Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Bulgaria (Ratification: 1999)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Relevance of compulsory prison labour to the Convention. The Committee previously observed that convicted prisoners have the obligation to perform labour pursuant to the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act of 2009 and the Rules Implementing the Execution of Penalties and Detention in Custody Act of 2010, as amended in 2017. It noted that according to section 96(1) of the Act, persons deprived of their liberty shall be obliged to perform the work assigned to them by the prison administration, non-compliance with this obligation being punishable with disciplinary sanctions under sections 100(2) (1 and 5) and 101 of the Act. Section 167(1) of the Implementing Rules states that all prisoners, who are capable of working, are obliged to perform work assigned to them by the administration.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the provisions under the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act and its Implementing regulations will be discussed during the forthcoming regulatory amendments. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no bearing on the application of the Convention, but if a person is in any way compelled to work because he or she holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, this situation is covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the amendments adopted to the legislation governing the execution of penal sanctions, indicating whether convicted persons remain under the obligation to perform labour.

Article 1(a) and (c). Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views and for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that several provisions of the Penal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment, which involve compulsory prison labour, in situations that may fall within the scope of:

• -Article 1(a) of the Convention in relation to expressing political views (section 108(1) for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology”; section 164 for dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise; section 166 for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise; and section 174(a)(2) for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation); and
• -Article 1(c) of the Convention in relation to breaches of labour discipline (section 107 for creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties; and section 228(1) for issuing poor-quality, non-standard or incomplete products).

The Committee notes the copy of the court decisions handed down in 2020 and 2016 for violations under section 164 (two cases), section 174(a) (one case) and section 228 (one case) of the Penal Code, submitted by the Government with its report. In all the cases, no criminal liability was established and the accused were imposed with administrative penalty involving fines.

While acknowledging that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour were imposed under the above mentioned provisions, the Committee nevertheless recalls that sections 107, 108(1), 164, 166, 174(a)(2) and 228 of the Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for peacefully expressing views or breaches of labour discipline and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour, they may have a bearing on the application of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to review the above-mentioned provisions so that no penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour may be imposed on persons for peacefully expressing political views or for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of sections 107, 108(1), 164, 166, 174(a)(2) and 228 of the Penal Code in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope as well as the sanctions applied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Obligation to work of persons deprived of liberty. The Committee previously noted that despite the Government’s indication that the voluntary nature of prison labour would be introduced in the new legislation, section 96(1) of the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act of 2009, provides that persons deprived of their liberty shall be obliged to perform the work assigned to them by the prison administration, the non-compliance with this obligation being punishable with disciplinary sanctions under sections 100(2) (1 and 5) and 101 of the Act.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the obligation to work under section 96(1) of the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act 2009, refers to the tasks for the maintenance of the hygiene within the prison premises, as provided for by section 176(1) of the Rules Implementing the Execution of Penalties and Detention in Custody Act of 2010, as amended in 2017 (hereafter the Implementing Rules). The Committee notes, however, that according to section 167(1) of the Implementing Rules, all prisoners, who are capable to work, are obliged to perform work assigned to them by the administration. Moreover, under section 163(1) of the Implementing Rules, the express written consent for the participation in labour activities is explicitly required only for the accused and the defendants, not for all prisoners, in particular, the convicts. In addition, as provided for by section 176(1), prisoners also have the obligation to work for the maintenance of hygiene, aside from the labour activities regulated by the abovementioned provisions, such as the work in the State Enterprise “Prison Fund” and in the services and communal activities of the prison institutions (section 164). The Committee therefore observes that, pursuant to the current legislative provisions, convicted prisoners have the obligation to perform labour.

Article 1(a) and (c) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views and for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that several provisions of the Penal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment, which involve compulsory prison labour, in situations that may fall within the scope of:

• -Article 1(a) of the Convention, for expressing political views (section 108(1) for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology”; section 164 for dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise; section 166 for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise; and section 174(a)(2) for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation); and
• -Article 1(c) of the Convention, for breaches of labour discipline (section 107 for creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties; and section 228(1) for issuing poor-quality, non-standard or incomplete products).

