Texts of pending comments

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) communicated with the Government’s report. The Committee notes that in its observations, the CITUB encourages the Government to speed up the procedure for the ratification of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. 1. Law enforcement. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 159(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code criminalizes internal and external trafficking in persons for both sexual and labour exploitation, as well as the use of services of trafficking victims, and establishes penalties of two to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine. It also noted the revision and adoption of the National Mechanism for Referral of and Support to the Victims of Human trafficking. Noting that in the majority of cases related to trafficking in persons the sanctions that had been imposed were suspended imprisonment and a fine, the Committee requested the Government to provide information in relation to the identification of victims and law enforcement measures.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the data from the prosecutor’s office concerning the criminal proceedings for trafficking in persons under sections 159a–159d of the Criminal Code. According to this data, in 2020, 356 proceedings were initiated, including 76 newly filed cases and 73 penal sanctions were imposed on 46 convicted persons, with imprisonment (13), fines (27), and suspended sentences (31) and others (2). Similarly, during the first quarter of 2021, 176 proceedings were initiated, including 16 newly filed cases, and 17 penal sanctions were imposed on 13 convicted persons, with imprisonment (5), fines (4) and suspended sentences (8). The Government indicates that the fine is imposed cumulatively with imprisonment. The Committee also notes that in 2020, 458 victims of trafficking were identified under sections 159(a) to (d), including 397 women and 26 minors.

The Government further refers to certain difficulties that are generally encountered before and during the trial, such as : (i) the identification of victims, especially in relation to international trafficking; (ii) the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator which prevents the timely reporting of the crime and also the reluctance of the victims to cooperate with the investigation and to testify; and (iii) the change in the testimony of the victims due to fear, threats, or promises made by traffickers. In most cases, victims of trafficking for forced labour are not identified as victims of a criminal activity and the labour inspectors rather than referring the cases to the prosecutor’s office close the case by imposing a pecuniary sanction. According to the information provided by the Government, out of the 279 cases of trafficking in persons received by the National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (NCCTHB) from 2017 to 2020, 50 cases concerned trafficking for labour exploitation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to take measures to address the difficulties encountered in relation to the identification and prosecution of cases of trafficking in persons, including through: (i) providing appropriate training to officials of the Labour Inspectorate; (ii) strengthening their capacities to better identify victims of trafficking for forced labour and gather evidence for the prosecution of the perpetrators; and (iii) by strengthening protection and counselling to victims and witnesses during the investigation and court proceedings. Furthermore, noting that a significant number of the penalties imposed are suspended sentences of imprisonment, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are applied to perpetrators, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee finally requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of section 159(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code, including on the number of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied.

2. National Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. The Committee welcomes the Government’s information concerning the adoption of the National Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings 2017–2021, which sets out national priorities including: active prevention with a focus on vulnerable groups; increased identification, protection, assistance and support for victims; effective prosecution and punishment of the crime of trafficking in human beings; enhanced inter-ministerial and international coordination and cooperation. This strategy is implemented through annual national programmes developed and implemented by the NCCTHB. The Government indicates that every year, the NCCTHB conducts training sessions for investigators, magistrates, social workers, labour intermediaries, diplomats, migration authorities, refugee agencies and pedagogues on good practices on preventing trafficking in persons, improving methods of investigation and effective prosecution and punishment and protection of victims. In addition, the NCCTHB organizes three national campaigns at the national level for the prevention of trafficking in persons for sexual and labour exploitation and on new forms and trends in the trafficking in persons. The Committee also notes the detailed information provided on the various forums, workshops, campaigns, lectures and information sessions carried out from 2017 to 2021 under the national campaign organized by the NCCTHB which were addressed to different sections of the population. The 2020 and 2021 national campaigns, having taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic situation that led to an increased risk of being trafficked for labour exploitation, have focussed on initiatives that aim to raise awareness and sensitivity of the public and vulnerable groups on ways to prevent risky situations and ensure safe labour migration. The Committee encourages the Government to continue its efforts to combat trafficking in persons, including through the implementation of the priorities set out in the National Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings 2017-2021 and through the actions carried out by the NCCTHB. It requests the Government to communicate information on the measures taken in this regard as well as the monitoring and assessment of these measures by the NCCTHB, as provided for under the Strategy.

