Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Denmark (Ratification: 1932)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - Denmark (Ratification: 2017)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee welcomes the ratification by Denmark of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, and takes due note of the Government’s first report.

Article 1 of the Convention and Articles 1 (1) and (2) of the Protocol. Institutional framework. National policy and systematic action. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the 5th National Action Plan Against Human Trafficking for the period 2019-2021, which was under the main responsibility of the Danish Centre Against Human Trafficking (CMM), covered five main areas, namely: (i) prevention of trafficking in persons in Denmark and internationally; (ii) identification of victims; (iii) support for the victims; (iv) prosecution of traffickers; and (v) partnership and coordination. The Plan involved systematic coordination between competent authorities, as well as collaboration with NGOs and other relevant stakeholders. A new Action Plan has been prepared for the period 2022-2025. The Government further indicates that the ratification of the Protocol has resulted in enhanced coordination with the social partners and that further collaboration and follow-up to the actions taken to implement it will take place within the Follow-up Group on International Recruitment and Foreign Workforce. The Committee welcomes the institutional framework established to combat trafficking in persons and encourages the Government to pursue its efforts in this regard. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken under the National Action Plan to combat trafficking in persons 2022-2025, particularly in relation to sectors where trafficking in persons is more prevalent. It also requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved as well as on the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the National Action Plan and the measures taken to overcome them. Please continue to provide information on the collaboration of the social partners to combat forced labour, including within the Follow-up Group on International Recruitment and Foreign Workforce.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention and Article 1(3) of the Protocol. Law enforcement. The Committee notes that section 262 (a) of the Criminal Code criminalizes trafficking in persons, including for the purpose of labour and sexual exploitation, providing for prison penalties for up to 10 years for the perpetrators and it does not provide for a minimum penalty. According to the 2021 Evaluation Report on the implementation by Denmark of the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings issued by the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) from 2016 until October 2020, the police filed 64 reports in cases involving trafficking in persons and nine court decisions related to this crime were issued between 2019 and 2020. In this regard, the Committee notes the GRETA’s concern that some of the sentences for trafficking do not appear to be proportionate. It further notes that in its 2021 Concluding Observations for Denmark, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women refers to the limited and insufficient human, technical and financial resources available to the anti-trafficking unit of the Police (CEDAW/C/DKN/CO/9, para. 22). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the capacities of the law enforcement bodies with a view to better ensure that: (i) cases of trafficking in persons, both for sexual and labour exploitation, are identified and investigated; (ii) alleged perpetrators are effectively prosecuted; and (iii) dissuasive sanctions are applied. In this respect, it requests the Government to provide updated information on the application of section 262(a) of the Criminal Code, including statistics on investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and penalties imposed.

Article 2 of the Protocol. Measures of prevention. Clauses (b) and (e). Educating and informing employers. Supporting due diligence. The Committee notes that, as part of the Government’s efforts to raise awareness among employers on forced labour risks, meetings with private sector actors have been held to address the issue of hidden forced labour in the supply chain, and a Guide entitled “Managing the Risk of Hidden Forced Labour - A Guide for Companies and Employers” was prepared in consultation with different stakeholders. The Guide is a prevention tool that encourages companies’ self-regulation and provides for measures that companies can apply to avoid unintentionally being associated with cases of hidden trafficking. The Committee further notes that section 135(1)(6) of the Danish Procurement Act requires contracting authorities to exclude any candidate or tenderer from participation in a procurement procedure, when the candidate or tenderer has been convicted or fined by final judgment for trafficking in persons. The Committee welcomes the measures taken to support due diligence by both the public and private sectors to prevent and respond to risks of forced labour and encourages the Government to continue taking steps to build employers’ capacities to prevent situations of forced labour, including in the framework of the Managing the Risk of Hidden Forced Labour Guide. Please also provide information on the application of section 135(1)(6) of the Danish Procurement Act.