The Government indicated that, in 2011, only one person received a penalty of six months’ imprisonment under section 174(a)(2) of the Penal Code but that the enforcement of the penal sanction was suspended for a period of three years. The Government also stated that no person has been identified serving an imprisonment sentence under the above sections of the Penal Code. The Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the above provisions of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes the copy of a court decision handed down in 2016 under section 108(1) of the Penal Code, submitted by the Government with its report. The defendant was accused of drawing a Nazi symbol and a slogan preaching national-socialist and racist ideology, and received an administrative fine of 1,000 Bulgarian leva. No criminal liability was established in this case. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. The Committee recalls that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to the application as a means of punishment for peacefully expressing political views or for breaches of labour discipline and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, they may fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to review the above-mentioned national legislation so that no penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour may be imposed on persons for peacefully expressing political views or for breaches of labour discipline, thereby ensuring conformity with the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of sections 107, 108(1), 164, 166, 174(a)(2) and 228 of the Penal Code in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope as well as the sanctions applied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Article 1(a) and (c) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views and for breaches of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that despite the Government’s indication that the voluntary nature of prison labour would be introduced in the new legislation, section 96(1) of the new Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act, 2009, provides that persons deprived of their liberty shall be obliged to perform the work assigned to them by the prison administration, the non-compliance with this obligation being punishable with disciplinary sanctions under sections 100(2) (1 and 5) and 101 of the Act. The Committee therefore observed that, pursuant to the above legislative provisions of the new Act, convicted prisoners are obliged to perform prison labour under the menace of a penalty. In this regard, the Committee noted that several provisions of the Penal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which can therefore involve compulsory prison labour in situations that may fall within the scope of:

• -Article 1(a) of the Convention, for expressing political views (sections 108(1) for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology”; section 164 for dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise; section 166 for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise; and section 174(a)(2) for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation); and
• -Article 1(c) of the Convention, for breaches of labour discipline (section 107 for creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties; and section 228(1) for issuing poor-quality, non-standard or incomplete products).

The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions of the Penal Code in practice.

In this regard, the Government refers to the information provided by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation according to which, in 2011, only one person was imposed a penalty of six months of imprisonment, under section 174(a)(2) of the Penal Code, but that the enforcement of the penal sanction was suspended for a period of three years. The Government adds that in this particular case the penalty should not be served effectively within a prison establishment. Furthermore, the report made by the Chief Directorate for Execution of Penalties with the Ministry of Justice does not identify any person serving an imprisonment sentence under the above sections of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. However, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) and (c) of the Convention prohibit the use of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for breaches of labour discipline. It draws the attention of the Government to the fact that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to the application as a means of punishment for peacefully expressing political views or for breaches of labour discipline and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment which can involve compulsory labour, they may fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will review its national legislation in the light of the above clarifications so that the voluntary nature of prison labour is expressly provided for in its national legislation and no penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour may be imposed on persons for expressing political views or for breaches of labour discipline, thereby ensuring conformity with the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of sections 107, 108(1), 164, 166, 174(a)(2) and 228 of the Penal Code in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope as well as the sanctions applied.

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

Compulsory prison labour

The Committee previously noted that, under the old Implementation of Penal Sanctions Act (now repealed and replaced by the new Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act, 2009), prisoners were obliged to perform work assigned to them by the prison administration, and the non-performance of the obligation to work was punishable with disciplinary sanctions. It also noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that the voluntary nature of prison labour would be introduced in the forthcoming amendments of the Act. However, the Committee notes, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), that under section 96(1) of the new Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act, 2009, persons deprived of their liberty shall be obligated to perform the work assigned to them by the prison administration, the non compliance with this obligation being punishable with disciplinary sanctions under sections 100(2)(1 and 5) and 101 of the Act. It therefore appears from the above legislative provisions of the new Act that convicted prisoners are obliged to perform prison labour under the menace of a penalty, even if they have the right to be given suitable work, in accordance with section 77(1) of the Act.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for holding or expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour under the abovementioned provisions) may be imposed, inter alia, for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology” (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174(a)(2)). The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It observes that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention.