3. Protection and reintegration of victims. The Committee notes the Government’s information on the amendments to the Combating Trafficking of Human Beings Act (CTHBA), which introduces a clear definition of the period for unconditional support for victims of trafficking with a clear regulation of its functions and duration as well as the possibility to open specialized shelters for the subsequent reintegration of victims of human trafficking. The Government indicates that pursuant to these amendments, the NCCTHB has initiated specialized services for victims of trafficking, and runs shelters for temporary accommodation as well as support centres and shelters for subsequent reintegration. Victims and potential victims of trafficking are provided accommodation and specialised services according to their needs, which include, humanitarian, psychological, social and medical assistance, as well as legal counselling. In 2019, the NCCTHB established a total of five state-funded services, including two shelters for temporary accommodation, two centres for protection and assistance and one shelter for accommodation and subsequent reintegration.. The Committee further notes the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the number of identified victims of trafficking who have received support in the state-funded services from 2018 to April 2021. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue taking effective measures to ensure that victims of trafficking are provided with appropriate protection and services, and requests it to continue to provide information on the assistance provided and the number of persons benefiting from it.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that, under section 96(1) of the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act 2009 (EPSDCA), 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) and 101 of the Act. Pursuant to section 174(1) of the Act, prisoners may work on sites of legal and natural persons under conditions and procedures established by the Minister of Justice. Furthermore, according to section 164 of the Rules Implementing the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act 2010 (as amended up to 2017) (Implementing Rules), prisoners shall file an application for the jobs opened in the State Enterprise “Prison Work Fund” and in the servicing and utility activity of the prisons. The Government indicated that, in practice, prisoners are not forced to work, their work is regulated by the labour legislation and the work on external sites is always performed at the wish of the persons concerned, who shall file applications to the chief of the respective prison. The Committee, however, noted that according to section 167(1) of the Implementing Rules, all prisoners, who are capable of working, shall be obliged to perform the work assigned to them by the administration. Moreover, under section 163, the express written consent for participation in labour activities is only explicitly required for the accused and the defendants, not for all prisoners, in particular, the convicts. The Committee therefore encouraged the Government to take the necessary measures to align its national legislation with the indicated practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the obligation of the prison administration to ensure proper work to persons deprived of their liberty is covered under section 77 of the EPSCDA, which states that during the service of the sentence, persons deprived of their liberty shall have the right to suitable work. As far as possible, the preference of the person deprived of his/her liberty for a particular kind of work shall be satisfied. The Government further states that it is in the process of preparing draft amendments to the EPSDCA and its Implementing Rules which will clarify the provisions of sections 163 and 167(1) of the Implementing Rules. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures, during the preparation of the draft amendments, to ensure that the Rules Implementing the Execution of Penalties and Detention in Custody Act are amended so as to provide that any work or service performed by convicted prisoners for private undertakings is carried out voluntarily with their formal freely given and informed consent. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 5 of Convention No. 77 and Convention No. 78 and Article 3(3) of Convention No. 124. Expense of medical examination for fitness for employment to be borne by the employer. The Committee notes that sections 302 and 303 of the Labour Code of 1986, as amended up to 2011, require employees under the age of 18 years to undergo a preliminary and regular medical examination for fitness for employment. It also notes that according to section 287(2) of the Labour Code, the expense of the periodic medical examination of workers shall be borne by the employer. It noted the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria (CITUB) that the national laws are silent with regard to who should bear the expense of the preliminary medical examination for fitness for employment and pointed out that section 287(2) of the Labour Code hinders the preliminary medical examination of employees, particularly of those under 18 years of age who can hardly afford such expenses. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the preliminary medical examination for fitness for employment of young persons under the age of 18 years shall not involve the young person or his/her parents, in any expense.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s information that Ordinance No 9 of 2019 determining the package of health activities under the National Health Insurance Fund guarantees the right of minors under 18 years to obtain the necessary medical certificate for employment without paying.

