Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Türkiye (Ratification: 1961)

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. With regard to assigning conscripts in the surplus reserve to work for public bodies and institutions, the Committee refers to its detailed comments under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. Penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour. With reference to its previous comments concerning penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report submitted under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), that prisoners may only perform work upon their own request. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Regulations on the administration of penitentiaries and work centres of detention centres and administration, accounting and bidding of work centres (1998) and the Regulations pertaining to the administration of penitentiaries and detention centres and to the execution of sentences (1967), under which prison labour was compulsory for both convicted and remand prisoners, were repealed, respectively, by the Regulation on the Administration and Bidding of Penitentiaries and Work Centres of Detention Institutions (2005) and the Regulation on Administration of Penitentiaries and Execution of Sentences (2006). The Committee therefore observes that the application of penalties of imprisonment, including those previously examined under Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention, do not fall within the scope of the Convention.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee previously noted that section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, as well as section 5 of Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, lay down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including procedures concerning persons liable to perform military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. In this regard, it noted the Government’s statement that Act No. 3358 had not been applied after 1991 and that a new draft Military Service Bill had been drawn up to embody a policy of protecting persons conscripted into military service from being assigned duties in public bodies or undertakings without their consent.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the amendments made to the Military Service Act, No. 1111 take into consideration international obligations, current conditions, as well as the needs of the country. In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to the most recent version of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, available on the Government’s website, this Act has been amended 12 times between the period 2009–14. However, the Committee notes that these amendments do not appear to relate to the procedures regarding assigning conscripts in the surplus reserve to work for public bodies and institutions. Recalling that the Committee has been raising this issue for a number of years, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure the amendment of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing views opposed to the established system. 1. The Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, under section 198 of the Regulations pertaining to the administration of penitentiaries and to the execution of sentences, adopted by the decision of the Council of Ministers of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517, as amended) may be imposed under section 301 of the Penal Code. Section 301(1) and (2) of the Penal Code (as amended by Law No. 5759 of 30 April 2008) penalizes denigrating the Turkish Nation, the State of the Republic of Turkey, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the Government of the Republic of Turkey as well as the judicial bodies, the military and the security structures of the State, with imprisonment of a term of between six months and two years. The Committee noted that section 301(3), as amended, stated that the expression of ideas in the form of criticism shall not be punished. The Committee requested information on the application of section 301 of the Penal Code in practice.

The Committee notes that section 301(4) of the Penal Code, as amended, specifies that prosecution under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Justice. In this regard, the Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that between May 2008 and March 2011, a total of 1,570 files were received by the Ministry of Justice from the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor pursuant to section 301 of the Penal Code. Approval was given to investigate only 5.8 per cent of the files submitted; 1,382 files were not approved for investigation, and permission was granted to investigate 88 files. Of these files, 30 pertained to actions committed through the press, while 58 related to offences of “flagrant contempt”. Of these 88 files investigated, 49 files (involving 62 suspects) have been concluded, and a total of 34 persons were convicted pursuant to section 301, and 28 persons were sentenced to imprisonment. The Government states that the number of investigations permitted by the Minister of Justice pursuant to section 301 has declined significantly, and that this provision is not being used systematically for restricting freedom of expression, including freedom of the press.

The Committee notes the statement of the Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations (TİSK), in its observations of 2011, that the amendment of section 301, to require the permission of the Minister of Justice for investigations, resulted in a fall in the number of cases under this section. In the first seven months of 2010, only 3.57 per cent of the files submitted were allowed an investigation. The Committee also notes the statement of the UN country team, in a report prepared by the High Commissioner of Human Rights for the Universal Periodic Review of 19 February 2010, that section 301 of the Criminal Code is no longer used systematically to restrict freedom of expression, and that the amendment to this section led to a significant decline in prosecutions in comparison with previous years (A/HRC/WG.6/8/TUR/2, paragraph 46). Taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 301 of the Penal Code in practice, including the number and nature of offences, particularly relating to the cases where sentences of imprisonment have been imposed.

2. Act on the Fight against Terrorism. The Committee previously noted that section 8 of the Act on the Fight against Terrorism (No. 3713 of 1991) prohibited propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. However, it also noted that this legislation had been amended in 2006, and requested information on these amendments.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act No. 3713 was amended in 2006 by Act No. 5532. It notes that, pursuant to these amendments, section 8 of Act No. 3713 was replaced, and this section now relates to the financing of terrorism. However, the Committee also notes that section 6(2) of Act No. 3713, as amended, provides that printing or publishing declarations or leaflets emanating from terrorist organizations is punishable by a term of imprisonment from one to three years (previously a monetary fine). If such an offence is committed via print media, section 6(4) provides for imprisonment of the owners (ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 days) and editors (up to 5,000 days) of press or other media, even if they have not personally participated in the commission of this offence. Moreover, section 7(2) of Act No. 3713 provides for a term of imprisonment from one to five years for propaganda in favour of a terrorist organization. This penalty is increased by half if committed through the press, and the owner and editor of the periodical are liable for imprisonment of between 1,000 days to 10,000 days.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed under Act No. 3713 on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the application in practice of sections 6(2), 6(4) and 7(2) of Act No. 3713, as amended, including information concerning prosecutions, convictions and the specific penalties applied.

3. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) can be imposed under sections 80–82, read in conjunction with section 117, of the Political Parties Act (No. 2820 of 1983), which prohibits political parties from seeking to alter the principle of the unity of the State, asserting the existence of minorities based on a national or religious culture or on racial or linguistic differences, seeking to form minorities by protecting and promoting languages and cultures other than the Turkish language and culture, using any language other than Turkish in the drafting and publication of parties’ statutes and programmes, or advocating regionalism. The Committee subsequently noted the Government’s indication that changes were to be made in the Political Parties Act, in accordance with the Emergency Action Plan published on 3 January 2003, with a view to ensuring that the whole population would be able to participate in political parties and to make possible the establishment of equity and justice in political representation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that section 83 of the Political Parties Act prohibits political parties from promoting regionalism or racism in the country. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to several provisions of the Penal Code, including section 122 of the Penal Code which prohibits discrimination against persons in commercial activities, public services and economic activity. The Committee observes that these provisions do not directly relate to the application of the Political Parties Act. Referring to paragraph 307 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that the prohibition of political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend sections 80–82 of the Political Parties Act to ensure that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed for having expressed political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations. Pending the adoption of such an amendment, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee previously noted that section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, as well as section 5 of Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, lay down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including procedures concerning persons liable to perform military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. The Committee subsequently noted the Government’s statement that Act No. 3358, which amended section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was no longer applied after 1991. Moreover, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a new draft Military Service Bill, aimed at bringing legislation into conformity with “current conditions” had been examined by a special expert committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The Government indicated, in particular, that the Bill had been drawn up in a way to embody a policy of protecting persons conscripted into military service from being assigned duties in public bodies or undertakings without their consent. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the adoption of this Bill.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Bill to amend the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly in 2008, but was not discussed during this legislative term. However, the Government also states that persons working for the Ministry of National Defence are employed under service contracts. The Committee therefore requests the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure the amendment of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, to bring it into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participation in strikes. The Committee previously noted that Act No. 2822 of 1983 on collective agreements, strikes and lockouts, pursuant to sections 70–72, 75, 77 and 79, provides for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) as a punishment for participation in unlawful strikes, in circumstances falling within the scope of Article 1(d) of the Convention. It expressed the firm hope that Act No. 2822 would be amended. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that negotiations with the social partners are ongoing with regard to the amendment of Act No. 2822. The Government states that amending this Act is one of the Government’s priorities. Referring to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Act No. 2822 is amended so that it does not contain any penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the peaceful participation in strikes.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TÜRK-IS) dated 10 November 2011 and by the Turkish Confederation of Employers’ Associations (TİSK) dated 8 November 2011, as well as the Government’s report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing views opposed to the established system. 1. The Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, under section 198 of the Regulations pertaining to the administration of penitentiaries and to the execution of sentences, adopted by the decision of the Council of Ministers of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517, as amended) may be imposed under section 301 of the Penal Code. Section 301(1) and (2) of the Penal Code (as amended by Law No. 5759 of 30 April 2008) penalizes denigrating the Turkish Nation, the State of the Republic of Turkey, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the Government of the Republic of Turkey as well as the judicial bodies, the military and the security structures of the State with imprisonment of a term of between six months and two years. The Committee noted that section 301(3), as amended, stated that the expression of ideas in the form of criticism shall not be punished. The Committee requested information on the application of section 301 of the Penal Code in practice.

The Committee notes that section 301(4) of the Penal Code, as amended, specifies that prosecution under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Justice. In this regard, the Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that between May 2008 and March 2011, a total of 1,570 files were received by the Ministry of Justice from the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor pursuant to section 301 of the Penal Code. Approval was given to investigate only 5.8 per cent of the files submitted; 1,382 files were not approved for investigation, and permission was granted to investigate 88 files. Of these files, 30 pertained to actions committed through the press, while 58 related to offences of “flagrant contempt”. Of these 88 files investigated, 49 files (involving 62 suspects) have been concluded, and a total of 34 persons were convicted pursuant to section 301, and 28 persons were sentenced to imprisonment. The Government states that the number of investigations permitted by the Minister of Justice pursuant to section 301 has declined significantly, and that this provision is not being used systematically for restricting freedom of expression, including freedom of the press.

The Committee notes the statement of the TİSK that the amendment of section 301, to require the permission of the Minister of Justice for investigations, resulted in a fall in the number of cases under this section. In the first seven months of 2010, only 3.57 per cent of the files submitted were allowed an investigation. The Committee also notes the statement of the UN country team in a report prepared by the High Commissioner of Human Rights for the Universal Periodic Review of 19 February 2010, that section 301 of the Criminal Code is no longer used systematically to restrict freedom of expression, and that the amendment to this section led to a significant decline in prosecutions in comparison with previous years (A/HRC/WG.6/8/TUR/2 paragraph 46). Taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 301 of the Penal Code in practice, including the number and nature of offences, particularly relating to the cases where sentences of imprisonment have been imposed.