While noting the Government’s statement in the report that there have been no convictions under the above sections of the Penal Code during the reporting period, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, as soon as such information becomes available, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 228(1) of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour, as explained above) may be imposed for issuing poor-quality, non-standard or incomplete products. It recalled that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. While noting the Government’s statement in the report that there have been no convictions under this provision during the reporting period, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the application of section 228(1) in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, as soon as such information becomes available, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

The Committee previously noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years and, in the most serious cases – up to 15 years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee previously noted the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of this section, which, according to the Government, is only applicable in the case of sabotage, but not in the cases of violation of labour discipline or participation in a strike. While noting the Government’s statement in the report that there have been no convictions under this section during the reporting period, and that the inspectorate at the Supreme Judicial Council has no information available on the implementation of this provision, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the application in practice of section 107 of the Penal Code referred to above, as soon as it becomes available, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

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

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

Compulsory prison labour

The Committee previously noted that section 38(a) of the Execution of Punishment Act, as well as section 66(1) of the Execution of Punishment Rules, provide for an obligation of prisoners to perform work assigned to them by the prison administration, and section 76 of the Execution of Punishment Act imposes disciplinary sanctions for the non-performance of the obligation to work or other obligations by the prisoners. It has noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report that section 38(a) referred to above is going to be amended and that the principle of voluntary nature of prison labour will be introduced in the forthcoming amendments of the Execution of Punishment Act. The Government also indicates that, in practice, disciplinary sanctions for refusal to work in prisons are not applied. According to the Government’s latest report, a new draft Execution of Punishment Act was prepared in 2008. The Committee notes this information and is looking forward to receiving a copy of amendments to the Execution of Punishment Act, as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for holding or expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour under the abovementioned provisions) may be imposed, inter alia, for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology” (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174a (2)). The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It observes that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views, and in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention. Having noted the Government’s statement in its latest report that no court decisions have been passed under the abovementioned provisions, the Committee nevertheless reiterates its hope that the Government will provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, as soon as such information becomes available, in order to define or illustrate their scope, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee has noted the information on the application in practice of section 219(1) of the Penal Code concerning negligent performance by an official of his duties causing substantial harm or damages to the enterprise. In its earlier comments, the Committee also referred to section 228(1) of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for issuing poor quality, non-standard or incomplete products. Recalling that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 228(1) in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, and to indicate measures taken or envisaged to ensure the compliance with the Convention on this point. It refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraphs 171–178 of its General Survey of 2007on the eradication of forced labour.

In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, and in the most serious cases – up to 15 years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee has duly noted the Government’s detailed explanations concerning the interpretation of this section, which, according to the Government, is only applicable in the case of sabotage, but not in the cases of violation of labour discipline or participation in a strike. It has also noted the information on the application in practice of sections 106 and 109 of the Penal Code concerning subversive activities and organization of criminal groups respectively, annexed to the Government’s report. While having noted this information, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 107 of the Penal Code referred to above, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request. It has noted, in particular, the Radio and Television Act and the Code of Ethics of the Bulgarian Media, annexed to the Government’s reports received in December 2006 and September 2008. The Committee has also noted the Government’s indication that the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers concerning employment relationship in merchant shipping, issued under section 88b of the Merchant Shipping Code, contains no provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping, and that, consequently, the general provisions of the Labour Code are applicable to cases of breaches of labour discipline by seafarers.

