Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Greece (Ratification: 1952)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1989, Publication: 76th ILC session (1989)

The Government has communicated the following information:

Regarding the observations of the Committee of Experts on this Convention, the Government refers to the report it submitted on the application of this Convention for the period 1987-1988.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) received on 1 September 2021 and 30 August 2022 as well as the Government’s reply received on 29 August 2022.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. 1. National Action Plan. Implementation and assessment. In response to its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the detailed information on the initiatives undertaken by the Office of the National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings (ONR) within the framework of the National Action Plan 2019–23 on the Prevention and Fight against Human Trafficking and the Protection and Rehabilitation of Victims. It notes in particular (i) the establishment of a permanent working group of experts for monitoring the implementation of the current legislation on trafficking in persons; (ii) the translation and dissemination of the Compendium of Good practices in addressing human trafficking for labour exploitation by the Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) to all the public prosecutors; (iii) the support to and partnership with the private sector to pursue anti-trafficking in human beings objectives and due diligence on private sector supply chains and public procurements; and (iv) the conduct of several training activities for labour inspectors, police, public prosecutors, social care units, the asylum unit and NGOs on the fight against human trafficking. The Government indicates that special attention was placed on combating trafficking in persons for forced labour which included a series of projects aimed at improving data collection on forced labour, organizing vocational training programmes for labour inspectors, and creating an institutional framework for cooperation at the operational level between the Labour Inspectorate, Hellenic Police and the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). Moreover, the Government indicates that a public strategy to prevent and suppress human trafficking for exploitation has been developed which inter alia focusses on better coordination and enhancement of the Polices’ operational response, the timely identification and protection of victims, and the enforcement of interdepartmental as well as cross-border cooperation.

The Committee notes that in their observations, the GSEE refers to the lack of tripartite dialogue in relation to the issue of trafficking in persons since the implementation and monitoring of the national action plan is the competence of the ONR in which social partners are not represented. The Committee encourages the Government to continue its efforts to combat trafficking in persons, both for labour and sexual exploitation and requests it to provide information on the implementation of the public strategy to prevent and suppress human trafficking. Please provide information on any assessment of the implementation of the strategy undertaken by the ONR, including on the results achieved, the difficulties faced, and the action envisaged as a consequence, indicating also how social partners are involved in these processes.

2. Protection of victims. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s information that Law No. 4478/2017 was amended to include provisions for (i) minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of human trafficking; (ii) protection of victims from secondary and repeated victimization and intimidation; (iii) protection of victims from the risk of mental, emotional or psychological damage; and (iv) protection of victims’ dignity in the course of their examination or testimony. The Government also indicates that: (i) a special Working Group for the protection of victims of trafficking was established which reviews and assesses the assistance provided to victims and undertakes the necessary initiatives in this regard; (ii) an information leaflet on the protection framework for victims of trafficking and the NRM handbook was disseminated among relevant actors; (iii) a specialized Standard Operating Procedure for health actors as well as for the Reception and Identification Centres on the islands and mainland to be used upon the identification of a presumed victim of trafficking was created; and (iv) the NRM conducted a series of training activities for labour inspectors on identification, referral and protection of victims of trafficking and their effective reporting to the NRM. The Committee requests the Government to continue to take measures to ensure the early identification of victims of trafficking and to provide them with appropriate protection and assistance for their recovery and rehabilitation. It requests the Government to provide information in this regard, and in particular on measures taken to inform foreign victims on their rights (recovery periods, temporary resident permits, legal aid, rights to compensation, etc). The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the number of victims of trafficking who have been identified and have been provided assistance indicating the type of assistance and services granted.

3. Prosecution and application of penal sanctions. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the various training activities, both national and international, undertaken by the Hellenic Police for improving the process of identification and investigation of cases of trafficking as well as the actions carried out within the framework of the Anti-Crime Policy Programme 2020–24 to tackle trafficking in persons. The Committee also notes the detailed information on the various national and regional meetings and training seminars attended by the labour inspectors and the Judges and Public Prosecutors pertaining to various aspects of combating trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants.

