundancy protection law - and there is still the correct number of people in each base, while any new hire will be appointed to a base in a country with a short protection period which has already passed.
So, as a sort of an indicator which countries are those being hired now likely or unlikely to get, I'd suggest having a look at the redundancy protection periods in all of them. The ones with short protection periods are the ones you're most likely to get - Romania, for example, where the period stands at 3 months. The ones with longer periods (like Bulgaria with its 12 months) will likely be staffed internally for now and until at least mid-2021.