2. Act on the Fight against Terrorism. The Committee previously noted that section 8 of the Act on the Fight against Terrorism (No. 3713 of 1991) prohibited propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. However, it also noted that this legislation had been amended in 2006, and requested information on these amendments.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act No. 3713 was amended in 2006 by Act No. 5532. It notes that, pursuant to these amendments, section 8 of Act No. 3713 was replaced, and this section now relates to the financing of terrorism. However, the Committee also notes that section 6(2) of Act No. 3713, as amended, provides that printing or publishing declarations or leaflets emanating from terrorist organizations is punishable by a term of imprisonment from one to three years (previously a monetary fine). If such an offence is committed via print media, section 6(4) provides for imprisonment of the owners (ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 days) and editors (up to 5,000 days) of press or other media, even if they have not personally participated in the commission of this offence. Moreover, section 7(2) of Act No. 3713 provides for a term of imprisonment from one to five years for propaganda in favour of a terrorist organization. This penalty is increased by half if committed through the press, and the owner and editor of the periodical are liable for imprisonment of between 1,000 days to 10,000 days.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed under Act No. 3713 on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the application in practice of sections 6(2), 6(4) and 7(2) of Act No. 3713, as amended, including information concerning prosecutions, convictions and the specific penalties applied.

3. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) can be imposed under sections 80–82, read in conjunction with section 117, of the Political Parties Act (No. 2820 of 1983), which prohibits political parties from seeking to alter the principle of the unity of the State, asserting the existence of minorities based on a national or religious culture or on racial or linguistic differences, seeking to form minorities by protecting and promoting languages and cultures other than the Turkish language and culture, using any language other than Turkish in the drafting and publication of parties’ statutes and programmes, or advocating regionalism. The Committee subsequently noted the Government’s indication that changes were to be made in the Political Parties Act, in accordance with the Emergency Action Plan published on 3 January 2003, with a view to ensuring that the whole population would be able to participate in political parties and to make possible the establishment of equity and justice in political representation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that section 83 of the Political Parties Act prohibits political parties from promoting regionalism or racism in the country. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to several provisions of the Penal Code, including section 122 of the Penal Code which prohibits discrimination against persons in commercial activities, public services and economic activity. The Committee observes that these provisions do not directly relate to the application of the Political Parties Act. Referring to paragraph 307 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that the prohibition of political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend sections 80–82 of the Political Parties Act to ensure that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed for having expressed political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations. Pending the adoption of such an amendment, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee previously noted that section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, as well as section 5 of Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, lay down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including procedures concerning persons liable to perform military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. The Committee subsequently noted the Government’s statement that Act No. 3358, which amended section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was no longer applied after 1991. Moreover, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a new draft Military Service Bill, aimed at bringing legislation into conformity with “current conditions” had been examined by a special expert committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The Government indicated, in particular, that the Bill had been drawn up in a way to embody a policy of protecting persons conscripted into military service from being assigned duties in public bodies or undertakings without their consent. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the adoption of this Bill.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Bill to amend the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly in 2008, but was not discussed during this legislative term. However, the Government also states that persons working for the Ministry of National Defence are employed under service contracts. The Committee therefore requests the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure the amendment of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, to bring it into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 1467 of the Commercial Code (Act No. 6762 of 29 June 1956), seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and that, under section 1469 of the Commercial Code, various breaches of discipline by seafarers are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour). However, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a new draft Commercial Code had been developed which did not include provisions similar to sections 1467 and 1469 of the present Commercial Code. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the draft Commercial Code would soon be adopted.

The Committee notes that the new Commercial Code No. 6102 was adopted on 13 January 2011, and that section 1533 of this Code repeals Act No. 6762. The Committee notes with satisfaction that this legislation does not contain any provisions providing for the forcible conveyance of seafarers or penalties of imprisonment on seafarers for breaches of labour discipline.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participation in strikes. The Committee previously noted that Act No. 2822 of 1983 on collective agreements, strikes and lockouts, pursuant to sections 70–72, 75, 77 and 79, provides for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) as a punishment for participation in unlawful strikes, in circumstances falling within the scope of Article 1(d) of the Convention. It expressed the firm hope that Act No. 2822 would be amended. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that negotiations with the social partners are ongoing with regard to the amendment of Act No. 2822. The Government states that amending this Act is one of the Government’s priorities. Referring to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Act No. 2822 is amended so that it does not contain any penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the peaceful participation in strikes.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments, including copies of legislative texts and court decisions. It also notes the comment made by the Turkish Confederation of Employers’ Associations (TİSK) on the application of the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing views opposed to the established system. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government as regards the application in practice of sections 215-218 of the Penal Code. It also notes the adoption of Law No. 5759 of 30 April 2008, which has amended section 301 of the Penal Code that provides for penal sanctions for insulting or vilifying, inter alia, “Turkism” and various state authorities. The Committee notes, in particular, the amendment of paragraph 4 of section 301, according to which the expression of ideas in the form of criticism shall not be punished. While noting this amendment, the Committee asks the Government to supply information about the application of section 301 of the Penal Code in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and sentences under its provisions, in particular as regards paragraph 4, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system are not punished with penalties involving compulsory labour.

In its earlier comments, the Committee noted with regard to section 8 of the Act on the Fight against Terrorism (No. 3713 of 1991) that, by virtue of Act No. 4744 of 6 February 2002, a penalty of imprisonment in this section was replaced with fines, and it requested the Government to provide clarification on the phrase “unless such acts necessitate a heavier penalty” and to supply copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of this provision. The Committee previously noted that, in June 2006, the Grand National Assembly adopted amendments to the Act. Noting that no information concerning this point was provided in the Government’s report, the Committee hopes that, in its next report, the Government will clarify the provision for penalties in section 8 and communicate a copy of the 2006 amendments to the Act, including the relevant provisions regarding penalties. Please also supply updated information relating to the application in practice of the Act, as amended, including sample copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to provisions of the 1965 Act concerning political parties, which prohibits political parties from asserting the existence in Turkey of any minorities based on nationality, culture, religion or language and from attempting to disturb national security by conserving, developing or propagating languages and cultures other than the Turkish language or culture. It noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) could be imposed under sections 80–82, read in conjunction with section 117, of the Political Parties Act (No. 2820 of 1983). The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its 2003 report that changes were to be made in the Political Parties Act, in accordance with the Emergency Action Plan published on 3 January 2003, with a view to ensuring that the whole population would be able to participate in political parties and to make possible the establishment of equity and justice in political representation.

Referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133–140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee points out once again, that prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, either generally or where they advocate certain political or ideological views are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that measures will be taken to bring the Political Parties Act into conformity with the Convention. Having also noted the Government’s earlier indication that the penalties applicable to prohibited activities under sections 80–82 of the Political Parties Act had been “re-regulated” under the Penal Code (Act No. 5237 of 2004), the Committee asks the Government to clarify how the application of these sections is influenced by the application of the Penal Code, indicating the relevant penal provisions.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report confirming its previous indication that Act No. 3358, which amended section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was no longer applied after 1991. The Committee previously noted from the Government’s 2005 report that a new draft Military Service Bill aiming at bringing legislation into conformity with “current conditions” had been examined by a special expert committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The Government indicated, in particular, that the Bill had been drawn up in a way to embody a policy of protecting persons conscripted into military service from being assigned duties in public bodies or undertakings without their consent. Noting that no information was provided in the Government’s report as regards the repeal of the amendment of these provisions, the Committee asks the Government to keep the Office informed about the progress in the adoption of the bill, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 1467 of the Commercial Code (Act No. 6762 of 29 June 1956), seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and that, under section 1469 of the Commercial Code, various breaches of discipline by seafarers are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour). The Committee also noted that the Government had submitted to the Parliament a bill to amend section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which contains a provision limiting the powers of the master to circumstances jeopardizing the safety of the ship or endangering the lives of the passengers and the crew, and expressed the hope that section 1469 of the Commercial Code would likewise be amended to limit its scope to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the lives or health of persons. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new draft Commercial Code submitted to the Grand National Assembly does not contain the provisions similar to those in sections 1467 and 1469 of the present Commercial Code. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the new Commercial Code will soon be adopted and that the legislation will be brought into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participation in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to Act No. 2822 of 1983
regarding collective labour agreements, strikes and lockouts, which provides in sections 70–73, 75, 77 and 79 for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) as a punishment for the participation in unlawful strikes, in circumstances falling within the scope of Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that article 73 of Act No. 2822 has been repealed by Act No. 5728 of 2008. Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee expresses the firm hope that Act No. 2822 of 1983 referred to above will be further amended in order to ensure that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for the peaceful participation in strikes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

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:

Article 1, subparagraph (a), of the Convention. 1. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the following provisions, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed: sections 65 and 172 (read together with sections 125 and 146), 158, 168(2), 169, 242, 260, 261, 311, 312(1), 312(a), 313, 526 and 536 of the Penal Code; section 7 of the “Act on the fight against terrorism”, No. 3713 of 1991, as amended (membership in a “terrorist organization”); and section 1(1) of the Act concerning crimes committed against Atatürk (No. 5816 of 1951) (publicly insulting the memory of Atatürk), as well as section 1(3) and section 2(1), read together with section 1(1), of that Act. The Committee notes that the Government, in its 2005 report, indicated that the sections of the Penal Code referred to above now correspond to different section numbers in the new Penal Code (Act No. 5237 of 2004). The Committee therefore defers further comment on this point pending a translation of the text of the new Penal Code.

2. The Committee notes that in its 2005 report, the Government referred to copies of decisions of courts or tribunals included in Annex 8–14 of its report, which it stated involve questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that this annexed information has not been received, and it therefore asks that the Government supply these decisions with its next report.