Concerning the number of cases of trafficking investigated by the Hellenic Police, the Committee notes that in 2018, 28 cases of trafficking (2 for labour exploitation and 26 for sexual exploitation) involving 31 victims and 136 perpetrators were investigated, and in 2019, 26 cases (21 for sexual exploitation and the rest for begging, forced marriage, etc.) involving 47 victims and 148 perpetrators were investigated. It observes that the Government has not provided information on convictions. With regard to the data from the Labour Inspectorate, in 2020, 46,127 enterprises were inspected, 1,995 undeclared workers were identified for which a fine of €22,762,043 was imposed. In 2021, 49,798 enterprises were inspected, 2,385 undeclared workers were identified leading to a fine of €27,396,247.

The Committee notes that the GSEE, in its observations, refers to the lack of effective labour inspection to monitor forced labour issues and states that the detachment of the Labour Inspectorate from the Ministry of Labour has prevented the trade unions from participating in the labour inspection monitoring, particularly in the agricultural sector. It adds that forced labour cases remain substantively unreported. The Committee also notes from the GRETA report of 2022 that the statistics indicate a low number of identified victims of trafficking for labour exploitation, compared to the large number of undocumented workers, many of whom are land workers, domestic workers or those employed in construction industry and tourism.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement bodies so as to ensure that perpetrators of trafficking in persons are punished with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee encourages the Government to strengthen the capacity and resources of the labour inspection services throughout the country in order to properly identify situations involving labour exploitation, including trafficking in persons, in particular in sectors where migrant workers are most present, to gather evidence, and to collaborate with other bodies responsible for enforcing the law. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of investigations and prosecutions carried out in cases of trafficking in persons, or any other form of labour exploitation amounting to forced labour, and on the number of convictions handed down and penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) received on 31 August 2018. The Committee further notes the observations of the Greek Medical Corps Association (ESTIA) received in May 2019, as well the Government’s reply to these observations received in October 2019.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. 1. Legal and institutional framework. The Committee previously noted the adoption of Act No. 4198/2013 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and other provisions. A Coordination Mechanism with public authorities had also been established as well as a National Referral Mechanism (NRM). Moreover, a national strategy for combating trafficking in human beings was to be adopted. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of the national strategy to combat trafficking in human beings, as well as on the measures taken to ensure better identification of victims, their protection, support and compensation as provided for in the legislation.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the National Action Plan for Preventing and Fighting against Human Trafficking, Protecting and Supporting the victims, and Prosecuting the perpetrators (2018–23) has been developed with the participation of public agencies, NGOs, civil society and grass root organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the National Action Plan for Preventing and Fighting against Human Trafficking, Protecting and Supporting the victims, and Prosecuting the perpetrators (2018–23), including the measures taken for its implementation. It also requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved following the adoption of the National Action Plan.

2. Identification and protection of victims. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a formal national identification and referral system for victims and presumed victims of trafficking has been established (Ministerial Decision No. 30840 of 20 September 2016). The mechanism operates as a hub for coordinated action and partnership building, among all actors involved in combating trafficking in persons. It also brings in additional professionals and stakeholders into the screening and identification process of mixed migratory/refugee flows (migration services, labour inspectors, health providers, local administration authorities).The Government also indicates that under the Migration and Social Integration Code (Law No. 4251/2014) a residence permit is provided for victims of trafficking, even if the person does not cooperate with the competent authorities, provided the person has been recognized by the competent prosecutor as a victim of trafficking. Under section 19A of Law No. 4251/2014, victims of trafficking who do not cooperate with the competent authorities, are granted free of charge a one-year residence permit for humanitarian reasons according to a decision of the Minister of Migration Policy. The one-year residence permit can be renewed for two years each time only under the precondition that the relevant criminal proceedings continue (Law No. 4332/2015 amending Law No. 4251/2014). Moreover, if a person prosecuted for infringement of the Immigration Law, for illegal prostitution, or for participating in criminal activities indicates that she/he is a victim of trafficking and the activities for which she/he is prosecuted are the direct result of her/him being a victim of trafficking, then her/his prosecution may temporarily be stopped. Victims of trafficking are also entitled to apply for compensation from the Greek State (sections 323A and 351 of the Penal Code). Application for compensation shall be addressed to the Greek Compensation Authority by the entitled person or by their proxy within a time limit of one year from the date on which the claim arises.