Clauses (c) and (d). Labour inspection. Protection of migrant workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that labour inspectors and relevant actors have received training on trafficking in persons, including in the identification of signs of trafficking, how to react and what assistance victims of trafficking are eligible for. It notes from the GRETA’s Report that the number of labour inspectors has increased as part of a national policy to fight social dumping. Even though labour inspectors do not have investigative powers in situations of trafficking in persons, every year they conduct join inspections together with the police and the tax authorities to detect possible situations of trafficking. The Committee further notes that, due to several cases of gross exploitation of foreign workers, the Government has set up a working group to develop initiatives, in collaboration with the social partners, to protect and support vulnerable foreign workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number and results of joint inspections conducted by the labour inspection, the police and the tax authorities to prevent situations of trafficking in persons. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to inform foreign workers on their rights and on the mechanisms available to assert their rights.

Article 3 of the Protocol. (i) Identification of victims. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the task of identifying victims of trafficking in persons lies mainly with the CMM. With respect to migrants in irregular situation, the formal identification of victims of trafficking in persons begins with the Danish Police presenting an expulsion case to the Expulsion Division of the Danish Immigration Service (DIS). If the Expulsion Division initially assesses any indicator of human trafficking based on the person’s history in Denmark, combined with the information from the police interrogation and/or if the person has been found in the prostitution environment, the CMM is required to conduct an interview with the potential victim of trafficking. Factors that are taken into account when considering if a migrant is a victim of trafficking include: information regarding the recruitment and (forced) transportation of the said person to Denmark, the person’s former and current living conditions, whether the person is in possession of his/her passport and other documents of identification, whether the person has debts to the trafficker or whether the person (or the person’s family) is exposed to threats or other fears caused by the trafficker.

The Committee further notes that, according to the 2021 Human Trafficking Report issued by the Danish Centre Against Human Trafficking, in 2021, 19 persons were trafficked for forced labour, particularly in the construction sector; 18 persons were trafficked for engaging in criminal activities; 33 persons were trafficked for sexual exploitation; and three women were trafficked into slave-like conditions. It observes that the GRETA’s Report points out that one practical difficulty in the identification of victims is that authorities seem to attach a lot of importance to whether the victim is still in a trafficking situation. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken to better identify cases of trafficking in persons, indicating the number of victims identified. It also requests the Government to provide information on the difficulties encountered in this regard, and in particular in relation to the assessment of the victims’ continued exposure to threats from the traffickers.

(ii) Protection of victims. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that, as a standard procedure, the CMM appoints a contact person for victims of trafficking, who provides them with counselling and assistance, and participates in the planning and follow-up on assistance during the recovery and reflection period. According to section 741(a) of the Administration of Justice Act, a counsel free of charge shall be assigned to victims of trafficking by the court during criminal proceedings upon the victim’s request. According to the GRETA’s Report, 377 victims of trafficking in persons received assistance in the period 2015-2018, 58 victims in 2019, and 51 in 2020.

The Committee further notes that, section 9(c)(5) of the Aliens Act provides for a temporary residence permit for victims of crimes, whose presence is required for purposes of investigation or prosecution. The Government indicates that victims of trafficking in persons without a residence permit to stay in Denmark are given a reflection period of 30 days, which can be extended for up to 120 days. If the Expulsion Division assesses that a person in an irregular situation is a victim of trafficking in persons, generally, the person will not be expelled for circumstances that result from being a victim of trafficking and will instead be provided with a reflection period. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, for the person to be provided with a reflection period it is crucial that the person remains exposed to pressure from traffickers or subject to the effects of human trafficking. When the reflection period expires, victims of trafficking are offered a voluntary prepared return to their country of origin or other country of residence, corresponding to an individually planned repatriation and reintegration program, which involves activities, education or vocational training and help for small business start-ups.

The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the assistance provided to victims of trafficking as well as on the number of victims who have received such assistance. Considering that the granting of a recovery and reflection period is key to ensure that victims of forced labour, irrespective of their legal status, benefit from protection measures, the Committee requests the Government to clarify how it is assessed, in practice, if presumed victims of trafficking are “still exposed to pressure from traffickers or subject to the effects of human trafficking” as a condition to be granted a reflection period. Please indicate how many victims of trafficking have been granted a recovery and reflection period, the duration of these periods as well as the number of victims who have obtained a residence permit under section 9(c)(5) of the Aliens Act.