Article 1, subparagraphs (c) and (d). 3. The Committee repeats its request for information, including copies of relevant statutory provisions in force, concerning the right to strike of all persons in state employment or having the status of public servants, including teachers and other state employees, who are not responsible for the exercise of state authority, such as employees of public services and enterprises.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing views opposed to the established system. The Committee has previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, under section 198 of the Regulations pertaining to the administration of penitentiaries and to the execution of sentences, adopted by decision of the Council of Ministers of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517, as amended) may be imposed under various provisions of the Turkish Penal Code, including, among others, section 159 (insulting or vilifying, inter alia, “Turkism”, various state authorities, the state laws or the decisions of the National Grand Assembly) and section 312 (publicly inciting hatred and enmity of the population with reference to distinctions of class, race, religion or region) and under section 8 (written or oral propaganda, assemblies, manifestations and demonstrations against the indivisibility of the State) of the Anti-Terrorism Law, No. 3713 of 12 April 1991, as amended on 13 November 1996, in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Committee noted that, while certain of the provisions might appear to be aimed at acts of violence or incitement to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, their actual scope, as shown through their application in practice, is not limited to such acts, but provides for political coercion and the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, with penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes that section 159 of the Penal Code was amended by Act No. 4771, of 3 August 2002, and that section 159 now corresponds to section 301 of the new Penal Code (Act No. 5237 of 2004). The Committee notes that this provision, under its fourth subsection, protects expression directed at “Turkishness”, the Republic, or organs and institutions of government, if intended only to criticize, while the prior subsections continue to penalize such expression if it “publicly denigrates” those institutions. The Committee asks that the Government supply information about the application of this provision in practice, including information about any prosecutions, convictions and sentences under the various subclauses of section 301 of the Penal Code, so as to assure the Committee that the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system are not sanctioned with penalties that involve the use of forced or compulsory labour.

In its previous observation, the Committee noted that the amendment introduced in section 312 of the Penal Code by Act No. 4744 of 6 February 2002, which makes the inciting of hatred and enmity of the population punishable with imprisonment if such acts constitute a danger to public order, required further clarification. In its latest report the Government indicates that the new Penal Code replaced section 312 with sections 215–218. The Committee notes that, under section 215, a person who “praises a crime or a criminal” is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years; that under section 216 a person who “deliberately incites one section of the population to hatred and hostility against another through discrimination based on race, region, or religion, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of one to three years”; and that under section 217 a person who commits the crime of “inciting people to disobey laws” is liable to a term of imprisonment of six months to two years. The Committee asks that the Government supply information about the application in practice of sections 215–217 of the new Penal Code, including information about any prosecutions, convictions and sentences under these provisions and copies of court decisions which construe and define their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

In its previous observation, the Committee noted with regard to section 8 of the “Act on the Fight against Terrorism”, No. 3713 of 1991, that, by virtue of Act No. 4744 of 6 February 2002, a penalty of imprisonment in this section was replaced with fines, and it requested the Government to provide clarification of the phrase “unless such acts necessitate a heavier penalty” and to supply copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of this provision. The Committee notes that, in June 2006, the Grand National Assembly adopted amendments to the Act. The Committee asks that in its next report the Government clarify the provision for penalties in section 8 as earlier requested. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the 2006 amendments to the Act, including the relevant penalty provisions, and to supply updated information relating to the application in practice of the Act, as amended, including copies of all relevant court decisions and information about prosecutions, convictions and sentencing outcomes.

The Committee has previously referred to provisions of the 1965 Act concerning political parties, which prohibits political parties from asserting the existence in Turkey of any minorities based on nationality, culture, religion or language and from attempting to disturb national security by conserving, developing or propagating languages and cultures other than the Turkish language or culture. It noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) could be imposed under sections 80–82, read in conjunction with section 117, of the Political Parties Act (No. 2820 of 1983) and sections 5 and 76 of the Associations Act (No. 2908 of 1983). In its previous observation the Committee noted the Government’s indication in its 2003 report that changes were to be made in the Political Parties Act, in accordance with the Emergency Action Plan published on 3 January 2003, with a view to ensuring that the whole population would be able to participate in political parties and to make possible the establishment of equity and justice in political representation.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its 2005 report that the penalties applicable to prohibited activities under sections 80–82 have been “re-regulated” under the new Penal Code, Act No. 5237 of 2004. It further notes the Government’s indication that the new Associations Act, No. 5253, no longer includes provisions corresponding to sections 5 and 76 of the former Act. The Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate the specific provisions of the new Penal Code which it states “re-regulate” sections 80–82 of the Political Parties Act. The Committee defers its comments on the new Associations Act pending a translation of the text of that Act.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee has previously noted, among other provisions, that section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, as well as section 5 of Council of Ministers resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, lay down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including the procedures concerning the persons liable to perform military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. In its 2003 report, the Government confirmed its previous indication that Act No. 3358, which amended section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was no longer applied after 1991, though no action has yet been taken to repeal its provisions. The Committee in previous comments asked that necessary measures be taken with a view to repealing the above provisions in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government provide information on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply on this point in both its 2005 reports on the application of Conventions Nos 105 and 29. The Government indicates that a new draft Military Service Bill that would bring Military Service Act No. 1111 into conformity with “current conditions” has been examined by special expert committees of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and that it further indicates that the Bill has been drawn up in a way that embodies a policy of protecting persons conscripted into military service from being assigned duties in public bodies or undertakings without their consent. The Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed about the progress of the above Bill. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to repealing the provisions referred to above in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 1467 of the Commercial Code (Act No. 6762 of 29 June 1956), seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and that, under section 1469 of the Commercial Code, various breaches of discipline by seafarers are punishable with imprisonment (involving, as previously noted, an obligation to perform labour). The Committee also noted that the Government had submitted to Parliament a Bill to amend section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which contains a provision limiting the powers of the master under section 1467 to circumstances jeopardizing the safety of the ship or endangering the lives of the passengers and the crew, and expressed the hope that section 1469 of the Commercial Code would likewise be amended to limit its scope to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the lives or health of persons.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a draft Turkish Trade Act, which has the aim of bringing sections 1467 and 1469 of the Commercial Code into conformity with the Convention, is now under elaboration in the specialized committees of the Parliament, and that, once the Bill is adopted, the Government will supply copies of the text of the new legislation. The Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will very soon be in a position to report the progress achieved in this matter.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participation in strikes. The Committee has previously noted that Act No. 2822 of 1983, respecting collective labour agreements, strikes and lockouts, provides in sections 70–73, 75, 77 and 79 for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) as a punishment for the participation in unlawful strikes, in circumstances not limited in scope to those described in paragraphs 182–189 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour. The Government indicated in its 2003 report that a tripartite “Science Board”, established with the objective of bringing Act No. 2822 into conformity with relevant ILO Conventions, had completed its work and submitted its report for consideration by the social partners. The Committee refers the Government to its comments on this point under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and expresses the firm hope that amendments to Act No. 2822 addressing the Committee’s concerns under both Conventions will be adopted without further delay.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the following provisions, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed: sections 65 and 172 (read together with sections 125 and 146), 158, 168(2), 169, 242, 260, 261, 311, 312(1), 312(a), 313, 526 and 536 of the Penal Code; section 7 of the “Act on the fight against terrorism”, No. 3713 of 1991, as amended (membership in a “terrorist organization”); and section 1(1) of the Act concerning crimes committed against Atatürk (No. 5816 of 1951) (publicly insulting the memory of Atatürk), as well as section 1(3) and section 2(1), read together with section 1(1), of that Act. The Committee notes that the Government in its 2005 report indicated that the sections of the Penal Code referred to above now correspond to different section numbers in the new Penal Code (Act No. 5237 of 2004). The Committee therefore defers further comment on this point pending a translation of the text of the new Penal Code.

2. The Committee notes that in its 2005 report, the Government referred to copies of decisions of courts or tribunals included in Annex 8-14 of its report, which it stated involve questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that this annexed information has not been received, and it therefore asks that the Government supply these decisions with its next report.

Article 1(c) and (d). 3. The Committee repeats its request for information, including copies of relevant statutory provisions in force, concerning the right to strike of all persons in state employment or having the status of public servants, including teachers and other state employees, who are not responsible for the exercise of state authority, such as employees of public services and enterprises.

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

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, and it has also noted the observations of the Confederation of Public Servants Trade Unions, the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DISK), the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TÜRK-IŞ), and the Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations (TISK), communicated by the Government with its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing views opposed to the established system. The Committee has previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, under section 198 of the Regulations pertaining to the administration of penitentiaries and to the execution of sentences, adopted by decision of the Council of Ministers of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517, as amended) may be imposed under various provisions of the Turkish Penal Code, including, among others, section 159 (insulting or vilifying, inter alia, “Turkism”, various state authorities, the state laws or the decisions of the National Grand Assembly) and section 312 (publicly inciting hatred and enmity of the population with reference to distinctions of class, race, religion or region) and under section 8 (written or oral propaganda, assemblies, manifestations and demonstrations against the indivisibility of the State) of the Anti-Terrorism Law, No. 3713 of 12 April 1991, as amended on 13 November 1996, in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Committee noted that, while certain of the provisions might appear to be aimed at acts of violence or incitement to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, their actual scope, as shown through their application in practice, is not limited to such acts, but provides for political coercion and the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, with penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes that section 159 of the Penal Code was amended by Act No. 4771, of 3 August 2002, and that section 159 now corresponds to section 301 of the new Penal Code (Act No. 5237 of 2004). The Committee notes that this provision, under its fourth subsection, protects expression directed at “Turkishness”, the Republic, or organs and institutions of government, if intended only to criticize, while the prior subsections continue to penalize such expression if it “publicly denigrates” those institutions. The Committee asks that the Government supply information about the application of this provision in practice, including information about any prosecutions, convictions and sentences under the various subclauses of section 301 of the Penal Code, so as to assure the Committee that the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system are not sanctioned with penalties that involve the use of forced or compulsory labour.

In its previous observation, the Committee noted that the amendment introduced in section 312 of the Penal Code by Act No. 4744 of 6 February 2002, which makes the inciting of hatred and enmity of the population punishable with imprisonment if such acts constitute a danger to public order, required further clarification. In its latest report the Government indicates that the new Penal Code replaced section 312 with sections 215–218. The Committee notes that, under section 215, a person who “praises a crime or a criminal” is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years; that under section 216 a person who “deliberately incites one section of the population to hatred and hostility against another through discrimination based on race, region, or religion, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of one to three years”; and that under section 217 a person who commits the crime of “inciting people to disobey laws” is liable to a term of imprisonment of six months to two years. The Committee asks that the Government supply information about the application in practice of sections 215–217 of the new Penal Code, including information about any prosecutions, convictions and sentences under these provisions and copies of court decisions which construe and define their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

In its previous observation, the Committee noted with regard to section 8 of the “Act on the Fight against Terrorism”, No. 3713 of 1991, that, by virtue of Act No. 4744 of 6 February 2002, a penalty of imprisonment in this section was replaced with fines, and it requested the Government to provide clarification of the phrase “unless such acts necessitate a heavier penalty” and to supply copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of this provision. The Committee notes that, in June 2006, the Grand National Assembly adopted amendments to the Act. The Committee asks that in its next report the Government clarify the provision for penalties in section 8 as earlier requested. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the 2006 amendments to the Act, including the relevant penalty provisions, and to supply updated information relating to the application in practice of the Act, as amended, including copies of all relevant court decisions and information about prosecutions, convictions and sentencing outcomes.

