Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Ukraine (Ratification: 2000)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 1(a) and (c) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views and labour discipline. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government on the nature of the sanctions that may be imposed for liability for certain offences regarding the Act on political parties. It notes in particular that section 112 of the Code of Administrative Offences only provides for penalties in the form of fines. It notes also the information on the legislation in force regulating the service conditions on board merchant shipping vessels.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 367-1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or the improper performance by officials of their duties due to negligence, resulting in substantial damage to the legitimate rights and interests of persons, state or public interests, is punishable with a fine or correctional labour or the limitation of freedom (which involves compulsory labour, by virtue of section 61(1) of the Criminal Code). If the same act has grave consequences, it shall be punished with imprisonment (section 367-2). In this respect, the Committee noted the significant decrease in the use of section 367 of the Criminal Code (from 1,581 convictions in 2011 to 319 convictions in 2015), and requested the Government to continue to provide information on the scope of application of section 367 in order to ascertain that this provision was not used as a means of labour discipline.

The Committee notes that the Government emphasizes that section 367 does not solely criminalize the breach of labour discipline, but that relevant actions must also have resulted in significant harm. In this context, the Committee notes, from the statistics provided by the Government, that the number of convictions under section 367 of the Criminal Code further decreased to 42 in 2019, resulting in two persons being imprisoned and no correctional labour or the limitation of freedom applied as a sanction. The Committee observes, concerning the execution of sentences of imprisonment that, pursuant to section 118(5) of the Execution of Penalties Code, convicts may be involved for up to two hours a day in the improvement of detention facilities, as well as the improvement of living conditions of convicts or in ancillary work to provide detention facilities with food. Moreover, pursuant to section 118(2) of that Code, convicts sentenced to imprisonment who have debts under executive documents are obliged to work as determined by the administration of the prison, until such debts are paid.

The Committee takes due note of the further decrease in the use of section 367 of the Criminal Code, the absence of correctional labour or the limitation of freedom applied as a sanction, and the imprisonment of two convicts under this section in 2019. The Committee recalls that it has considered that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of sanctions (even involving compulsory labour) on persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. However, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience (see paragraph 175 of the 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour and paragraph 310 of the 2012 General Survey on fundamental Conventions).

In order to ascertain that section 367 of the Criminal Code is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, as explained above, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied under section 367 of the Criminal Code. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information describing the facts that have motivated such convictions so as to allow the Committee to examine the manner in which the notion of “substantial damages” in section 367 is interpreted by the Courts.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that pursuant to section 293 of the Criminal Code, a sanction of imprisonment of up to six months (which may involve compulsory labour) may be imposed for organized group action violating public order, or resulting in disturbances of the operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. It noted from the statistics provided by the Government that from 2011 to 2015, five judicial decisions were handed down under section 293, two of which led to convictions. It requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application of this provision to assess its compatibility with the Convention.

The Committee notes that, according to the statistics provided by the Government, in 2019, 22 judicial decisions were handed down under section 293 of the Criminal Code, one of which led to a case of detention. However, the Government has not indicated whether this case was related to the participation in a strike. The Committee recalls that sentences of imprisonment may involve the compulsory participation in labour according to sections 118-2 and 118-5 of the Execution of Penalties Code and section 52 of the Criminal Code. Referring also to its 2012 General Survey, paragraph 313, the Committee once again recalls that the Convention lays down a general prohibition to have recourse to any form of compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. However, the Convention does not prohibit the punishment of breaches of public order (acts of violence, assault or destruction of property) committed in connection with the strike; any sanctions (even involving compulsory labour) for offences of this kind obviously fall outside of the scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the application of section 293 of the Criminal Code in practice, indicating whether any of the convictions pronounced involved participation in strike action. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that no sanction involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peaceful participation in a strike. The Committee also refers in this regard to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, a second breach (within a year) of the rules governing the organization and conduct of public meetings, street marches and demonstrations may be punishable with correctional labour for a term of up to two months. The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that two Bills on the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly were tabled for consideration by the Parliament. The Bills proposed, inter alia, to define the legal framework concerning the organization and conduct of peaceful assemblies; and to amend or repeal section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences with a view, as indicated in the preamble, to prevent politically motivated prohibitions of assemblies by the judiciary and arrests of protestors.