Article 4 of the Protocol. (i) Access to appropriate and effective remedies. The Government indicates that, according to section 685 of the Administration of Justice Act, victims of a criminal offence (which includes trafficking in persons) may make a claim for compensation for injuries or other civil claims caused by a criminal act during a criminal court proceeding. The claim can be made by the victim’s counsel or the prosecutor on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, according to the Act on State Compensation to Victims of Crime, the State awards compensation and damages for personal injury inflicted by violations of the Danish Criminal Code committed in Denmark. Victims can also claim damages related to a criminal offence in civil law proceedings after the criminal law proceedings have ended. According to the GRETA’s Report, only a small number of victims of human trafficking have received compensation from the perpetrators, and there have been only three claims for state compensation in human trafficking cases since 2016.

Taking into account that a large number of cases of trafficking in persons do not end up in criminal court proceedings, the Committee considers that it is important for the Government to take measures to ensure that all victims have access to appropriate compensation.Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to assist victims to request and obtain state compensation, and on the number of claims lodged by victims in the absence of a criminal court proceedings that have been handled by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It also requests the Government to indicate the number of cases in which such victims have been granted compensation and in which form.

(ii) Non-prosecution of victims of trafficking. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that, in 2012, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued binding guidelines to the prosecution service on handling cases of victims of human trafficking who have committed a criminal offence. According to these guidelines, an indictment shall, as a main rule, be waivered pursuant to section 722(2) of the Administration of Justice Act, if the suspect has been a victim of human trafficking, provided that the alleged offence relates to the trafficking and cannot be characterized as a serious crime. TheCommittee requests the Government to provide information on the cases in which indictments have been waivered for persons who have committed criminal offences as a direct consequence of being subject to forced labour. Please also indicate what constitutes a “serious crime” for the purpose of denying the waiver of indictment to victims of trafficking in persons.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to the Committee’s previous direct request, including the indication, in connection with the administration of the new rules on availability of unemployed persons for reasonable work adopted under the Government’s labour market reforms of 2003, that the National Directorate of Labour will continue to monitor those cases where unemployed persons are sanctioned for refusing to accept a job placement offered by the Public Employment Service.

The Committee recalls that in its previous report the Government, in describing how the new rules are being administered, indicated that in cases where there are several possible qualified persons for a job, “the person referred will always be the best suited for the job”, and that, while by law it is possible to offer only “reasonable” work to unemployed persons whose qualifications exceed the requirements of that work, such placements “will still have to take place ‘with due consideration’ to the unemployed person, his skills and orientation towards the labour market, etc”.

The Committee requests the Government, in the course of monitoring the sanctions cases, to monitor how in such cases the criteria referred to above have been applied. As also requested in its direct request addressed to the Government in connection with its application of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), the Committee would like the Government to continue to indicate in its future reports any changes in the national legislation or practice related to the conditions governing entitlement to and suspension of unemployment benefits.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to the Committee’s previous direct request, including the indication, in connection with the administration of the new rules on availability of unemployed persons for reasonable work adopted under the Government’s labour market reforms of 2003, that the National Directorate of Labour will continue to monitor those cases where unemployed persons are sanctioned for refusing to accept a job placement offered by the Public Employment Service.

The Committee recalls that in its previous report the Government, in describing how the new rules are being administered, indicated that in cases where there are several possible qualified persons for a job, “the person referred will always be the best suited for the job”, and that, while by law it is possible to offer only “reasonable” work to unemployed persons whose qualifications exceed the requirements of that work, such placements “will still have to take place ‘with due consideration’ to the unemployed person, his skills and orientation towards the labour market, etc.”