The Committee also takes due note of the statistical information provided by the Government on the number of victims of trafficking and the forms of exploitation detected from 2015 to 2018. It notes that during the first five months of 2018, 17 victims were identified, one case of labour exploitation and 16 cases of sexual exploitation were detected. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to identify victims of trafficking both for labour and sexual exploitation and to facilitate their access to assistance and remedies. The Committee also requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of victims identified and who have been granted protection and assistance.

3. Law enforcement. The Government states that in order to tackle trafficking in persons, a certain number of actions have been undertaken within the framework of the Anti-Crime Policy Programme 2015–19 including: (i) raising awareness among the personnel of the Hellenic Police about the phenomenon of trafficking; (ii) conducting inspections and investigations to identify all forms of trafficking in persons; (iii) establishing mixed inspection teams composed of policemen and labour inspectors in regions and periods of the year where a large number of foreign workers are concentrated; and (iv) informing, raising awareness and activating points of entry and border-crossing points for the identification of potential victims of trafficking. Moreover, for the effective investigation of cases of trafficking in persons, the police has established 12 teams for fighting trafficking in human beings and two departments for the same purpose. Their personnel has received specialized training on how to approach victims and investigate cases of trafficking.

The Government further indicates that, the Labour Inspectorate (SEPE) has expanded its competences to further cooperate with other inspection mechanisms such as the Financial Crimes Police. The SEPE also cooperates with the National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings.

The Government also indicates that for the year 2014, five prosecutions, one conviction on first instance, three acquittals on first instance, three postponements, one appeal and a conviction on second instance have been registered.

The Committee further notes that in its observations, the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) refers to the report of the National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) dated 27 August 2018 on the compliance of the Greek State with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights “Chowdury and others v Greece” (known as the “Manolada case” – Court Decision of 30 March 2017). In its decision, the European Court examined the case of migrant workers trafficked for the purpose of labour exploitation who found themselves in a situation of forced labour in the agricultural sector. The European Court found that the applicants’ situation was one of trafficking in persons and forced labour. It held that Greece was to pay each of the victims €16,000 and recommended that the Government take proactive measures to prevent forced labour and trafficking in persons, protect victims, conduct effective investigations into the offences and punish those responsible.

In its report, the GNCHR points out that the Manolada case is not an isolated case, as alleged by the competent Greek authorities. Indeed, other similar incidents have occurred, including the fire of 7 June 2018, in an improvised camp made of canes and plastic in the area of N. Manoloda. In this regard, the Committee notes that the GSEE has annexed to its communication the “Application–Petition” of the 164 land workers – victims of the fire. The Committee notes that the GNCHR has issued a series of recommendations, including: (i) enhance the control of the working conditions of migrant workers; (ii) speed up the process of granting the status of victims of trafficking; (iii) pursue a proactive strategy for identifying victims of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation and/or forced labour; and (iv) ensure that victims are systematically informed in a language that they can understand of their right to seek redress.

The Committee notes that in its reply to the above observations, the Government indicates that it has already forwarded its positions to the relevant Committee of the Council of Europe.

