Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Latvia (Ratification: 1992)

Article 1(2) of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of national extraction. For a number of years the Committee has been expressing its concern over the discriminatory impact that the language requirements of the Law on State Language 1999 might have on the employment or occupational opportunities of minority groups, including the large Russian-speaking minority. The Committee recalls that section 6(2) of the Law on State Language requires that employees of private institutions, organizations and undertakings (companies), and self-employed persons shall use the official language if their activities “affect the lawful interests of the public” (public security, health, morality, health care, protection of consumer rights and employment rights, safety in the workplace, or supervision of public administration). The Committee also recalls that pursuant to section 6(5) of the Law on State Language, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 733 of 2009 prescribes the level of proficiency of the Latvian language requirements. The Committee had previously noted that this provision affects a large number of occupations and posts. It had asked the Government to review and revise the list of occupations for which the use of the official language is required under section 6(2) of the Law so as to limit it to cases where language is an inherent requirement of the job. The Government has replied that no such list exists. Noting that the “lawful interests of the public” even with the limits prescribed in section 6(2) of the Law on State Language 1999 is a broad concept, the Committee asks the Government to consider drawing up a list of occupations (or indicators) which are considered to fall within the scope of section 6(2) thereby clarifying where Latvian language proficiency is considered to be an inherent requirement of the job. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes that the concept of inherent requirements of a particular job provided for in the Convention must be interpreted restrictively so as to avoid any undue limitation on employment and occupational opportunities for any group. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on Latvian language classes and activities carried out in the country to benefit minority groups including the Russian minority.

Articles 1(2) and 4. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion. The Committee has been drawing attention to the mandatory requirement in the State Civil Service Act 2000 which provides that to qualify as a candidate for any civil service position, the person concerned must not be or have not been “in a permanent staff position, in the state security service, intelligence or counterintelligence service of the USSR, the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) or some foreign State” (section 7(8)), or “members of organisations banned by laws or court rulings” (section 7(9)). The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that the restrictions are intended to ensure a loyal and politically neutral civil service and that they continue to be relevant and necessary. The Government further indicates that these provisions do not apply to all persons in the state administration but only to state civil servants who are persons that carry out functions of national significance such as policy development or the coordination of a sector of activity, or distribute resources or draft laws, and that at the end of 2015 there were only 11,725 such persons. While understanding the Government’s concerns and noting its explanations, the Committee draws attention to the fact that the law applies to any state civil service position and to employment by specified services whatever the level of responsibility. The Committee once again recalls that political opinion may be taken into account as an inherent requirement, under Article 1(2) of the Convention for posts involving special responsibilities in relation to developing government policy. It once again recalls that for measures not to be discriminatory under Article 4 of the Convention, they must firstly affect an individual on account of activities he or she is justifiably suspected of having, or has been proven to have, undertaken. These measures become discriminatory when simply based on membership of a particular group or community. Moreover they must refer to activities that can be considered as prejudicial to the security of the State and the individual concerned shall have the right to appeal to a competent body in accordance with national practice (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 832–835). The Committee recalls that the principle of proportionality must apply and the exception under Article 4 should be interpreted strictly. The Committee trusts the Government will soon be able to report that it has amended sections 7(8) and 7(9) of the State Civil Service Act or taken other steps to clearly stipulate and define the functions to which these sections apply. It further asks the Government to provide information on the application of sections 7(8) and 7(9) in practice, including information on the number of persons dismissed or whose application has been rejected pursuant to these sections, the reasons for these decisions and the functions concerned, as well as information on the appeal procedure available to the affected persons and any appeals lodged and their results.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.