The Committee requests the Government, in the course of monitoring the sanctions cases, to monitor how in such cases the criteria referred to above have been applied. As also requested in its direct request addressed to the Government in connection with its application of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), the Committee would like the Government to continue to indicate in its future reports any changes in the national legislation or practice related to the conditions governing entitlement to and suspension of unemployment benefits.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits.  The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in its report received in October 2006, in reply to the Committee’s previous direct request. The Committee refers to the comments on this information it has already made in its 2007 direct request under the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), in relation to the application by the Government of Part IV (Unemployment benefit) of that Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, under amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and administrative orders adopted in 2003, the distinction between “reasonable” work (outside the occupational field of an unemployed person) and “suitable” work (corresponding to the skills, qualifications, acquired experience and length of service in the former occupation of an unemployed person), was abolished for purposes of the requirement that unemployed persons accept job placements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this change was accompanied by a policy requiring the administration of rules to take place in such a way that the skills and qualifications of the unemployed are used in the most efficient and appropriate manner. The Government indicated that, out of the 24,000 placements of jobseekers made by the Public Employment Service (PES) in 2005, sanctions were imposed upon 352 persons for failing to turn up for interviews or for refusing to accept job offers. According to the Government, an examination by the National Directorate of Labour of all 352 of the sanction cases in 2005 showed that, in all except one, the unemployed persons were referred to jobs “within their occupational field”, an outcome the Government attributed to its policy, noted above, governing the way the availability rules are administered. In the single case where an unemployed person was referred to a job outside his occupational field, he was referred to a job in a related field, in which he had recently received training. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it cannot provide statistics showing the number of cases in which the refusal to accept job placements or appear for interviews “was due to the job being ‘only’ reasonable” rather than “suitable” and that such statistics do not exist.

The Committee recalls that the Convention defines forced or compulsory labour as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty”, and that such a penalty might take the form of a loss of rights or privileges. Recalling paragraph 129 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee has considered that, at least in relation to contributory unemployment benefit schemes, while a person’s availability for work is generally a precondition of entitlement, if the work required to be performed is not “suitable” employment, as that concept has been elaborated by the Committee under the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), it may constitute a form of compulsory labour within the meaning of the Convention. The Committee considers that the fact that a job is within a person’s occupational field does not necessarily make it suitable, since factors such as skills, qualifications, acquired experience, and length of service must also be considered. These factors would normally be reflected in the wage level corresponding to the job.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the examination of the cases where sanctions were imposed on unemployed persons was limited to a determination of whether the job placements involved jobs “within their occupational field”, and not whether they were suitable. Given that the Government is able to monitor cases in which sanctions are imposed, the Committee requests the Government to continue such monitoring and to extend its inquiry beyond whether placements of unemployed persons are “within their occupational field” to an inquiry as to whether the placements refused are “suitable” by reference to the wage levels attached to the jobs being offered, in comparison with the person’s earlier earned income and the relevant collective agreement, where one exists.

Recalling also from the Government’s indications that in actual practice, all unemployed persons were referred to jobs within their occupational fields (or a related field in which they had recent training), the Committee requests the Government to consider giving statutory effect to this practice, and to supply information on any measures taken to this end.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report dated 26 May 2005, in which it supplied comments on matters raised in a previous communication received from the Danish Masters’ Association (Dansk Magisterforening, DM), concerning the application of the Convention by Denmark.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits. The Committee previously noted the communication dated 22 July 2004 received from the Danish Masters’ Association. In that communication, the DM expressed concern about the Government’s recent reforms of its labour market policies, particularly the introduction of obligatory "job offer" and labour "activation" schemes and their impact on unemployed persons receiving benefits under existing unemployment insurance and social assistance programmes. Among the concerns expressed was that, under the new policies, an unemployed person "stands the risk to lose his or her rights to unemployment benefits or social assistance if one rejects an offer" of a job or an activation measure. In the view of the DM, the Government’s new policies amount to forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that, in its last direct request to the Government under the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), it pointed out that it shared the concerns expressed by the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) regarding the rules on the readiness and availability of jobseekers to take up offered employment laid down in the Unemployment Insurance Act, as amended by Act No. 1035 of 17 December 2002. The Committee referred to the XVII-1 Conclusions of the ECSR concerning the application by Denmark of Article 12(3) of the European Social Charter, in which it stated:

The Committee considers the new rules on availability to be very stringent, virtually compelling unemployed persons on pain of loss of benefits to accept a job regardless of the occupational field from the first day of unemployment. The Committee holds that one of the aims of an unemployment benefit system is to offer unemployed persons adequate protection during at least an initial period of unemployment from the obligation to take up any job irrespective of occupational field, precisely with a view to giving them the opportunity of finding a job which is suitable taking into account their individual preferences, skills and qualifications. However desirable it may be for the labour market authorities to channel surplus workforce into areas with labour shortages, unemployed persons should be treated with due respect for their professional, social and family status and not as ordinary labourers, physically and mentally fit for any job.

The Committee asks that the Government supply more complete and explanatory information concerning the functioning of the unemployment insurance system. In this regard, it refers the Government to the Committee’s request for information on the application of Convention No. 102 set forth in its direct request of 2004 under that Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes a communication dated 22 July 2004 received from the Danish Masters’ Association (Dansk Magisterforening, DM), which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by Denmark. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government, on 16 August 2004, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee observes that no such comments have been received from the Government so far and hopes that the Government will communicate its comments with its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2005.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes a communication received on 21 November 2003 from the Danish Union of Lawyers and Economists, which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by Denmark. It notes that this communication has been forwarded to the Government, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Union’s observations, as well as the Government’s responses to these observations, will be examined at the Committee’s next session.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes with satisfaction that sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code, under which, in certain cases of habitual idleness, a person able to work could be directed by the police to employment and punished for vagrancy, and which were no longer applied in practice, were repealed by Act No. 141 of 17 March 1999.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request.

Article 1(1) and Article 2 of the Convention.  In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may in certain cases of habitual idleness by his own fault be directed by the police to employment and later punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means may be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, under the menace of penal sanctions, directed to such employment. The Committee noted the Government's indication in its report received in October 1998 that, though sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code were still in force, it was expected that a Bill to abolish them would be proposed in the near future. Sections 198 and 199 were said to be no longer applied in actual practice, and the Chief of Police had reported that there had been no notifications or decisions in 1996 and 1997. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government in the very near future in order to repeal sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code and requests information on any progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 1(1) and Article 2 of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may in certain cases of habitual idleness by his own fault be directed by the police to employment and later punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means may be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, under the menace of penal sanctions, directed to such employment. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report received in October 1998 that, though sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code are still in force, it is expected that a Bill to abolish them will be proposed in the near future. Sections 198 and 199 are said to be no longer applied in actual practice, and the Chief of Police has reported that there have been no notifications or decisions in 1996 and 1997. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government in the very near future in order to repeal sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code and requests information on any progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government has indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force, the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be repealed:

In its latest report, the Government indicates that sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code are still in force but are never applied in actual practice. The Government adds that the Ministry of Justice has consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions, all the assistant public prosecutors, the Commissioner of the Copenhagen Police and the Association of Police Commissioners in Denmark, and none of the parties consulted had any objections to the abolition of sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code. In reply to a written request from a member of the Danish Parliament concerning sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code, the Minister of Justice indicated on 12 June 1996 his positive attitude to the abolition of these provisions.

The Committee takes due note of these indications and hopes that the Government will soon be able to report that sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code have been repealed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government had indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force, the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be repealed.

Noting the Government's indication in its latest report that there are no plans to repeal these provisions in the course of the next year, the Committe can only express again the hope that the Government will soon be able to report on measures adopted to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government had indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force, the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be repealed.

Noting the Government's indication in its report that there is no new information as regards a possible repeal of sections 198 and 199 of the Penal Code, the Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will soon be able to report on the abrogation of the sections in question.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government had indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be abolished.

Noting the Government's indication in its report that there is no new information as regards a possible repeal of sections 198 and 199 of the Penal Code, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon be able to report on the abolition of the sections in question.