The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken to strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement authorities to combat all forms of forced labour, including trafficking in persons, conduct effective investigations into these offences and to punish those responsible. It also requests the Government to provide further information on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions related to trafficking in persons, as well as the specific penalties applied to those convicted. Regarding the Government’s position on the recommendations of the GNCHR, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any decision taken by the Council of Europe on this point.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Freedom of career medical officers of the armed forces to leave the service. The Committee previously noted the 2013 observations from the Hellenic Military Medical Corps Association (ESTIA), as well as the 2014 Government’s reply to these observations. The ESTIA referred to the situation of medical officers of the army who have benefited from academic studies and training, and find themselves under an obligation to serve in the army for a very long period of time which may exceed 30 years. This includes an obligation to serve twice as long as the period of initial training of six years received, that is, 12 years, as well as an additional requirement to obtain a specialization which entails a further obligation to serve for five years, and further obligations linked to other training. In its reply, the Government referred to the provisions governing the resignation of army officers as set out in Legislative Decree No. 1400/1973 (amended by Act No. 3257/2004). In this regard, an officer who has received training can be authorized to leave the army only after having completed a compulsory period of service which is twice the duration of training received. Furthermore, officers of the medical corps who have received specialization training undertake the obligation to remain in the armed forces for five years. The Government considered that these additional periods for which officials must remain in the armed forces are legitimate since they constitute a means of reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the State for the provision of the studies which are offered free of charge. Officers accept voluntarily to participate in the training after having been informed of the obligation to serve linked to the training. The Committee requested the Government to communicate statistical information on the average length of the obligation to serve of medical officers of the armed forces, as well as on the number of requests for resignation handed in by medical officers, and the number of resignations accepted (including information on the sum required from the medical officers to buy back their remaining years of service).

Regarding the average length of the obligation to serve of medical officers, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to a series of Decisions of the Court of Auditors Plenary in which it was decided that the compensation by an officer of medical corps in the armed forces of their training costs does not constitute a form of compulsion but a legal compensation for the costs incurred by the Service. Moreover, according to Opinion No. 156/2006 of the State Legal Council, the time during which an officer of the medical corps is absent from duty for the internship is considered as training time which is not taken into account as actual military service time. With this calculation method, the average time period that these officers must remain in the Armed Forces is 17–18 years; 12 years (double the time of six years of studies at the Academy) plus five years (additional commitment to remain in the armed forces because of medical internship, the cost of which is covered by the service), plus a possible one year for further training.

The Committee notes that the Government has provided some statistical information on the percentage of resignations submitted by officers per year in relation to the total number of officers in the medical corps servicing at each branch of the armed forces who are under the obligation to remain in the armed forces. All submitted resignations have been accepted.

Regarding the sum required from the medical officers to buy back their remaining years of service, the Government indicates that for instance, for nine years of remaining compulsory service (which is the average remaining time that officers who resign have to serve), they have to pay an amount that ranges from €130,000 to €150,000.

Finally, the Government adds that the obligation to remain in the armed forces for a minimum period applies to all officers of the armed forces and not only to the officers of the medical corps. The award of compensation to the State in case of early resignation is used as a reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the State for the training of the officers, to whom, in addition to the training itself, accommodation, food, salary and clothing are provided. Given the above, the amount of the said compensation is calculated in an objective manner and it is the amount of the actual monthly salaries according to the officers’ rank multiplied by the number of the remaining months of compulsory service that the resigned officers should provide to the armed forces under section 33 of Law 3883/2010.

The Committee notes that according to ESTIA’s observations of May 2019, the compensation that a military doctor has to pay for leaving the service early ranges from €130,000 to €150,000, which is an excessive amount compared to the salary of €1,000–1,500 that a doctor earns at the age of 35–40 years. Accordingly, this amount is not correlated with the cost of training which amounts to €31,195. Referring to the 2002 Decision of the European Committee of Social Rights, in which the maximum service has been established at 15 years, ESTIA indicates that the Government sets up a maximum period of 17 years’ service (Law 3252 of 2004). However, in practice, four years of extra training obligation should be added to this period of 17 years (in some cases it may exceed 21 years).

The Committee also notes that in its reply the Government indicates that the compensation that medical officers have to pay for failure to fulfil their obligations due to their early exit from the armed forces should be equal to the current monthly salary and multiplied by the number of the remaining months of service. The medical doctors who have been trained abroad have also the same obligation to compensate the state.

In light of the above, the Committee recalls that career members of the armed forces who have voluntarily entered the military service must be able to leave the service in time of peace, within a reasonable period either at specified intervals or with previous notice, or subject to proportional reimbursement over a certain period of the cost of training incurred by the State.

The Committee duly notes that medical officers in the armed forces fully enjoy the right to leave their service at their own request before the completion of the period for which they undertook to remain in service, if they reimburse part of the cost of the training received.