The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the progress made with regard to the amendment or repeal of section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences. The Government indicates that section 185-1 provides penalties in the form of correctional labour in particular for violations of the procedures concerning organizing and holding gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations, but not for the organization itself or for the participating in such gatherings. The requirements concerning organizing and holding peaceful gatherings are not yet established by law. The Committee notes that, according to the statistics provided by the Government, 43 cases were considered under section 185-1 of the Code, resulting in four administrative offence notices (including two warnings, a fine and a conviction to public labour). Furthermore, the Committee observes that the Government has not provided information on the facts based on which these administrative offences were imposed.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The range of activities, which must be protected under this provision from punishment involving compulsory labour, comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views (see paragraph 302 of the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions). The Committee reiterates the hope that in the framework of the adoption of the legislation on the freedom of assembly, the Government will take into account the comments of the Committee with a view to amending or repealing section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment on persons exercising their right to assemble peacefully. Pending the adoption of the relevant legislation, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, particularly concerning any persons who have been sanctioned to correctional work, indicating the facts that led to the legal proceedings and to the imposition of sanctions.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Law on Political Parties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the violation of the Law on Political Parties of 2001 is punishable by administrative and penal sanctions (section 22). The Committee noted the Government’s indication that persons who violate this Law may be prosecuted under disciplinary, administrative, civil or criminal law, in accordance with the legislation currently in force. Thus, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the specific provisions to which it referred, under which criminal penalties could be imposed for violations of the Law on Political Parties, as well as copies of the relevant legislation.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Criminal Code penalizes deliberate obstruction of the lawful activities of political parties or their organs (section 170). It also punishes endangerment of the life of a Ukrainian political party leader or the lives of his or her close relatives, threats to murder or injure the leader or his or her close relatives or to destroy or damage their property and to kidnap or imprison them in connection with the political party leader’s governmental or political activities (sections 112 and 346). It also indicates that the Code on Administrative Offences establishes administrative penalties for breaches of statutory procedures for making or receiving contributions in support of political parties and for making or receiving state funding for the activities of political parties that are prescribed by their by-laws.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its future reports, on the application of the Law on Political Parties in practice, including on the offences, the number of convictions and the specific penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 367 of the Criminal Code, the non performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to the legitimate rights and interests of persons or to state interests, is punishable with correctional works or limitation of freedom (which involves compulsory labour, by virtue of section 107-2 of the Correctional Labour Code). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 367 of the Criminal Code in practice so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the number of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied pursuant to section 367 of the Criminal Code.

The Committee notes from the statistics provided by the Government that from 2011 to 2015, 4,985 decisions were pronounced under section 367 of the Criminal Code. However, the Committee notes a significant decrease in the application of section 367. Thus, in 2011 there were 1,581 convictions under this provision and in 2015 there were only 319 convictions. The Committee notes that in 2014 and 2015 correctional work was not applied as a sanction under section 27. The Committee recalls that in its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, it observed in respect of the sanctions applicable in the public service that the “Convention does not prohibit the imposition of sanctions (involving compulsory labour) on persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety and in circumstances where life or health are in danger. However, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience” (paragraph 175). The Committee takes due note of the significant decrease in the use of section 367 of the Criminal Code and requests the Government to continue to provide information on the scope of application of section 367, as well as on the number of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied, in order to ascertain that section 367 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that pursuant to section 30 of the Collective Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 1998, workers participating in a strike declared illegal by a court shall be held liable pursuant to procedures prescribed by law. It noted the Government’s statement that workers participating in illegal strikes are subject to disciplinary sanctions, pursuant to section 28 of the Collective Labour Disputes Resolution Act. It also noted that pursuant to section 293 of the Criminal Code, a term of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) of up to six months may be imposed for organized group action violating public order, or resulting in disturbances of the operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 293 of the Criminal Code.