The Committee has previously referred to provisions of the 1965 Act concerning political parties, which prohibits political parties from asserting the existence in Turkey of any minorities based on nationality, culture, religion or language and from attempting to disturb national security by conserving, developing or propagating languages and cultures other than the Turkish language or culture. It noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) could be imposed under sections 80–82, read in conjunction with section 117, of the Political Parties Act (No. 2820 of 1983) and sections 5 and 76 of the Associations Act (No. 2908 of 1983). In its previous observation the Committee noted the Government’s indication in its 2003 report that changes were to be made in the Political Parties Act, in accordance with the Emergency Action Plan published on 3 January 2003, with a view to ensuring that the whole population would be able to participate in political parties and to make possible the establishment of equity and justice in political representation.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its 2005 report that the penalties applicable to prohibited activities under sections 80–82 have been “re-regulated” under the new Penal Code, Act No. 5237 of 2004. It further notes the Government’s indication that the new Associations Act, No. 5253, no longer includes provisions corresponding to sections 5 and 76 of the former Act. The Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate the specific provisions of the new Penal Code which it states “re-regulate” sections 80–82 of the Political Parties Act. The Committee defers its comments on the new Associations Act pending a translation of the text of that Act.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee has previously noted, among other provisions, that section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, as well as section 5 of Council of Ministers resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, lay down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including the procedures concerning the persons liable to perform military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. In its 2003 report, the Government confirmed its previous indication that Act No. 3358, which amended section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was no longer applied after 1991, though no action has yet been taken to repeal its provisions. The Committee in previous comments asked that necessary measures be taken with a view to repealing the above provisions in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government provide information on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply on this point in both its 2005 reports on the application of Conventions Nos 105 and 29. The Government indicates that a new draft Military Service Bill that would bring Military Service Act No. 1111 into conformity with “current conditions” has been examined by special expert committees of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and that it further indicates that the Bill has been drawn up in a way that embodies a policy of protecting persons conscripted into military service from being assigned duties in public bodies or undertakings without their consent. The Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed about the progress of the above Bill. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to repealing the provisions referred to above in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 1467 of the Commercial Code (Act No. 6762 of 29 June 1956), seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and that, under section 1469 of the Commercial Code, various breaches of discipline by seafarers are punishable with imprisonment (involving, as previously noted, an obligation to perform labour). The Committee also noted that the Government had submitted to Parliament a Bill to amend section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which contains a provision limiting the powers of the master under section 1467 to circumstances jeopardizing the safety of the ship or endangering the lives of the passengers and the crew, and expressed the hope that section 1469 of the Commercial Code would likewise be amended to limit its scope to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the lives or health of persons.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a draft Turkish Trade Act, which has the aim of bringing sections 1467 and 1469 of the Commercial Code into conformity with the Convention, is now under elaboration in the specialized committees of the Parliament, and that, once the Bill is adopted, the Government will supply copies of the text of the new legislation. The Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will very soon be in a position to report the progress achieved in this matter.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participation in strikes. The Committee has previously noted that Act No. 2822 of 1983, respecting collective labour agreements, strikes and lockouts, provides in sections 70–73, 75, 77 and 79 for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) as a punishment for the participation in unlawful strikes, in circumstances not limited in scope to those described in paragraphs 182–189 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour. The Government indicated in its 2003 report that a tripartite “Science Board”, established with the objective of bringing Act No. 2822 into conformity with relevant ILO Conventions, had completed its work and submitted its report for consideration by the social partners. The Committee refers the Government to its comments on this point under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and expresses the firm hope that amendments to Act No. 2822 addressing the Committee’s concerns under both Conventions will be adopted without further delay.

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

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the following provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed:

(a)  sections 65 and 172, read together with sections 125 and 146 of the Penal Code (incitement and public incitement to acts intended to decrease the independence or to disrupt the union of the State or to separate a part of its territory from the administration of the State; and incitement or public incitement to attempts to forcibly alter the Constitution of the Republic or prevent the National Grand Assembly from accomplishing its mission);

(b)  section 158 of the Penal Code (insulting the President of Turkey, using aggressive language against him in his absence, including by allusion or hint, or acting indecently or disrespectfully toward, or making indecent or disrespectful publications about, the office or the person of the President of Turkey);

(c)  sections 168, paragraph 2, and 169 of the Penal Code (membership of armed societies or bands or assisting them or facilitating their actions);

(d)  section 242 of the Penal Code (censuring, by ministers of religion making use of their titles, of government administration, laws or regulations or any duty or authority of governmental departments, or incitement by the same to disobey laws, government orders or official duties);

(e)  section 260 of the Penal Code (behaviour aimed at, and successful in, resisting the execution of any provisions of laws or regulations);

(f)  section 261 of the Penal Code (opening of schools or places of teaching contrary to laws and regulations);

(g)  sections 311 and 312, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code (incitement to penal offences, and public approval of acts punished by law as crimes, or calling up the population to disobey laws);

(h)  section 312a of the Penal Code (uttering public threats aimed at spreading fear among the population);

(i)  section 313 of the Penal Code (participation in a criminal association, in particular (paragraph 2) where it was set up to spread fear among the population, or with an intention derived from a political or social weltanschauung);

(j)  section 526, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (disobeying orders or measures adopted by competent authorities for the protection of public order);

(k)  section 536, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code (unauthorized affixing of printed, handwritten or drawn papers, posters, etc. on the boards designated by the competent authorities);

(l)  section 7 of the "Act against terrorism", No. 3713 of 12 April 1991, as amended (membership in a "terrorist organization");

(m)  section 1, paragraph 1, of the law concerning crimes committed against Atatürk (No. 5816 of 25 July 1951) (publicly insulting the memory of Atatürk), as well as section 1, paragraph 3, and section 2, paragraph 1, read together with section 1, paragraph 1, of the law.

2. The Committee has noted copies of the court decisions delivered in 2001-03 on cases relating to sections 312(1) and 158 of the Penal Code and section 1(1) of Law No. 5816 of 25 July 1951, supplied by the Government with its report. It has noted that in the majority of cases relating to section 312(1) of the Penal Code charges were brought against the editors of periodicals for publications of articles considered by the court as "inciting the population to disobey the law". While noting that in some cases the defendants were acquitted on the grounds of freedom of expression, and in some other cases penalties of imprisonment were commuted to heavy fines (for example, in the cases where an article called for general strike actions or street marches and demonstrations), the Committee observes that the scope of the provisions of this section does not seem to be limited to such acts as incitement to penal offences or calling up the population to disobey laws, but provides for political coercion and the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system.

3. The Committee hopes that the Government will indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged, for example, in the course of the proposed revision of the Penal Code, with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on their application in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

4. As regards other provisions of the national legislation referred to in paragraph 1 of this direct request, which provide for the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their conformity to the Convention, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d). 5. The Committee repeats its request for information, including copies of relevant statutory provisions in force, concerning the right to strike of all persons in state employment or having the status of public servants, including teachers and other state employees, who are not responsible for the exercise of state authority, such as employees of public services and enterprises.

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

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, as well as the observations of the Turkish Confederation of Public Worker Associations and the Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations (TISK) communicated by the Government with its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding views opposed to the established system. 1. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, under section 198 of the Regulations pertaining to the Administration of Penitentiaries and to the Execution of Sentences, adopted by decision of the Council of Ministers of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517, as amended) may be imposed under various provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

(a)  section 143 of the Penal Code (participation in foreign associations and institutions without permission of the Government);

(b)  section 159 of the Penal Code (insulting or vilifying, inter alia, "Turkism", various state authorities, the state laws or the decisions of the National Grand Assembly);

(c)  section 241 of the Penal Code (public censuring, by ministers of religion, of government administration, state laws or government activities);

(d)  sections 266-268 of the Penal Code (insulting public office holders);

(e)  section 312, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Penal Code (publicly inciting hatred and enmity of the population with reference to distinctions of class, race, religion or region);

(f)  section 526, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (acting contrary to prohibitions or obligations under Act No. 671 concerning the wearing of headgear and Act No. 1353 concerning the adoption and use of Turkish letters);

(g)  section 536, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (public affixing of printed, handwritten or drawn papers, posters, etc., inter alia, on any kind of means of transportation or privately owned signs or boards, without the permission of the authorities);

(h)  section 8 of the "Act against terrorism", No. 3713 of 12 April 1991, as amended on 13 November 1996 (written or oral propaganda, assemblies, manifestations and demonstrations against the indivisibility of the State).

The Committee noted that, while some of the provisions referred to above, in particular under (e) and (h), might appear to be aimed at acts of violence or incitement to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, their actual scope, as shown through their application in practice, is not limited to such acts, but provides for political coercion and the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, with penalties involving compulsory labour.

2. The Committee notes with interest that section 159 of the Penal Code referred to above has been amended by Act No. 4771, of 3 August 2002, by adding a new provision according to which the written, oral or visual expression of ideas merely with a view to criticizing the state authorities, without the intention to insult them, shall not involve any punishment. However, the amendment introduced in section 312 of the Penal Code referred to above by Act No. 4744 of 6 February 2002, which makes the inciting of hatred and enmity of the population punishable with imprisonment if such acts constitute a danger to public order, requires further clarification in the light of the above considerations, and the Committee hopes that the Government will supply copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of this provision, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether it is applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. As regards the amendment of section 8 of the "Act against terrorism", the Committee notes with interest that, in virtue of Act No. 4744 of 6 February 2002, a penalty of imprisonment in this section was replaced with fines, but requests the Government to provide clarification of the phrase "unless such acts necessitate a heavier penalty" and to supply copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of this provision. The Committee also welcomes a decision to stop prosecutions under the old section 8 of the "Act against terrorism" and to release the accused persons, in virtue of a transitional section 10 inserted by Act No. 4928 of 15 July 2003, and requests the Government to provide information on the application of these measures in practice.

3. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s intention expressed in the report to bring the Penal Code into conformity with the international standards, as well as the Government’s indication that a Bill on the new Turkish Penal Code has been prepared and submitted to the Office of the Prime Minister. The Government also indicates that a Bill concerning the Execution of Sentences is now under elaboration and will soon be submitted to the Office of the Prime Minister. The Committee hopes that, as a result of the legislative measures referred to above, the national legislation will be brought into conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, so that no penalties involving compulsory labour could be imposed for peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, and that the Government will soon be able to report the progress made in this regard.

4. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the 1965 Act concerning political parties, which prohibited political parties from asserting the existence in Turkey of any minorities based on nationality, culture, religion or language and from attempting to disturb national security by conserving, developing or propagating languages and cultures other than the Turkish language or culture. It noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Political Parties Act (No. 2820, of 22 April 1983) and the Associations Act (No. 2908, of 6 October 1983):

-  sections 80, 81 and 82, read in conjunction with section 117, of the Political Parties Act (seeking to alter the principle of the unity of the State, claiming the existence of minorities based on a national or religious culture or on racial or linguistic differences, seeking to form minorities by protecting and promoting languages and cultures other than the Turkish language and culture, using any language other than Turkish in the drafting and publication of parties’ statutes and programmes, advocating regionalism);

-  sections 5 and 76 of the Associations Act (attacking the principle of the unity of the State; carrying out activities based on principles of regionalism, social class, religion or sect; claiming the existence of minorities based on a national or religious culture or on racial or linguistic differences, etc.).

The Committee pointed out, referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations either generally or where they advocate certain political or ideological views are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention.

5. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication in the report that changes are to be made in the Political Parties Act No. 2820, in accordance with the Emergency Action Plan published on 3 January 2003, with a view to ensuring that the whole population will be able to participate in the political parties and that it will be made possible to establish equity and justice in representation. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring the Political Parties Act and the Associations Act into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will soon report on the action taken to this end.

6. In its earlier comments, the Committee also noted certain other provisions of national law which provide for the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. The Committee is again dealing with these provisions in a request addressed directly to the Government so as to ascertain their compliance with the Convention.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. 7.  The Committee previously noted the provisions of the Council of Ministers resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, according to which conscripts in excess of the needs of the military can be obliged to work in public undertakings in lieu of military service, without their consent and under military discipline. It also noted the provisions of section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, as well as section 5 of the Council of Ministers resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, which lay down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including the procedures concerning the persons liable to military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. It further noted the Council of Ministers resolution No. 86/10266 of 17 January 1986 containing principles governing the performance of military service duties by the Turkish Armed Forces Surplus Reserves. The Committee noted that, under the above legislation, the persons liable to perform their military service obligations by working in public bodies and institutions are determined by the drawing of lots from among the persons remaining after subtraction of those wishing to pay the exemption sum.

8. In its 2003 report, the Government confirms its previous indication that Act No. 3358, which amended section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, was no longer applied after 1991, though no action has yet been taken to repeal its provisions. While noting this information, and referring again to the explanations in paragraphs 49 to 54 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that "the Conference has rejected the practice of making young people participate in development activities as part of their compulsory military service or instead of it, as being incompatible with the forced labour Conventions", the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to repealing the above provisions in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. 9. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that:

(a)  under section 1467 of the Commercial Code (Act No. 6762 of 29 June 1956) seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties;

(b)  under section 1469 of the Commercial Code, various breaches of discipline by seafarers are punishable with imprisonment (involving, as previously noted, an obligation to perform labour).

The Committee also noted that the Government had submitted to Parliament a Bill to amend section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which contains a provision limiting the powers of the master under section 1467 to circumstances jeopardizing the safety of the ship or endangering the lives of the passengers and the crew, and expressed the hope that section 1469 of the Commercial Code would likewise be amended to limit its scope to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the lives or health of persons.

10. The Government indicates in its 2003 report that the studies concerning the amendment of the above provisions are being carried out by the Turkish Commercial Code Commission and the Subcommittee on the Maritime Law, under the coordination of the Ministry of Justice. The Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed about the progress of these studies and to provide information on the outcome of submission of the above Bill to Parliament. The Committee hopes that sections 1467 and 1469 of the Commercial Code will be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress achieved in this regard.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participation in strikes. 11. The Committee previously noted that Act No. 2822 respecting collective labour agreements, strikes and lockouts, of 5 May 1983, provides in sections 70-73, 75, 77 and 79 for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) as a punishment for the participation in unlawful strikes, for disregard of prohibitions to call a strike, for unlawful strikes intended to influence decisions, and for disregard of an order for the suspension of a strike or of restrictions imposed on the number of strike pickets and on the right of peaceful assembly in front of the employer’s establishments. The Committee recalled that Article 1(d) of the Convention explicitly prohibits the use of sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour "as a punishment for having participated in strikes". The Committee also referred to the explanations contained in paragraphs 120-132 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it has considered that Article 1(d) of the Convention is not opposed to the punishment of collective acts aimed at paralysing services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; nor to the enforcement of the observance of normal procedures to be followed in calling and organizing a strike, provided that the provisions governing these matters do not impose restrictions on the right to strike itself. The Committee observed, however, that the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 2822 are not limited in scope to the circumstances thus described.

12. The Government indicates in its 2003 report that a tripartite "Science Board" established with the objective of bringing the Trade Unions Act No. 2821 and Act No. 2822 respecting collective labour agreements, strikes and lockouts into conformity with the international labour Conventions, has completed its work and submitted its report for consideration by the social partners. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply a copy of this report and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention. Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee expresses the firm hope that Act No. 2822 of 1983 will soon be brought into compliance with Article 1(d) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), and that the Government will report on the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the following provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed:

(a)  sections 65 and 172, read together with sections 125 and 146 of the Penal Code (incitement and public incitement to acts intended to decrease the independence or to disrupt the union of the State or to separate a part of its territory from the administration of the State; and incitement or public incitement to attempts to forcibly alter the Constitution of the Republic or prevent the National Grand Assembly from accomplishing its mission);

(b)  section 158 of the Penal Code (insulting the President of Turkey, using aggressive language against him in his absence, including by allusion or hint, or acting indecently or disrespectfully toward, or making indecent or disrespectful publications about, the office or the person of the President of Turkey);

(c)  sections 168, paragraph 2, and 169 of the Penal Code (membership of armed societies or bands or assisting them or facilitating their actions);

(d)  section 242 of the Penal Code (censuring, by ministers of religion making use of their titles, of government administration, laws or regulations or any duty or authority of governmental departments, or incitement by the same to disobey laws, government orders or official duties);

(e)  section 260 of the Penal Code (behaviour aimed at, and successful in, resisting the execution of any provisions of laws or regulations);

(f)  section 261 of the Penal Code (opening of schools or places of teaching contrary to laws and regulations);

(g)  sections 311 and 312, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code (incitement to penal offences, and public approval of acts punished by law as crimes, or calling up the population to disobey laws);

(h)  section 312a of the Penal Code (uttering public threats aimed at spreading fear among the population);

(i)  section 313 of the Penal Code (participation in a criminal association, in particular (paragraph 2) where it was set up to spread fear among the population, or with an intention derived from a political or social weltanschauung);

(j)  section 526, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (disobeying orders or measures adopted by competent authorities for the protection of public order);

(k)  section 536, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code (unauthorized affixing of printed handwritten or drawn papers, posters, etc., on the boards designated by the competent authorities);

(l)  section 7 of the "Act against terrorism", No. 3713 of 12 April 1991, as amended (membership in a "terrorist organization");

(m)  section 1, paragraph 1, of the law concerning crimes committed against Atatürk (No. 5816 of 25 July 1951) (publicly insulting the memory of Atatürk), as well as section 1, paragraph 3, and section 2, paragraph 1, read together with section 1, paragraph 1, of the law.

2. The Committee has noted statistical information provided by the Government on the numbers of prosecutions brought under these provisions. It again requests the Government to supply copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of these provisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d). 3. Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee has noted the adoption of Act No. 4688 on public employees’ trade unions. It again requests the Government to supply detailed information, including copies of relevant statutory provisions in force, concerning labour discipline and strikes of all persons in state employment or having the status of public servants, including teachers and other state employees which are not responsible for the exercise of state authority, such as employees of public services and enterprises.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, as well as the observations of the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DISK) and the Confederation of Turkish Employers’ Associations (TISK) appended to the Government’s report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding views opposed to the established system. 1. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, under section 198 of the Regulations pertaining to the administration of penitentiaries and detention centres and to the execution of sentences adopted by decision of the Council of Ministers of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517, as amended) may be imposed under various provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

(a)  section 143 of the Penal Code (participation in foreign associations and institutions without permission of the Government);

(b)  section 159 of the Penal Code (insulting or vilifying, inter alia, "Turkism", various state authorities, the state laws or the decisions of the National Grand Assembly);

(c)  section 241 of the Penal Code (public censuring, by ministers of religion, of government administration, state laws or government activities);

(d)  sections 266-268 of the Penal Code (insulting public officeholders); in this connection, the Committee notes from section 481 of the Code that, in the cases specified in articles 266, 267 and 268, a demand to prove the truth of the imputation of an act harmful to the honour or dignity of a government official or public servant shall not be sustained and considered, even if the imputed act is related to his or her office or public service;

(e)  section 312, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Penal Code (publicly inciting hatred and enmity of the population with reference to distinctions of class, race, religion or region);

(f)  section 526, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (acting contrary to prohibitions or obligations under Act No. 671 concerning the wearing of headgear and Act No. 1353 concerning the adoption and use of Turkish letters);

(g)  section 536, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (public affixing of printed, handwritten or drawn papers, posters, etc., inter alia, on any kind of means of transportation or privately owned signs or boards, without the permission of the authorities);

(h)  section 8 of the "Act against terrorism", No. 3713 of 12 April 1991 as amended on 13 November 1996 (written or oral propaganda, assemblies, manifestations and demonstrations against the indivisibility of the State).