Compulsory prison labour

The Committee previously noted that section 38(a) of the Execution of Punishment Act, as well as section 66(1) of the Execution of Punishment Rules, provide for an obligation of prisoners to perform work assigned to them by the prison administration, and section 76 of the Execution of Punishment Act imposes disciplinary sanctions for the non-performance of the obligation to work or other obligations by the prisoners. It has noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report that section 38(a) referred to above is going to be amended and that the principle of voluntary nature of prison labour will be introduced in the forthcoming amendments of the Execution of Punishment Act. The Government also indicates that, in practice, disciplinary sanctions for refusal to work in prisons are not applied. According to the Government’s latest report, a new draft Execution of Punishment Act was prepared in 2008. The Committee notes this information and is looking forward to receiving a copy of amendments to the Execution of Punishment Act, as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for holding or expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour under the abovementioned provisions) may be imposed, inter alia, for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology” (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174a (2)). The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It observes that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views, and in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention. Having noted the Government’s statement in its latest report that no court decisions have been passed under the abovementioned provisions, the Committee nevertheless reiterates its hope that the Government will provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, as soon as such information becomes available, in order to define or illustrate their scope, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. 1. The Committee has noted the information on the application in practice of section 219(1) of the Penal Code concerning negligent performance by an official of his duties causing substantial harm or damages to the enterprise. In its earlier comments, the Committee also referred to section 228(1) of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for issuing poor quality, non-standard or incomplete products. Recalling that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 228(1) in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, and to indicate measures taken or envisaged to ensure the compliance with the Convention on this point. It refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraphs 171–178 of its General Survey of 2007on the eradication of forced labour.

2. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, and in the most serious cases – up to 15 years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee has duly noted the Government’s detailed explanations concerning the interpretation of this section, which, according to the Government, is only applicable in the case of sabotage, but not in the cases of violation of labour discipline or participation in a strike. It has also noted the information on the application in practice of sections 106 and 109 of the Penal Code concerning subversive activities and organization of criminal groups respectively, annexed to the Government’s report. While having noted this information, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 107 of the Penal Code referred to above, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

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

1. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. The Committee would also appreciate it if the Government would provide copies of any provisions governing the press and other media.

2. Compulsory prison labour

The Committee has noted the Government’s reference in its report to sections 24(1) and 64 of the Execution of Punishment Act, which stipulate that prisoners have the right to be given suitable work, which should be assigned by the prison administration in accordance with the existing possibilities and taking into account the prisoners’ age, sex, state of health, working capacity and their rehabilitation needs. The Government indicates that work is not an obligation but a right of prisoners. The Committee notes, however, that section 38(a) of the Act expressly provides for an obligation of prisoners to perform work assigned to them by the prison administration, and section 76 of the same Act imposes disciplinary sanctions for the non-performance of the obligation to work or other obligations by the prisoners. The Committee further notes that section 66(1) of the Execution of Punishment Rules also provides for the obligation of all able-bodied prisoners to work. It therefore appears from the above legislative provisions that all convicted prisoners are obliged to perform prison labour.

The Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102-109 of its General Survey of 1979 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. As indicated by the Committee in paragraph 105 of its General Survey of 1979, 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, but 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.

3. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing views opposed to the established system. The Committee previously noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour under the abovementioned provisions) may be imposed inter alia for the propagation of “anti‑democratic ideology” (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174a(2)). Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or 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 reiterates its hope that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on the application of the above penal provisions in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure conformity with the Convention in this regard.

4. Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted the provisions of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for a negligent performance by an official of his duties causing substantial harm or damages to the enterprise (section 219(1) and (2)) and for issuing poor quality, non-standard or incomplete products (section 228(1)). The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. Noting the Government’s statement in its report that the non-performance of work obligations may constitute a crime under the Penal Code and may result in imposing a penal liability in the conditions prescribed by the law, the Committee requests the Government to describe such conditions and to provide information on the application of the above penal provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope and indicating measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

5. Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, and in the most serious cases – up to 15 years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee has noted the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of this section, which, according to the Government, is only applicable in the case of sabotage. However, referring also to its comments on Convention No. 87 concerning restrictions on the right to strike in certain sectors, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 107 in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether sanctions provided for in this section are not used as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline and for having participated in strikes.