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

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of career medical officers of the armed forces to leave the service. The Committee notes the observations from the Hellenic Military Medical Corps Association (ESTIA), as well as the Government’s reply to these observations, received respectively in September 2013 and February 2014. The ESTIA refers to the situation of medical officers of the army who have benefited from academic studies and training, and find themselves under an obligation to serve in the army for a very long period of time which may exceed 30 years. This includes an obligation to serve twice as long as the period of initial training of six years received, that is, 12 years, as well as an additional requirement to obtain a specialization which entails a further obligation to serve for five years, and further obligations linked to other training. The ESTIA further stresses that the training periods are not taken into consideration for the fulfilment of the obligation to serve. The Committee notes the Government’s indication according to which the provisions governing the resignation of army officers are set out in Legislative Decree No. 1400/1973, as amended by Act No. 3257/2004. An officer who has received training can be authorized to leave the army only after having completed a compulsory period of service which is twice the duration of training received. Furthermore, officers of the medical corps who have received specialization training undertake the obligation to remain in the armed forces for five years. The Government considers that these additional periods for which officials must remain in the armed forces are legitimate since they constitute a means of reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the State for the provision of the studies which are offered free of charge. Officers accept voluntarily to participate in the training after having been informed of the obligation to serve linked to the training. The Government indicates that the duration of the training is not taken into account for the fulfilment of the compulsory period to serve because the State is deprived of the services of the officers under training who still benefit from their salary. Furthermore, military doctors are allowed to work as private doctors.

The Committee points out that persons who have received training financed by the State should also be entitled to leave the service on their own initiative within a reasonable period, which should be proportional to the length of the studies financed by the State, or by reimbursing a proportion of the costs incurred by the State. The Committee requests the Government to communicate statistical information on the average length of the obligation to serve of medical officers of the armed forces, as well as on the number of requests for resignation handed in by medical officers, and the number of resignations accepted (including information on the sum required from the medical officer to buy back their remaining years of service).

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and observes that the legislative framework already in place to combat trafficking in persons has been further strengthened, in particular with the adoption of Act No. 4198/2013 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and other provisions. The Act introduces inter alia new provisions in relation to the liability of legal persons as well as, new investigative tools to be used against organized crime. It also provides for the establishment of the Office of the National Rapporteur. The National Rapporteur is responsible for the launching, coordination and implementation of the national strategy for combating trafficking in human beings which encompasses prevention, prosecution of the perpetrators as well as protection of victims. The Government also indicates that a permanent Coordination Mechanism with public authorities has been established as well as a National Referral Mechanism (NRM). Furthermore, the relevant Public Prosecutor may grant a reflection period of three months to persons identified as victims of trafficking allowing them to recover and escape the influence of the perpetrator so that they can decide on whether they should cooperate with law enforcement bodies. During this period, the victims are entitled to medical care, psychological assistance and adequate standards of living.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the national strategy to combat trafficking in human beings. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to prevent trafficking in persons and raise public awareness. Please also provide information on the measures taken to ensure better identification of victims, their protection, support and compensation as provided for in the legislation, indicating the number of victims that have benefited from assistance, including the number of reflection periods granted. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legal proceedings initiated and judicial decisions handed down under sections 323A and 351 of the Penal Code which criminalize trafficking in human beings for labour exploitation and for sexual exploitation as well as on the measures aimed at strengthening law enforcement capacity.

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

Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention. Recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that, following the amendment introduced by Act No. 3536/2007 concerning “Special Regulations of Migration Policy Issues and other issues under the competence of the Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization” (section 41(7)), Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 on “civil emergency planning”, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, shall be applicable only in times of war. As regards requisition in times of peace, the Committee noted previously that, under section 41 of the new Act, the requisition of personal services is possible only in case of emergency, i.e. in a “sudden situation requiring the taking of immediate measures to face the country’s defensive needs or a social emergency against any type of imminent natural disaster or emergency that might endanger the public health”.