The Committee notes from the statistics provided by the Government that from 2011 to 2015 there were five judicial decisions handed down under section 293 and two of them led to convictions.

Referring to its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee recalled that the Convention lays down a general prohibition to have recourse to any form of forced or compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. However, the Committee also recalls that the Convention does not prohibit “the punishment of breaches of public order (acts of violence, assault or destruction of property) committed in connection with the strike; any sanctions (even involving compulsory labour) for offences of this kind obviously fall out the scope of the Convention” (paragraph 313). While noting the information provided by the Government and in the light of the above comments, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 293 of the Criminal Code in practice and to ensure that the application of this provision is limited to the circumstances mentioned above and that no sanction involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peaceful participation in a strike.

Communication of texts. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply copies of the legislation in force governing meetings and demonstrations, as well as a copy of the legislation regulating the service conditions on board merchant shipping vessels.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, a second breach (within a year) of the rules governing the organization and conduct of public meetings, street marches and demonstrations may be punishable with correctional labour for a term of up to two months. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any legislation adopted regulating public assemblies does not contain penalties involving compulsory labour for activities protected by Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the progress made towards the adoption of the draft Law on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, as well as information on the penalties applied to persons who have committed offences under section 189-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences. It requested the Government to indicate in particular if any persons sentenced under this provision have been sanctioned to correctional work.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the exercise of the right to peaceful assemblies may be restricted in accordance with the law and solely in the interest of national security and public order. However, the Government states that the requirements for the organization and conduct of peaceful assemblies, the time frame for providing advance notice to government or local authorities, as well as the positive duties of the State with regard to safeguarding the holding of peaceful assemblies, have not yet been set out in law. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that both Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill No. 3587 of 7 December 2015 and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill No. 3587-1 of 11 December 2015 have been tabled for consideration at the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament). Firstly, these Bills propose to define the rights and duties of organizers of and participants in peaceful assemblies and the legal powers and duties of state and local authorities with regard to the organization and conduct of peaceful assemblies. Secondly, they propose to lay out clearly the sole grounds for and means of restricting freedom of peaceful assembly. Lastly, they set forth monitoring and mediation procedures to be used during these peaceful assemblies. The Committee notes that Decision 974 VIII of the Parliament of 3 February 2016 placed these Bills on the agenda of the fourth sitting of the Parliament’s eighth session. The Government indicates that Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill No. 3587 proposes to amend the first and second paragraphs of section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences and that Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill No. 3587-1 proposes to delete the entire same section. The Government indicates that those propositions aim to prevent politically motivated prohibitions of assemblies by the judiciary and arrests of protestors.

With reference to paragraph 302 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The range of activities, which must be protected under this provision from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour, thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion.

Noting the Government’s indication that section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences may be either amended or repealed, the Committee reiterates its hope that during the legislative process, the Government will take into account the comments of the Committee with a view to ensuring that no sanctions involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment on persons exercising their right to assemble peacefully. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the amendment or repeal of section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences. Pending the adoption of these Bills, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, including the facts on the basis of which the persons have been prosecuted.

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Law on Political Parties. The Committee previously noted that the violation of the Law on Political Parties of 2001 is punishable by administrative and penal sanctions (section 22). It requested information on the particular administrative and criminal sanctions that could be imposed. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that persons who violate this Law may be prosecuted under disciplinary, administrative, civil or criminal law, in accordance with the legislation currently in force. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific provisions to which it refers, under which criminal penalties could be imposed for violations of the Law on Political Parties, as well as copies of the relevant legislation. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application of the Law on Political Parties in practice, including the number of convictions and the specific penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 367 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or to state interests, is punishable with correctional works or limitation of freedom (which involves compulsory labour, by virtue of section 107-2 of the Correctional Labour Code). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 367 of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of this provision, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied pursuant to section 367 of the Criminal Code.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that pursuant to section 30 of the Collective Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 1998, workers participating in a strike declared illegal by a court shall be held liable pursuant to procedures prescribed by law. It noted the Government’s statement that workers participating in illegal strikes are subject to disciplinary sanctions, pursuant to section 28 of the Collective Labour Disputes Resolution Act. It also noted that pursuant to section 293 of the Criminal Code, a term of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) of up to six months may be imposed for organized group action violating public order, or resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. With reference to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 293 of the Criminal Code, including the number of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied, as well as copies of any relevant court decisions.