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

1. The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request. It has noted, in particular, the Execution of Punishment Act and Regulations and the Law on Assemblies, Meetings and Manifestations, annexed to the Government’s report, as well as the Merchant Shipping Code and the Regulation on the Employment Relationship between Seafarers and Shipowner (No. 93) of 21 October 2003, communicated by the Government. As the above texts contain no provisions regarding disciplinary sanctions applicable to seafarers, the Committee again requests the Government to supply copies of any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. Noting also the Government’s indication that there is no law concerning the press in Bulgaria, the Committee would appreciate it if the Government would provide copies of any provisions governing the press and other media.

Compulsory prison labour

2. The Committee has noted the Government’s reference in its report to sections 24(1) and 64 of the Execution of Punishment Act, which stipulate that prisoners have the right to be given suitable work, which should be assigned by the prison administration in accordance with the existing possibilities and taking into account the prisoners’ age, sex, state of health, working capacity and their rehabilitation needs. The Government indicates that work is not an obligation but a right of prisoners. The Committee notes, however, that section 38(a) of the Act expressly provides for an obligation of prisoners to perform work assigned to them by the prison administration, and section 76 of the same Act imposes disciplinary sanctions for the non-performance of the obligation to work or other obligations by the prisoners. The Committee further notes that section 66(1) of the Execution of Punishment Rules also provides for the obligation of all able-bodied prisoners to work. It therefore appears from the above legislative provisions that all convicted prisoners are obliged to perform prison labour.

3. The Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102-109 of its General Survey of 1979 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. As indicated by the Committee in paragraph 105 of its General Survey of 1979, 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, but 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.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing views opposed to the established system. 4. The Committee previously noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour under the abovementioned provisions) may be imposed inter alia for the propagation of "anti-democratic ideology" (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174a(2)). Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or 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 reiterates its hope that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on the application of the above penal provisions in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure conformity with the Convention in this regard.

5.  Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. 5. The Committee previously noted the provisions of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for a negligent performance by an official of his duties causing substantial harm or damages to the enterprise (section 219(1) and (2)) and for issuing poor quality, non-standard or incomplete products (section 228(1)). The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. Noting the Government’s statement in its report that the non-performance of work obligations may constitute a crime under the Penal Code and may result in imposing a penal liability in the conditions prescribed by the law, the Committee requests the Government to describe such conditions and to provide information on the application of the above penal provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope and indicating measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

6.  Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. 6. The Committee previously noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, and in the most serious cases - up to 15 years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee has noted the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of this section, which, according to the Government, is only applicable in the case of sabotage. However, referring also to its comments on Convention No. 87 concerning restrictions on the right to strike in certain sectors, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 107 in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether sanctions provided for in this section are not used as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline and for having participated in strikes.

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

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the following legislation: the Serving Punishment Act and Regulations; the Law on Assemblies, Meetings and Manifestations; the law governing the press, and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. The Committee also requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee has noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which seem to involve compulsory prison labour, in accordance with section 41 of the Penal Code) may be imposed inter alia for the propagation of "other anti-democratic ideology" (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174a(2)). The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on the application of the above penal provisions in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). The Committee has noted the provisions of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which seem to involve prison labour) may be imposed for a negligent performance by an official of his duties causing substantial harm or damages to the enterprise (section 219(1), (2)) and for issuing poor-quality, non-standard or incomplete products (section 228(1)). Recalling that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these penal provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and to indicate measures taken or envisaged to ensure the compliance with the Convention on this point.

Article 1(c) and (d). The Committee has noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performance of regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, and in the most serious cases - up to 15 years. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 107 in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used in the circumstances covered by subparagraphs (c) and (d) of Article 1, which prohibit the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Referring also to its observation on Convention No. 87, also ratified by Bulgaria, in which it noted certain restrictions imposed on the right to strike in the public service (section 47 of the Public Servants Act, 1999), the Committee requests the Government to indicate provisions imposing sanctions for violations of such restrictions, and to state, in particular, whether the abovementioned section 107 of the Penal Code is applicable in this situation, supplying copy of the relevant court decisions.