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

Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. Recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers. The Committee has noted a communication dated 11 August 2006, received from the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GGCL), which contained observations concerning the application by Greece of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). The Committee has noted that this communication was transmitted to the Government on 4 September 2006, for such comments that might be considered appropriate.

The GGCL alleged that, over the last 32 years, the Government has often resorted to civil conscription that under threat of severe penalties compels workers to terminate their strike action and return to work. The GGCL indicated, in particular, that the Government has issued, on 22 February 2006, a “Civil Mobilization Order” (requisition of workers’ services) of indefinite duration to put an end to a legal strike of seafarers on passenger and cargo vessels, which do not constitute essential services. According to the allegations, the legal ground for the civil conscription of workers on strike is Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 on “civil emergency planning”. The GGCL also indicated that the Panhellenic Seamen’s Federation (PNO), affiliated to the GGCL, together with the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), has submitted a complaint on the above matter to the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association on 12 July 2006 (Case No. 2506).

The Committee recalls in this connection that, in its earlier comments addressed to the Government under the present Convention, it has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 referred to above, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peace time, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of economic and social life (section 2(5)). In such circumstances, all citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services under penalty of imprisonment (section 20(2) and (3), and section 35(1)) and labour legislation is suspended. The Committee referred to the provisions of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, under which recourse to compulsory labour in an emergency situation should be limited to circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, and pointed out that it should be clear from the legislation that the authority to exact labour may be used only within the above limits.

The Committee recalls that, in its earlier comments, it noted the Government’s repeated assurances that Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 would be revised after Parliament had adopted the Bill on civil defence dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes. The Committee also noted the Government’s statement in its 1996 report that, with the adoption in October 1995 of Act No. 2344/95 on the organization of civil defence, which deals with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes and provides for the mobilization of groups of volunteers in emergency situations, there was no more problem of application of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974.

The Committee has noted that the Government’s reports on the application of Conventions Nos 29 and 105 received in October 2006 contain no reference to the observations by the GGCL. However, the Committee notes the report of the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Case No. 2506 referred to above (Report No. 346, Vol. XC, 2007, Series B, No. 2), in which the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the Ministry of National Defence is elaborating a draft law with a view to partly or wholly abrogating Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. The Committee on Freedom of Association has also noted with interest that, according to the Government, pursuant to recent legislative amendments (adoption of the Act concerning “Special Regulations of Migration Policy Issues and other issues under the competence of the Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization” which is awaiting publication in the Official Gazette), Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 will only apply in times of war. As for requisition in times of peace, section 41 of the new Act provides that the requisition of personal services is possible only in case of emergency, i.e. “every sudden situation requiring the taking of immediate measures to face the country’s defensive needs or a social emergency against any type of imminent natural disaster or emergency that might endanger the public health”.

While noting this information, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future in order to formally repeal Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 or amend it by specifying clearly that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers is strictly limited to circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. The Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government's reports.

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the adoption in October 1995 of Act No. 2344/95 respecting the organization of civil defence, dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes. The Act provides for the mobilization of groups of volunteers in emergency situations. The Committee notes that the Act replaces Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974, on which it had been commenting for several years. It considers that the Act does not call for comments under the Convention.

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

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the provisions governing resignation of officers set out in Legislative Decree No. 1400-73. It noted that an officer who has received training can be authorized to leave the army only after having completed a compulsory period of service which may be three or four times as long as the period of training received and may reach 25 years in case of successive periods of training (section 64, paragraph 16).

The Committee notes the Government's detailed explanations provided in its latest report. The Government states in particular that persons who join the army do so by own free will and are aware of the terms and conditions involved; officers who receive further training agree to such training in writing and are aware of the compulsory period of service to be completed; compulsory retention in the army up to 25 years applies only to a small number of officers and corresponds to a minimum training period of ten years (medical officers who receive six years' university education and a minimum of four years' training). This period must be viewed in the light of the cost incurred as the period of training and further training is included in the period of service.

The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information on the application in practice of section 64, paragraphs 1 to 17, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73 including on the number of requests for resignation handed in, accepted or refused and the reasons invoked for any such refusals.