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

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.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report and the national measures and legal provisions giving effect to the Convention, particularly the Labour Code and the Ordinance No. 129 of 1991 on wage bargaining. It also takes note of the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) communicated with the Government’s report. It further notes the observations of the Bulgarian Industrial Association (BIA), the Bulgarian Industrial Capital Association (BICA) and the Union for Private Economic Enterprise (UPEE) communicated with the Government’s report as well as those of the Bulgarian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) received in 2021.

Articles 3 and 4(2) of the Convention. Elements to be taken into consideration in determining the level of minimum wages. Full consultation with the social partners. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that while the legislation does not provide for economic and social criteria for determining the level of the minimum wage, in recent years, the minimum wage has been adjusted in accordance with the gross domestic product’s growth, the average wage growth, the consumer price index and other indicators. The Government indicates that the draft decrees on minimum wages adopted by the Council of Ministers after consultation with the National Council for Tripartite Cooperation are supported by preliminary impact assessments and reports prepared by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy on economic and social indicators, including the needs of workers and their families and economic factors. The Government also indicates that on 17 June 2020, it signed the National Tripartite Agreement with the national representative organizations of employers and workers aiming at resuming negotiations on the adoption of a transparent mechanism for determining the country’s minimum wage, including bipartite negotiations on minimum wages in 2021. The Government adds that although some agreements have been reached on minimum wage issues, an objective mechanism for determining the minimum wages’ level has not yet been completed due to discrepancies among social partners on the interpretation of the economic and social indicators to be considered. In this respect, the Committee notes that in its observations: (i) the CITUB indicates that the minimum wage proposed by the Council of Ministers does not meet the minimum needs of workers and their families; (ii) the BIA indicates that the criteria for determining the level of the minimum wage provided for in the Convention, in particular the economic factors, have not been clearly respected in practice and that the increase in minimum and average wages lags significantly behind labour productivity; (iii) the BCCI indicates that the Government does not make any effort to link minimum wage adjustments to objective criteria, that the evolution of the minimum wages significantly outpaced the rate of labour productivity in recent years, and that despite the meetings and consultations held with the social partners, no specific actions have been taken in order to develop a mechanism for determining the level of the minimum wage; and, (iv) the BICA and the UPEE agree with the information submitted by the Government. Based on the above, the Committee observes that there are divergences between the Government, on the one side, and the CITUB, the BIA and the BCCI, on the other, concerning the criteria reportedly taken into consideration in determining the level of the national minimum wage. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to communicate its comments in reply to the above-mentioned observations, providing more detailed information on the manner in which the needs of workers and their families as well as relevant economic factors are taken into consideration, in full consultation with social partners, in determining the level of the minimum wages in the country.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government and the social partners this year (see last paragraph, concerning section 51 of the Railway Transport Act), as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee also notes the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB), transmitted with the Government’s report in 2019 and alleging that sections 44 to 46 of the Civil Servants Act are insufficient to guarantee in practice the right to organize of civil servants, as well as of other workers under a labour relation; and affirming that the Civil Servants Act, together with the Ministry of Interior Act and the Judiciary Act, should be amended to fully guarantee all rights under the Convention to these workers and their organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

The Committee further notes the observations of the Bulgarian Industrial Association (BIA), transmitted with the Government’s supplementary report and alleging that certain sectoral regulations – namely the Forestry Act, the Act on Wine and Alcoholic Beverages, the Act on Tobacco and Related Products – interfere in the freedom of association of employers, in particular as to the autonomy and operation of branch associations of producers and traders, which at the same time perform functions to protect the interests of employers in the respective industry. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