2. The Committee noted that, while some of the provisions referred to above, in particular under (e) and (h), might appear to be aimed at acts of violence or incitement to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, their actual scope, as shown through their application in practice, is not limited to such acts, but provides for political coercion and the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, with penalties involving compulsory labour. In this connection, the Committee noted that in recent years a number of cases, in which penalties involving compulsory labour had been imposed in application of the abovementioned sections 159 and 312, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Penal Code and section 8 of the "Act against terrorism", were brought before the European Court of Human Rights which held that the convictions based on national law constituted a breach of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the freedom of expression. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would soon be adopted with regard to the above provisions in order to bring national law into conformity with Article 1(a) of the present Convention. Having noted that the Government’s report contains no information as to the substance of the questions raised, the Committee expresses strong hope that the Government will not fail to provide such information in its next report.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the 1965 Act concerning political parties, which prohibited political parties from asserting the existence in Turkey of any minorities based on nationality, culture, religion or language and from attempting to disturb national security by conserving, developing or propagating languages and cultures other than the Turkish language or culture. It requested the Government to provide copies of legislation in force governing political parties and associations. The Committee has noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Political Parties Act (No. 2820, of 22 April 1983) and the Associations Act (No. 2908, of 6 October 1983), of which the copies have been supplied by the Government with its latest report:

-  sections 80, 81 and 82, read in conjunction with section 117, of the Political Parties Act (seeking to alter the principle of the unity of the State, claiming the existence of minorities based on a national or religious culture or on racial or linguistic differences, seeking to form minorities by protecting and promoting languages and cultures other than the Turkish language and culture, using any language other than Turkish in the drafting and publication of parties’ statutes and programmes, advocating regionalism);

-  sections 5 and 76 of the Associations Act (attacking the principle of the unity of the State; carrying out activities based on principles of regionalism, social class, religion or sect; claiming the existence of minorities based on a national or religious culture or on racial or linguistic differences, etc.).

4. The Committee points out, referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, as well as in paragraph 2 of this observation, that prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, either generally or where they advocate certain political or ideological views, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring the Political Parties Act and the Associations Act into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on the action taken to this end.

5. In its earlier comments, the Committee also noted certain other provisions of national law which provide for the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. The Committee is again dealing with these provisions in a request addressed directly to the Government so as to ascertain their compliance with the Convention.

Article 1(b). 6. The Committee previously noted the observation of TÜRK-IŞ that Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987 provides that conscripts in excess of the needs of the military can be obliged to work in public undertakings in lieu of military service, without their consent and under military discipline. The Committee noted the provisions of section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, as well as section 5 of the Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, which lays down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including the procedures concerning the persons liable to military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. It has also noted the Council of Ministers Resolution No. 86/10266 of 17 January 1986 containing principles governing the performance of military service duties by the Turkish Armed Forces Surplus Reserves, supplied by the Government with its latest report. The Committee noted that, under the above legislation, the persons liable to perform their military service obligations by working in public bodies and institutions are determined by the drawing of lots from among the persons remaining after subtraction of those wishing to pay the exemption sum.

7. In its latest report, the Government confirms its previous indication that Act No. 3358 was applied between 1987 and 1991, but since that time there have been no conscripts in excess of the needs of the military, so the Act was no longer applied. The Government indicates, however, that Act No. 3358, which was indicated in its previous report as abrogated, is still in force, though has not been applied in practice since then. While noting this information, the Committee again refers to paragraphs 49-54 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that "the Conference has rejected the practice of making young people participate in development activities as part of their compulsory military service or instead of it, as being incompatible with the forced labour Conventions"; even where young people engaged in economic development work or work of general interest as part of their compulsory national service are volunteers, and even where such volunteers are excused from compulsory military service, "this should take the form of an exemption and not be used as a means of pressure so that a civic service can recruit a number of people for whom there would in any case not be any place in the armed forces". The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to repealing the above provisions in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the action taken to this end.

Article 1(c) and (d). 8. In earlier comments the Committee noted that:

(a)  under section 1467 of the Commercial Code (Act No. 6762 of 29 June 1956) seamen may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties;

(b)  under section 1469 of the Commercial Code, various breaches of discipline by seamen are punishable with imprisonment (involving, as previously noted, an obligation to perform labour).

The Committee further noted that the Government had submitted to Parliament a Bill to amend section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which contains a provision limiting the powers of the master under section 1467 to circumstances jeopardizing the safety of the ship or endangering the lives of the passengers and the crew. The Committee expressed the hope that section 1469 of the Commercial Code would likewise be amended to limit its scope to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the lives or health of persons. The Government indicates in its latest report that the Bill is still in Parliament to be enacted. The Committee hopes that the Bill will be adopted in the near future and that the above provisions will be brought into conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the amending text, as soon as it is adopted.

Article 1(d). 9. The Committee previously noted that Act No. 2822 respecting collective labour agreements, strikes and lockouts, of 5 May 1983, provides in sections 70-73, 75, 77 and 79 for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) as a punishment for the participation in unlawful strikes, for disregard of prohibitions to call a strike, for unlawful strikes intended to influence decisions, and for disregard of an order for the suspension of a strike or of restrictions imposed on the number of strike pickets and on the right of peaceful assembly in front of the employer’s establishments. The Committee recalled that Article 1(d) of the Convention explicitly prohibits the use of sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour "as a punishment for having participated in strikes".

10. The Government states in its report that the above provisions are based upon the definition of illegal strikes, and sanctions are applicable for participation in illegal strikes. According to the Government’s view, these sanctions should not be construed and applied as a means of forced or compulsory labour for having participated in strikes. In this connection, the Committee again draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 120-132 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where the Committee has considered that Article 1(d) of the Convention is not opposed to the punishment of collective acts aimed at paralysing services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; nor to the punishment of participation in purely political strikes, i.e. strikes which are not aimed at furthering the economic and social interests of the participants; nor to the enforcement of the observance of normal procedures to be followed in calling and organizing a strike, provided that the provisions governing these matters do not impose restrictions on the right to strike itself. The Committee observed, however, that the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 2822 are not limited in scope to the circumstances thus described. It therefore reiterates its hope, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that the necessary measures will be adopted with regard to Act No. 2822 of 1983 to ensure the observance of Article 1(d) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), and that the Government will report on action taken or contemplated to this end.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention.  1.  Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the following provisions under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed. In particular, the Committee is seeking information on the numbers of prosecutions brought and made under each provision and copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, as well as information on any measures taken or contemplated in these regards to ensure the observance of the Convention:

(a)  sections 65 and 172, read together with sections 125 and 146 of the Penal Code (incitement and public incitement to acts intended to decrease the independence or to disrupt the union of the State or to separate a part of its territory from the administration of the State; and incitement or public incitement to attempts to forcibly alter the Constitution of the Republic or prevent the National Grand Assembly from accomplishing its mission);

(b)  section 158 of the Penal Code (insulting the President of Turkey, using aggressive language against him in his absence, including by allusion or hint, or acting indecently or disrespectfully toward, or making indecent or disrespectful publications about, the office or the person of the President of Turkey);

(c)  sections 168, paragraph 2, and 169 of the Penal Code (membership of armed societies or bands or assisting them or facilitating their actions);

(d)  section 242 of the Penal Code (censuring, by ministers of religion making use of their titles, of government administration, laws or regulations or any duty or authority of governmental departments, or incitement by the same to disobey laws, government orders or official duties);

(e)  section 260 of the Penal Code (behaviour aimed at, and successful in, resisting the execution of any provisions of laws or regulations);

(f)  section 261 of the Penal Code (opening of schools or places of teaching contrary to laws and regulations);

(g)  sections 311 and 312, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code (incitement to penal offences, and public approval of acts punished by law as crimes, or calling up the population to disobey laws);

(h)  section 312a of the Penal Code (uttering public threats aimed at spreading fear among the population);

(i)  section 313 of the Penal Code (participation in a criminal association, in particular (paragraph 2) where it was set up to spread fear among the population, or with an intention derived from a political or social weltanschauung);

(j)  section 526, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (disobeying orders or measures adopted by competent authorities for the protection of public order);

(k)  section 536, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code (unauthorized affixing of printed handwritten or drawn papers, posters, etc. on the boards designated by the competent authorities);

(l)  section 7 of the "Act against terrorism", No. 3713 of 12 April 1991, as amended (membership in a "terrorist organization");

(m)  section 1, paragraph 1, of the law concerning crimes committed against Atatürk (No. 5816 of 25 July 1951) (publicly insulting the memory of Atatürk), as well as section 1, paragraph 3, and section 2, paragraph 1, read together with section 1, paragraph 1, of the law.

2.  In earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 89 of Act No. 648 of 13 July 1965 concerning political parties, which prohibited political parties from asserting the existence in Turkey of any minorities based on nationality, culture, religion or language and from attempting to disturb national security by conserving, developing or propagating languages and cultures other than the Turkish language or culture. The Committee understands that that Act has been superseded by more recent legislation and requests the Government to supply with its next report copies of laws and regulations in force governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(c) and (d).  3.  In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of sections 14, 15 and 22 of Act No. 624 of 8 June 1965 concerning trade unions of public officials, imprisonment (involving, as previously noted, an obligation to perform labour) could be imposed as a penalty for disregard by civil servants and employees of public institutions, services and enterprises (as defined in section 2) of certain restrictions. The Committee asked the Government to review these provisions in the light of Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention and to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure the observance of the Convention in this connection. The Committee subsequently noted that, by Act No. 1488 of 20 September 1972, articles 46 and 119 of the Constitution were amended so as to restrict the right of organization of public servants, provision being made by transitional article 16 for the immediate cessation of the activities of trade unions established under Act No. 624 and the promulgation within six months of a new law to regulate the creation of organizations by public servants. The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that a draft bill on public servants’ unions is still being considered by Parliament. The Committee requests the Government to supply in its next report detailed information, including copies of relevant statutory provisions in force, concerning labour discipline and strikes of all persons in state employment or having the status of public servants, including teachers and other state employees which are not responsible for the exercise of state authority, such as employees of public services and enterprises. The Government may wish to include also indications on any measures taken or contemplated in this connection to ensure observance of Article 1(c) and (d) of the abolition of forced labour Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report, as well as the comments of the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TÜRK-IŞ) and the Confederation of Turkish Employers’ Associations (TISK).

Compulsory prison labour

1.  In its previous observation, the Committee asked for a clarification of the effect given to article 18 of the Turkish Constitution concerning the prohibition of forced labour, in relation to any compulsory work carried out in prisons in conditions falling under Article 1 of the Convention. In its latest report, the Government refers to the Regulations pertaining to the Administration of Penitentiaries and Detention Centres and to the Execution of Sentences. The Government indicates that especially sections 101, 112 and 197 to 220 of the Regulations are concerned with the employment of convicts and detainees who want to work in the prisons and that, according to these provisions, the purpose of the employment of the convicts and detainees is to rehabilitate them and to teach them a job or craft to earn their living after release. The Government concludes that such employment is covered by the second paragraph of article 18 of the Turkish Constitution as well as by article 4(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights and is not considered forced or compulsory labour.