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

For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2(5) of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peace time, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of economic and social life. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services under penalty of imprisonment (section 20(2) and (3), and section 35(1)); in such cases labour legislation is suspended.

The Committee drew the Government's attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2 (d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, in which it indicates that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances endangering or likely to endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, and that it should be clear from the legislation that the authority to exact labour may be used only within the above limits.

The Government indicated previously that Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 would be revised after Parliament had adopted the Bill on civil defence dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report to the effect that the Bill has not yet been adopted by Parliament and that to amend the Legislative Decree before adoption of the Bill would create a legal void.

The Committee hopes that the necessary provisions to ensure observance of the Convention will be adopted shortly and asks the Government to report on any progress in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the provisions on the resignation of officers set out in Legislative Decree No. 1400-73. It noted that an officer's application to resign in peacetime must be accepted. The officer's departure may be delayed by three months on account of the exigencies of the service (section 34(9)).

The Committee also noted that an officer who has received training can only be authorized to leave the army after he has completed a compulsory period of service which may be three to four times as long as the period of training received and may be of up to 25 years where there have been successive periods of training (section 64(17)).

The Committee noted the Government's indications that the compulsory retention in the army of officers who have received training during a certain period is due to reasons connected with the requirements of the armed forces in skilled personnel and the obligation of those concerned to work off the participation of the State in the cost of their training.

The Committee referred to paragraphs 67 to 73 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, and pointed out that persons in the service of the State should be entitled to leave the service on their own initiative within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals, or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the provisions under which an officer's departure may be delayed by three months following the submission of his application to resign, are intended to ensure the proper functioning of the service. The Government adds that these provisions are applied only to cases which, by their nature or specificity, require service obligations to be regulated.

With regard to persons who have received training financed by the State, the Committee points out that these persons should also be entitled to leave the service on their own initiative within a reasonable period, which should be proportional to the length of the studies financed by the State, or by reimbursing a proportion of the costs incurred by the State. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the army chief of general staff has indicated that the final opinion of the competent department on the question of the freedom to resign of career officers who have received several periods of training will be submitted as soon as possible, and hopes that the Government will indicate the measures taken or contemplated to maintain the freedom of such officers to leave the service within a reasonable period or by reimbursing the costs incurred by the State.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5 of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peace time, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services under penalty of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases the application of labour legislation is suspended.

The Committee drew the Government's attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it indicates that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which endanger or are liable to endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, and that in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the compatibility of national provisions with the applicable international standards, it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour can only be invoked within the above limits.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 will be revised once Parliament has adopted a Bill on civil defence dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the Bill as soon as it has been enacted together with information on the measures adopted to ensure observance of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report contains no reply to its previous direct request. It hopes that the Government will provide information on the following points which the Committee raised previously.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of the provisions of section 34, subsection 9, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73, the Minister of National Defence must, in peacetime, accept applications to resign submitted by officers, though he may delay their departure by three months on account of the exigences of the service. It also noted that, under section 64, subsection 17, an officer who has not completed the period of service made compulsory because of the training he has received cannot be authorised to leave the army. The period during which the officer cannot submit his resignation is three or four times as long as the training he has received. When there have been several successive periods of training, the total duration of the obligation to serve cannot exceed 25 years. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period.

The Committee noted that, in its report for the period ending 30 June 1988, the Government once again referred to its previous statement that the compulsory retention in the army of officers who have received training during a certain period is due to reasons connected with the requirements of the armed forces in skilled personnel and the obligation of those concerned to work off the participation of the State in the cost of their training.

Referring again to the explanations given in paragraphs 67-73 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, which relate to restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period, for example by providing for the possibility of a reimbursement in proportion to the length of the studies in cases of resignation.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no new information in reply to its previous comments. The Committee is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation concerning the following points:

For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5, of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilisation of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peacetime, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services, on pain of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases, the application of labour legislation is suspended. The application of this Decree in 1986 during a strike by air pilots and mechanics was found to be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and to those of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105). The Government indicated previously that the competent ministry had initiated the procedure to revise Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government in its report for the period ending 30 June 1989 that the matter had been submitted to the new Government so that it could examine it and take the necessary legislative or other measures that were appropriate. The Committee once again drew attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63-66 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour in which it indicated that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population, and that in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the compatibility of national provisions with the applicable international standards, it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour can only be invoked within the above limits.