The Committee finally notes the observations of the Union for Private Economic Enterprise (UPEE) and the Confederation of Labour (PODKREPA), concerning the supplementary information provided by the Government and transmitted with its report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for a number of years it had been raising the need to amend section 47 of the Civil Servants Act (CSA), which restricted the right to strike of public servants. The Committee takes note with satisfaction that section 47 of the CSA has been amended to recognize the right to strike of civil servants. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) the right is applicable to all civil servants with the exception of managing senior civil servants, that is those holding the positions of Secretary-General, Municipal Secretary, Director General of the Directorate-General, Director of a Directorate and Head of Inspectorate; and (ii) section 47 also provides that participation of civil servants in a legal strike is counted as official length of service, for the time during which they participate in a legal strike civil servants have a right to compensation, and it is explicitly prohibited to seek disciplinary action or liability for civil servants participating in a legal strike.

The Committee further recalls its comments concerning the need to amend section 11(2) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act (CLDSA), which provides that the decision to call a strike shall be taken by a simple majority of the workers in the enterprise or the unit concerned; and section 11(3), which requires the strike duration to be declared in advance. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, on the requirement of support by a majority of the workers that: (i) the requirement is justified as it creates certainty that the objectives pursued by the strike are common for most of the workers and employees, and not just for a small part of them; (ii) the CLDSA provides for the possibility that the simple majority is taken only by the workers and employees in a particular division of the enterprise; (iii) the CLDSA does not explicitly specify the manner in which the decision to strike should be taken, so that it is not necessary to bring all workers and employees together in one place at the same time; and (iv) workers and employees who have expressed their consent to strike are not bound by the obligation to participate in it and it is not uncommon in practice for the number of those effectively striking to be smaller than the number of workers and employees who have given their consent to the strike. While noting these explanations from the Government, the Committee must recall again that requiring a decision by over half of all the workers involved in the enterprise or unit in order to declare a strike is excessive and could unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike, particularly in large enterprises, and that if a country deems it appropriate to require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 147). As to the requirement to indicate the duration of the strike, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) prior notice of the duration of the strike is aimed at determining the period during which the parties make efforts to settle the dispute definitively through direct negotiation, mediation or any other appropriate means, and that the requirement seeks to encourage the parties to make every effort possible to resolve the dispute; and (ii) the CLDSA does not restrict the right to strike, as it does not prohibit workers and employees from continuing their strike actions by making a decision to do so. In this respect, the Committee must recall once again that workers and their organizations should be able to call a strike for an indefinite period if they so wish without having to announce its duration. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments concerning sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the CDLSA, and to indicate what are the requirements for continuing a strike action beyond its initially determined duration, in particular whether a new vote and decision by the workers concerned must take place, or whether instead a decision by the trade union calling the strike is enough.