Communication of texts. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply copies of the legislation in force governing meetings and demonstrations, as well as a copy of the legislation regulating the service conditions on board merchant shipping vessels.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, a second breach (within a year) of the rules governing the organization and conduct of public meetings, street marches and demonstrations may be punishable with correctional labour for a term of up to two months. It requested information on the application of this provision in practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in 2012, there were a total of 139 offences under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, including six repeat offences, and that 124 persons were issued with an administrative offence notice by the police. In the first six months of 2013, 87 such offences were recorded, including five repeat offenders, and 78 persons were issued with an administrative offence notice. The Government indicates that, in general, the sentence imposed by courts on persons convicted of an administrative offence under section 185-1 is a warning, a fine or administrative detention. The Committee also notes that a draft Law on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly has been developed, containing provisions to repeal section 185-1. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Human Rights Committee (HRC), in its concluding observations of 22 August 2013, expressed concern at the lack of a domestic legal framework regulating peaceful events and at the application by domestic courts of outdated regulations which are not in line with international standards and severely restrict the right to freedom of assembly. The HRC also expressed concern at reports that the success rate of local authorities’ applications in court for banning peaceful assemblies may be as high as 90 per cent (CCPR/C/UKR/CO/7, paragraph 21).

With reference to paragraph 302 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour “as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system”. The range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. The Committee accordingly requests Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any legislation adopted regulating public assemblies does not contain penalties involving compulsory labour for activities protected by Article 1(a) of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made towards the adoption of the draft Law on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. Pending its adoption, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific penalties applied to persons found to have committed repeat offences under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, and to provide copies of relevant court decisions in this regard. It requests, in particular, for the Government to indicate if any persons sentenced under this provision have been sentenced to correctional work, as provided for in paragraph 2 of section 185-1.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Communication of texts. The Committee notes the Law on the Press, 1992, communicated by the Government with its report. It requests the Government once again to supply copies of the legislation in force governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, as well as a copy of Service Regulations on board merchant vessels, to which reference is made in section 54 of the Code of Merchant Marine, 1995.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions for expressing political views. The Committee previously noted that, under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, violation of rules governing the organization and conducting of public meetings, street marches and demonstrations may be punishable with correctional works for a term of up to two months. The Committee requests the Government once again to supply information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that the violation of the Political Parties Act, 2001, is punishable by administrative and penal sanctions (section 22). The Committee requests the Government once again to provide clarifications concerning the scope of administrative or criminal liability for violation of the Act, indicating in particular administrative and criminal sanctions which may be imposed.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 367 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or to State interests, is punishable with correctional works or limitation of freedom (which involves compulsory labour, in virtue of section 107-2 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 11 July 2001). The Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the application of section 367 of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee asked the Government to clarify the scope of liability of workers under section 30 of the Collective Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 1998, which stipulates that workers participating in a strike declared illegal by a court shall be held liable pursuant to procedures prescribed by law. It also requested the Government to indicate sanctions which may be imposed for participation in illegal strikes.

The Government states in its report that workers participating in illegal strikes are subject to disciplinary sanctions, under section 28 of the Collective Labour Disputes Resolution Act, and that section 293 of the Criminal Code (organization of group actions violating public order or resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations) is not applicable.

While noting these indications, and referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Ukraine, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the application of section 293 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention. Sanctions for expressing political views. 1. The Committee previously noted that, under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, violation of rules governing the organization and conducting of public meetings, street marches and demonstrations may be punishable with correctional works for a term of up to two months. While noting the Government’s explanations in its report, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee previously noted that the violation of the Political Parties Act 2001, is punishable by administrative and penal sanctions (section 22). The Committee again requests the Government to provide clarifications concerning the scope of administrative or criminal liability for violation of the Act, indicating in particular administrative and criminal sanctions which may be imposed.