The Committee trusts that the Government will supply information on the measures that have been adopted to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain a reply to its previous direct request. It hopes that the Government will supply information on the following points which were raised previously.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of the provisions of section 34, subsection 9, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73, the Minister of National Defence must, in peacetime, accept applications to resign submitted by officers, though he may delay their departure by three months on account of the exigences of the service. It also noted that, under section 64, subsection 17, an officer who has not completed the period of service made compulsory because of the training he has received cannot be authorised to leave the army. The period during which the officer cannot submit his resignation is three or four times as long as the training he has received. When there have been several successive periods of training, the total duration of the obligation to serve cannot exceed 25 years. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period.

The Committee noted that, in its report for the period ending 30 June 1988, the Government once again referred to its previous statement that the compulsory retention in the army of officers who have received training during a certain period is due to reasons connected with the requirements of the armed forces in skilled personnel and the obligation of those concerned to work off the participation of the State in the cost of their training.

Referring again to the explanations given in paragraphs 67-73 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, which relate to restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period, for example by providing for the possibility of a reimbursement in proportion to the length of the studies in cases of resignation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5, of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilisation of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peacetime, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services, on pain of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases, the application of labour legislation is suspended. The application of this Decree in 1986 during a strike by air pilots and mechanics was found to be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and to those of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105).

The Government indicated previously that the competent ministry had initiated the procedure to revise Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report that the matter has been submitted to the new Government so that it can examine it and take the necessary legislative or other measures that are appropriate. The Committee once again draws attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63-66 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour in which it indicated that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population, and that in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the compatibility of national provisions with the applicable international standards, it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour can only be invoked within the above limits.

The Committee trusts that the Government will supply information on the measures that have been adopted to ensure the observance of the Convention.

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

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of the provisions of section 34, subsection 9, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73, the Minister of National Defence must, in peacetime, accept applications to resign submitted by officers, though he may delay their departure by three months on account of the exigencies of the service. It also noted that, under section 64, subsection 17, an officer who has not completed the period of service made compulsory because of the training he has received cannot be authorised to leave the army. The period during which the officer cannot submit his resignation is three or four times as long the training he has received. When there have been several successive periods of training, the total duration of the obligation to serve cannot exceed 25 years. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period.

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government again refers to its previous statement that the compulsory retention in the army of officers who have received training during a certain period is due to reasons connected with the requirements of the armed forces in skilled personnel and the obligation of those concerned to work off the participation of the State in the cost of their training.

Referring again to the explanations given in paragraphs 67 to 73 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, which relate to restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that an end can be put to the obligation to serve within a reasonable period, for example by providing for the possibility of exacting a reimbursement in proportion to length of the studies in cases of resignation.

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

For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5, of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency. By virtue of this section, a state of emergency includes any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country, in which circumstances the Prime Minister may proclaim full or partial mobilisation of civilians even in peacetime. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or the performance of any kind of services, on pain of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases, the application of labour legislation is suspended.

The Committee had taken note of the conclusions of the Committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the application of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, following a representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution.

The Committee set up by the Governing Body observed that the service required of the pilots and engineers who had been mobilised and some of whom had been penalised for not having responded to the individual call-up, was not covered by the exception provided for cases of emergency as defined by Article 2, paragraph 2(d) of Convention No. 29. The Committee had also observed that the call-up of pilots and flight engineers appeared to be a means of labour discipline and a punishment for having participated in a strike that was punishable with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour, contrary to Article 1(c) and (d) of Convention No. 105. It recommended that the Government be invited to ensure that the legislation, and particularly Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974, be brought into conformity with the forced labour Conventions and that any judicial or administrative action that may lead to the imposition of the sanctions laid down in the above Legislative Decree on those concerned should be abandoned.

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government reiterates its former statements that the responsible Ministry has initiated revision of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure observance of the forced labour Conventions. [The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]