2.  The Committee has taken due note of these indications. It notes that, under section 198 of the Regulations referred to by the Government, adopted by decision of the Council of Ministers of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517, on the basis of Act No. 647 of 13 July 1965 on the execution of sentences, prisoners are obliged to work in the institution. In its observation made in 1978 under the Convention, the Committee had noted that, under the terms of Ministry of Justice Circular No. 26/62 of 14 May 1975 addressed to the directors of penal institutions and broadcast by the Turkish radio, persons convicted in circumstances covered by Article 1 of Convention No. 105 were not compelled to work (but could choose to work and also revoke that choice). It would appear from the Government’s latest report that that circular is no longer given effect, and all convicted prisoners (without distinction whatsoever) are obliged to work, as indicated in section 198 of the abovementioned Regulations adopted by decision of 5 July 1967, No. 6/8517 (amended by Act No. 87/12046 of 17 August 1987).

3.  The Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102-109 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that the exceptions to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and specifically the exclusion of prison labour, do not automatically apply to the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), which was designed to supplement the 1930 Convention.

4.  As indicated by the Committee in paragraph 105 of its 1979 General Survey:

Clearly, the 1957 Convention does not prohibit the exaction of forced or compulsory labour from common offenders convicted, for example, of robbery, kidnapping, bombing or other acts of violence or acts or omissions that have endangered the life or health of others. Although a prisoner may be directed to work under the menace of a punishment and against his will, the labour in this instance is not imposed on him for one of the reasons cited in the Convention. Consequently, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of the abolition of forced labour Convention. On the other hand, if a person is in any way forced to work because he holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention.

5.  As regards the rehabilitative function of compulsory prison labour, referred to by the Government, the Committee indicated in paragraph 108 of its 1979 General Survey that:

… while prison labour exacted from common offenders is intended to reform or rehabilitate them, the same need does not arise in the case of persons convicted for their opinions or for having taken part in a strike. Furthermore, in the case of persons convicted for expressing certain political views, an intention to reform or educate them through labour would in itself be covered by the express terms of the Convention, which applies, inter alia, to any form of compulsory labour as a means of political education.

6.  For these reasons, the Committee has considered that any sanctions involving compulsory labour, including prison sentences involving compulsory prison labour, are covered by the 1957 Convention in so far as they are imposed in the five cases specified by the Convention.

Political coercion and punishment for holding views
opposed to the established system
(Article 1(a) of the Convention)

7.  The Committee notes that penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed under various provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

(a)  section 143 of the Penal Code (participation in foreign associations and institutions without permission of the Government);

(b)  section 159 of the Penal Code (insulting or vilifying, inter alia, "Turkism", various state authorities, the state laws or the decisions of the National Grand Assembly);

(c)  section 241 of the Penal Code (public censuring, by ministers of religion, of government administration, state laws or government activities);

(d)  sections 266-268 of the Penal Code (insulting public office holders); in this connection, the Committee notes from section 481 of the Code that, in the cases specified in articles 266, 267 and 268, a demand to prove the truth of the imputation of an act harmful to the honour or dignity of a government official or public servant shall not be sustained and considered, even if the imputed act is related to his or her office or public service;

(e)  section 312, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Penal Code (publicly inciting hatred and enmity of the population with reference to distinctions of class, race, religion or region);

(f)  section 526, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (acting contrary to prohibitions or obligations under Act No. 671 concerning the wearing of headgear and Act No. 1353 concerning the adoption and use of Turkish letters);

(g)  section 536, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code (public affixing of printed, handwritten or drawn papers, posters, etc., inter alia, on any kind of means of transportation or privately owned signs or boards, without the permission of the authorities);

(h)  section 8 of the "Act against terrorism", No. 3713 of 12 April 1991 as amended on 13 November 1996 (written or oral propaganda, assemblies, manifestations and demonstrations against the indivisibility of the State).

8.  While some of the provisions referred to in paragraph 7 above, in particular under (e) and (h), might appear to be aimed at acts of violence or incitement to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, their actual scope, as shown through their application in practice, is not limited to such acts, but provides for political coercion and the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, with penalties involving compulsory labour. In this connection, the Committee notes that in recent years a number of cases, in which penalties involving compulsory labour had been imposed in application of the abovementioned sections 159 and 312, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Penal Code and section 8 of the "Act against terrorism", were brought before the European Court of Human Rights which held that the convictions based on national law constituted a breach of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the freedom of expression. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will soon be adopted with regard to the various provisions referred to in paragraph 7 above to bring national law into conformity with Article 1(a) of the present Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this end.

9.  The Committee notes that a range of further provisions of national law provides for the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. The Committee is dealing with these in a request addressed directly to the Government so as to ascertain compliance with the Convention.

10.  The Committee has noted the observation of TÜRK-IŞ that Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987 provides that conscripts in excess of the needs of the military can be obliged to work in public undertakings in lieu of military service, without their consent and under military discipline. The Committee notes the provisions of section 10 of the Military Service Act, No. 1111, as amended by Act No. 3358, which lays down procedures relating to the surplus reserves, including the procedures concerning the persons liable to military service who are assigned duties in public bodies and institutions. It also notes that, under section 5 of the Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987, adopted pursuant to section 10 of Act No. 1111, the persons liable to perform their military service obligations by working in public bodies and institutions are determined by the drawing of lots from among the persons remaining after subtraction of those wishing to pay the exemption sum and those specified in the categories of education and occupation as needed by the armed forces.

11.  The Government indicates in its report that Act No. 3358 was applied between 1987 and 1991, and that since its abrogation in 1991 no conscripts in excess of the needs of the military are employed in public bodies and institutions. While noting this information, the Committee hopes that the Government will supply a copy of the repealing text and information on measures taken to repeal also the abovementioned Council of Ministers resolution No. 87/11945. It furthermore hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the principles governing the liability to military service of surplus reserves (Council of Ministers resolution No. 86/10266 of 17 January 1986), to which reference is made in the interim section of resolution No. 87/11945, or of any text repealing these principles.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention

12.  In earlier comments the Committee had noted that:

(a)  under section 1467 of the Commercial Code (Act No. 6762 of 29 June 1956) seamen may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties;

(b)  under section 1469 of the Commercial Code, various breaches of discipline by seamen are punishable with imprisonment (involving, as previously noted, an obligation to perform labour).

The Committee further noted that the Government had submitted to Parliament a Bill to amend section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which empowers the master of a ship to use force to bring deserting seafarers back on board to perform their duties. The Committee notes that the Bill contains a provision limiting the powers of the master under section 1467 to circumstances jeopardizing the safety of the ship or endangering the lives of the passengers and the crew. The Committee hopes that section 1469 of the Commercial Code will likewise be amended to limit its scope to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the lives or health of persons, and that the Government will supply a copy of the amending provisions as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1(d)

13.  The Committee notes that Act No. 2822 respecting collective labour agreements, strikes and lockouts, dated 5 May 1983 (L.S. 1983-Tur.2), provides in sections 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77 and 79 for penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the participation in unlawful strikes, for disregard of prohibitions to call a strike, for unlawful strikes intended to influence decisions, and for disregard of an order for the suspension of a strike or of restrictions imposed on the number of strike pickets and on the right of peaceful assembly in front of the employer’s establishments. The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention explicitly prohibits the use of sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour "as a punishment for having participated in strikes". However, as indicated in paragraphs 120-132 of the Committee’s General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee has considered that Article 1(d) of the Convention is not opposed to the punishment of collective acts aimed at paralysing services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; nor to the punishment of participation in purely political strikes, i.e. strikes which are not aimed at furthering the economic and social interests of the participants; nor to the enforcement of the observance of normal procedures to be followed in calling and organizing a strike, provided that the provisions governing these matters do not impose restrictions on the right to strike itself. Referring also to its standing comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee observes that the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 2822 are not limited in scope to the circumstances thus described. It hopes that the necessary measures will be adopted with regard to Act No. 2822 of 1983 to ensure the observance of Article 1(d) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), and that the Government will report on action taken or contemplated to this end.

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

The Committee has taken note of the Government's reports received in November 1995 and October 1997 and of the comments of the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TURK-IS) and the Confederation of Turkish Employers' Associations (TISK).

I. Article 1 (c) of the Convention. 1. With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee notes with interest from the Government's latest report that the Government has submitted to Parliament a Bill amending section 1467 of the Commercial Code (No. 6762 of 29 June 1956), which empowers the master of a ship to use force to bring deserting seafarers back on board to perform their duties. According to the report, the powers of the master under section 1467 would be limited by the Bill to circumstances jeopardizing the safety of the ship or the lives of the passengers and the crew. TISK has referred on this point to the Maritime Labour Law, No. 854, section 14/II of which is said to regulate the conditions under which seafarers can terminate their contracts of employment without prior notice. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the texts in question with its next report.

II. Article 1(b). 2. The Committee has noted the observation of TURK-IS, that Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/11945 of 12 July 1987 provides that conscripts in excess of the needs of the military can be obliged to work in public undertakings in lieu of military service, without their consent and under military discipline. The Government states, with reference to article 72 of the Constitution of Turkey, that national service, which is the right and duty of every citizen, may be performed either in the Armed Forces or in the public service. The Government also indicates in its 1997 report on Convention No. 29 supplied under article 19 of the ILO Constitution, that the Military Service Act No. 1111 contains provisions according to which the persons liable to perform military service who are to be posted to public institutions and bodies are determined by lot from among the persons remaining after subtraction of those wishing to pay cash.

3. The Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 49 to 54 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that "the Conference has rejected the practice of making young people participate in development activities as part of their compulsory military service or instead of it, as being incompatible with the forced labour Conventions"; even where young people engaged in economic development work or work of general interest as part of their compulsory national service are volunteers, and even where such volunteers are excused from compulsory military service, "this should take the form of an exemption and not be used as a means of pressure so that a civic service can recruit a number of people for whom there would in any case not be any place in the armed forces".

4. The Committee requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of Resolution No. 87/11945 and the Military Service Act No. 1111, as well as information on their application in practice: for example, what kinds of work the conscripts have to do in lieu of military service, the number of conscripts performing work in the public service, and their proportion in relation to the overall number of conscripts.