Article 1, subparagraph (c). Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that under section 367 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or to state interests, is punishable with correctional works or limitation of freedom (which involves compulsory labour, in virtue of section 107-2 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 11 July 2001). The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 367 of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph (d). Sanctions for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that according to section 30 of the Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act 1998, workers participating in a strike declared illegal by a court shall be held liable pursuant to procedures prescribed by law. It requested the Government to clarify the scope of such liability. In the absence of the Government’s response, the Committee reiterates its request and asks the Government to indicate what kind of sanctions are applicable for participation in illegal strikes. The Committee again asks the Government to indicate whether section 293 of the Criminal Code concerning the organization of group actions violating public order or resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations (which is punishable with arrest for a term of up to six months) is applicable to participants in illegal strikes, and if so, to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

Communication of texts. The Committee again requests the Government to supply with its next report, copies of the legislation in force governing the press and assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, as well as a copy of Disciplinary Rules on board merchant vessels, to which reference is made in section 54 of the Code of Merchant Marine, 1995, and copies of any other provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions for expressing political views. 1. The Committee previously noted that under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, violation of rules governing the organization and conducting of public meetings, street marches and demonstrations may be punishable with correctional works for a term of up to two months. While noting the Government’s explanations in its report, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee previously noted that the violation of the Political Parties Act 2001, is punishable by administrative and penal sanctions (section 22). The Committee again requests the Government to provide clarifications concerning the scope of administrative or criminal liability for violation of the Act, indicating in particular administrative and criminal sanctions which may be imposed.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that under section 367 of the Criminal Code, the non‑performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or to state interests, is punishable with correctional works or limitation of freedom (which involves compulsory labour, in virtue of section 107-2 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 11 July 2001). The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 367 of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that according to section 30 of the Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act 1998, workers participating in a strike declared illegal by a court shall be held liable pursuant to procedures prescribed by law. It requested the Government to clarify the scope of such liability. In the absence of the Government’s response, the Committee reiterates its request and asks the Government to indicate what kind of sanctions are applicable for participation in illegal strikes. Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Ukraine, the Committee again asks the Government to indicate whether section 293 of the Criminal Code concerning the organization of group actions violating public order or resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations (which is punishable with arrest for a term of up to six months) is applicable to participants in illegal strikes, and if so, to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

 Communication of texts. The Committee again requests the Government to supply with its next report, copies of the legislation in force governing the press and assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, as well as a copy of Disciplinary Rules on board merchant vessels, to which reference is made in section 54 of the Code of Merchant Marine, 1995, and copies of any other provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

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

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first and second reports on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force governing the press and assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, as well as a copy of the Disciplinary Rules on board merchant vessels, to which reference is made in section 54 of the Code of Merchant Marine, 1995, and copies of any other provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. The Committee also requests the Government to provide, in its next report, additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee has noted that, under section 185-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences, violation of rules governing the organization and conducting of public meetings, street marches and demonstrations may be punishable with correctional works for a term of up to two months. The Committee requests the Government to supply, in its next report, information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee has noted that the violation of the Political Parties Act of 2001 is publishable by administrative and penal sanctions (section 22). The Committee would appreciate if the Government would provide clarifications concerning the scope of administrative or criminal liability for violation of the Act, indicating in particular administrative and criminal sanctions which may be imposed.

Article 1(c). 3. The Committee has noted that, under section 367 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or to state interests, is publishable with correctional works or limitation of freedom (which involves compulsory labour, by virtue of section 107-2 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 11 July 2001). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 367 of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. Referring to its 2002 observation made under Convention No. 87 likewise ratified by Ukraine, the Committee notes that, according to section 30 of the Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act, 1998, workers participating in a strike declared illegal by a court, shall be held liable pursuant to procedures prescribed by law. The Government is requested to clarify the scope of such liability and to indicate what kind of sanctions are applicable for participation in illegal strikes. Please indicate whether section 293 of the Criminal Code concerning the organization of group actions violating public order or resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations (which is punishable with arrest for a term of up to six months) is applicable to participants in illegal strikes, and if so, supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.