III. 5. TISK and TURK-IS have referred to article 18 of the Turkish Constitution, concerning the prohibition of forced labour. TISK considers that labour law and civil service law provisions similarly show that there is no question of forced or compulsory labour in Turkey in terms of Article 1 of the Convention. The view of TURK-IS, though, is that the second paragraph of article 18 violates Article 1(a) and (b), since it states that employment under conditions and procedures determined by law during a prison sentence or detention, or services demanded of citizens at times of emergency, or physical or intellectual work considered as part of citizens' duties in areas determined by the nation's needs, are not considered as forced labour.

6. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would clarify the effect given to the provisions quoted by TURK-IS in relation to any compulsory work carried on in prisons in conditions falling under Article 1.

IV. Part III of the report form. 7. The Committee has noted the view of TISK that it would be appropriate for the Government to provide further information on the work of the inspection services in respect to the legislation applying the Convention. It would be glad if the Government would do so.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Further to its previous observation on the application of the Convention by Turkey, the Committee has taken note of the Government's report for the period 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1994 and the appended comments of the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions and the Confederation of Turkish Employers' Associations, received 20 March 1995, as well as the Government's report for the period 1.7.1994 to 30.6.1995, received 24 November 1995, to which again comments by the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions, dated 6 July 1995, and by the Confederation of Turkish Employers' Associations were appended, both in the Turkish language. The Committee has deferred consideration of the matter pending translation of the comments received 24 November 1995.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. The Committee has, however, taken note of a communication dated 4 July 1994 from the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TURK-IS), which quotes the second paragraph of article 18 of the 1982 Constitution, alleging that this provision violates the Convention. Copy of this communication was sent to the Government on 8 August 1994. The Committee hopes that a report will soon be sent by the Government and that it will address the allegations of the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions, supplying copies of any implementing legislation under article 18(2) of the Constitution and full details on its application in practice, and that it will also supply information on the following matters raised in its previous observations:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In comments made for a number of years the Committee noted that section 1467 of the Commercial Code (No. 6762 of 29 June 1956) empowers the master of a ship to use force with a view to ensuring the proper running of the vessel and the maintenance of discipline to bring deserting seafarers back on board to perform their duties.

The Government previously stated that the authority granted to masters to this effect is restricted to the case of necessity and that in its view this application is in conformity with paragraph 2(d) of Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and falls outside the definition of labour discipline in paragraph (c) of Article 1 of Convention No. 105. The Government also indicated that the expression "case of necessity" means that a measure as contemplated in section 1467 would be compulsory only in the event of emergencies (i.e. in cases of danger to the security of the vessel, passengers and the goods on board), and that, if taken, such a measure would be immediately lifted after the completion of the vessel's journey and that bringing back by force a deserting seaman is closely related with the purpose of the proper running of the vessel.

The Committee observed that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits without exception the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, and that in order to remain outside the scope of the Convention, any sanction involving compulsory labour must be limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons which need to be strictly defined. Neither these criteria nor those of Article 2(2)(d) of Convention No. 29 are met by the wording of section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which empowers the master to use force for ensuring the proper running of the vessel and the maintenance of discipline. Moreover, the existence of legal remedies is inadequate where the criteria laid down in national law do not meet the standard of the Convention.

The Committee notes that in its report for the period 1990-91 the Government referred to the Maritime Labour Act No. 854 of 20 April 1967 which applies to seamen who work under an employment contract on board vessels of 100 gross tons and over, flying the Turkish flag, on seas, lakes, inland waterways and rivers and to their employers. The Government states that this Act, adopted later than the Commercial Code, has priority as concerns application of the legislation on matters in connection with the Convention. The Government further reiterates its previous views concerning the limitation of the application of the provision of section 1467 to cases of necessity, the legal remedies available and the conformity in its opinion with the provisions of the Convention, views which are shared by the Turkish Confederation of Employers' Association.

The Committee notes that under section 14 of the 1967 Maritime Labour Act the contract of employment of a seaman who fails to return on board ship (or who returns on board ship but refuses to perform his duties) may be terminated by the employer. The Committee notes with interest that the Act does not provide for the forcible return on board ship. The Committee observes that the 1967 Act does not however formally repeal section 1467 of the Commercial Code and that its scope is limited to ships of 100 or more gross tons.

The Committee has noted the Government's statement in its report for 1990-91 that tripartite meetings are being held with a view to examining possible amendments to the labour legislation and that the Government considers suggesting an amendment on the matter in question in the forthcoming meetings.

The Committee trusts that the Government will indicate action taken either to repeal the powers under section 1467 of the Commercial Code or to limit them to circumstances where the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons are in danger.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the observations made by the Turkish Confederation of Employers' Associations.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In comments made for a number of years the Committee noted that section 1467 of the Commercial Code (No. 6762 of 29 June 1956) empowers the master of a ship to use force with a view to ensuring the proper running of the vessel and the maintenance of discipline to bring deserting seafarers back on board to perform their duties.

The Government previously stated that the authority granted to masters to this effect is restricted to the case of necessity and that in its view this application is in conformity with paragraph 2(d) of Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and falls outside the definition of labour discipline in paragraph (c) of Article 1 of Convention No. 105. The Government also indicated that the expression "case of necessity" means that a measure as contemplated in section 1467 would be compulsory only in the event of emergencies (i.e. in cases of danger to the security of the vessel, passengers and the goods on board), and that, if taken, such a measure would be immediately lifted after the completion of the vessel's journey and that bringing back by force a deserting seaman is closely related with the purpose of the proper running of the vessel.

The Committee observed that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits without exception the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, and that in order to remain outside the scope of the Convention, any sanction involving compulsory labour must be limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons which need to be strictly defined. Neither these criteria nor those of Article 2(2)(d) of Convention No. 29 are met by the wording of section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which empowers the master to use force for ensuring the proper running of the vessel and the maintenance of discipline. Moreover, the existence of legal remedies is inadequate where the criteria laid down in national law do not meet the standard of the Convention.

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government refers to the Maritime Labour Act No. 854 of 20 April 1967 which applies to seamen who work under an employment contract on board vessels of 100 gross tons and over, flying the Turkish flag, on seas, lakes, inland waterways and rivers and to their employers. The Government states that this Act, adopted later than the Commercial Code, has priority as concerns application of the legislation on matters in connection with the Convention. The Government further reiterates its previous views concerning the limitation of the application of the provision of section 1467 to cases of necessity, the legal remedies available and the conformity in its opinion with the provisions of the Convention, views which are shared by the Turkish Confederation of Employers' Association.

The Committee notes that under section 14 of the 1967 Maritime Labour Act the contract of employment of a seaman who fails to return on board ship (or who returns on board ship but refuses to perform his duties) may be terminated by the employer. The Committee notes with interest that the Act does not provide for the forcible return on board ship. The Committee observes that the 1967 Act does not however formally repeal section 1467 of the Commercial Code and that its scope is limited to ships of 100 or more gross tons.

The Committee also takes note of the Government's statement in its report that tripartite meetings are being held with a view to examining possible amendments to the labour legislation and that the Government considers suggesting an amendment on the matter in question in the forthcoming meetings.

The Committee trusts that the Government will indicate action taken either to repeal the powers under section 1467 of the Commercial Code or to limit them to circumstances where the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons are in danger. The Committee hopes that the Government willprovide information on measures adopted to this effect.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the observations made by the Turkish Confederation of Employers' Associations.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee noted that section 1467 of the Commercial Code empowers the master of a ship to use force, with a view to ensuring the proper running of the vessel and the maintenance of discipline to bring deserting seafarers back on board to perform their duties.

In its most recent report, supplied in 1989, the Government states that during studies undertaken together with the staff of the competent ministry it has been realised that the authority granted to masters to use force to bring deserting seafarers back on board is restricted to the case of necessity and that this application is in conformity with paragraph (d) of Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) which exempts from the scope of that Convention work exacted in any circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. Consequently, the Government considers that such an application falls outside the definition of labour discipline in paragraph (c) of Article 1 of Convention No. 105.

The Government also expresses its view that the relations between the master and crew of a vessel cannot be considered an ordinary employer-employee relationship and that one of the important characteristics of such a relation is the fact that it is closely connected with the safety and security of the vessel and the persons and goods on board. According to the Government, the expression "the case of necessity" indicates that such a measure as contemplated in section 1467 would be compulsory only in the event of emergencies (i.e. in cases of danger to the security of the vessel, passengers and the goods on board). Thus, according to the Government's report, when there is not an exceptional situation representing immediate danger, then it is only natural that such a measure shall not be resorted to or, if such measures are taken, then after the completion of the vessel's journey they shall be immediately lifted. Furthermore, the Government states that introduction of an amendment to the section in question would also be quite inappropriate because bringing back deserting seafarers on board by using force by the master of the vessel is closely connected with the purpose of the proper running of the vessel, and without their services, it would be impossible to run it. The Government points out that in the case of a master illegally exercising this authority given to him by law, there are penal provisions in the Commercial Code (article 1470) and, if the exercise constitutes a criminal offence, related remedial provisions in the Penal Code may be applied. The Government concludes that the authority in section 1467 of the Commercial Code is restricted to only "the case of necessity" and an adequate legal guarantee has been provided; therefore, it is considered that there is no non-conformity between the provisions of the paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention and the provisions of the Commercial Code.

The Committee takes due note of the Government's views, which are shared by the Turkish Confederation of Employers' Associations. Several of the points raised by the Government have been made previously and commented upon by the Committee. The Committee must observe, as it has in earlier comments, that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits without exception the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, and that in order to remain outside the scope of the Convention, any sanction involving compulsory labour must be limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons which need to be strictly defined. Neither these criteria nor those of Article 2(2)(d) of Convention No. 29 are met by the wording of section 1467 of the Commercial Code, which empowers the master to use force for ensuring the proper running of the vessel and the maintenance of discipline.

The existence of legal remedies is inadequate where the criteria laid down in national law do not meet the standard of the Convention.

Accordingly, the Committee trusts that the Government will re-examine its position in the light of the requirements of the Convention and will initiate action to clearly establish in law that the powers under section 1467 of the Commercial Code are limited to circumstances where the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons are in danger. The Committee looks forward to learning of the measures taken to this effect.