In its previous comments, the Committee has also been raising the need to amend section 51 of the Railway Transport Act (RTA), which provides that, where industrial action is taken under the Act, the workers and employers must provide the population with satisfactory transport services corresponding to no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation that was provided before the strike. The Committee welcomed the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy recalled to the Ministry of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications (MTITC) the need for amendment of the aforementioned section 51 of the RTA in order to be in compliance with the Convention; and that the MTITC expressed readiness to take the necessary steps to amend the aforesaid section. The Committee notes that in its supplementary report the Government informs of a proposal to amend section 51 of the RTA submitted by the MTITC, which: (a) introduces a new paragraph 2 providing that workers, employers and railway authorities have to agree in the collective agreement which of the railway routes for passenger transport declared in the annual train schedule shall constitute the percentage under paragraph 1 (i.e. no less than 50 per cent), as well as the type and number of personnel required to carry out these services; (b) introduces a new paragraph 3, according to which in case of disagreement the parties may seek assistance for settlement of the dispute through mediation and/or voluntary arbitration by the National Institute for Conciliation and Arbitration; but (c) maintains in paragraph 1 the obligation to provide no less than 50 per cent of the amount of transport services (to which it adds the precision that this will be in relation to the transport services “at the time” of taking strike actions). The MTITC notes that section 51 has not been an obstacle for the exercise of the right to strike by employees of the national railway infrastructure company and its subsidiaries (referring to concrete examples of its use in 2011) and defends the need for such provision by referring to the rights of passengers, arguing that they should be able to travel by rail transport regardless of the interests of the trade union organizations. While welcoming that the draft amendment being considered provides for the participation of social partners in definition of the minimum services, as well as for a mechanism for the resolution of disputes when agreement cannot be reached, the Committee observes that it does not fully address its previous comments. In this respect, the Committee recalls that while a minimum service may be established in services of fundamental importance such as railway transportation, in order to ensure adequate respect of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities, such minimum service must be limited to the operations strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear by the strike; and that the establishment of too broad a minimum service (like no less than 50 per cent) restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests. The Committee notes in this regard the observations of PODKREPA, alleging that the “no less than 50 per cent” requirement is too large, noting that currently the negotiation of minimum services is practically impossible, and proposing that the percentage subject to settlement through collective bargaining be up to 20 per cent, so as to both allow for the right to strike and ensure the provision of minimum services. The Committee requests the Government to revise section 51 of the RTA, in consultation with the most representative organizations, in order to ensure that it does not unduly restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities through collective action while also covering no more than operations strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service. The Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard and requests the Government to provide information on any progress on the matter.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) and the observations of the Bulgarian Industrial Capital Association (BICA), received on 23 October 2019. The Committee also notes the observations of the Union for Private Economic Enterprise (UPEE), received on 2 October 2020. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee welcomes the detailed information provided by the Government regarding tripartite consultations held on the matters relative to international labour standards under Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention between 2016 and 2018. In addition, the Committee notes that the social partners were consulted in determining the composition of the Government delegation during the 105th, 106th and 107th Sessions of the International Labour Conference and in preparing responses to ILO questionnaires, including the ILO questionnaire on “Ending violence and harassment against women and men in the world of work” (108th Session of the Conference). The Committee notes with interest the ratification of the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), on which the social partners were consulted. The Government indicates that the possible ratification of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), is being considered through a working group established to discuss and develop amendments to the Labour Code aimed at improving national social dialogue. The social partners were requested to provide opinions on the possible ratification. The Committee notes the supplementary information provided by the Government indicating that the social partners entered into a two-year National Tripartite Agreement with the Government on 17 June 2020, under which they agreed on the ratification of Convention No. 154 and the initiation of the ratification process for the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151). The Government adds that the parties to the agreement determined that three successive Action Plans were to be developed for its implementation, specifying the activities concerned and evaluating its implementation on an ongoing basis. The Government indicates that, apart from tripartite consultations held at the national level in the National Council for Tripartite Partnership, tripartite cooperation also exists in branch, sectoral and district level. In its observations, the CITUB maintains that most of the tripartite cooperation councils at the branch and sectoral levels exist formally, but do not function in practice. The CITUB indicates that it has prepared a proposal to amend the Rules on the Organization and Operation of the Tripartite Cooperation Councils, with the objective of increasing their activity. In its observations, the UPEE expresses its agreement with the information provided by the Government report. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on the matters covered by the Convention, particularly relating to questionnaires on Conference agenda items (Article 5(1)(a)); the submission of instruments adopted by the Conference to the National Assembly (Article 5(1)(b)); the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions and Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given (Article 5(1)(c)); questions arising out of reports to be presented on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(d)); and the possible denunciation of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(e)).

In the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee recalls the comprehensive guidance provided by international labour standards. It encourages the Government to engage in tripartite consultation and social dialogue more broadly as a solid foundation for developing and implementing effective responses to the profound socio-economic impacts of the pandemic. The Committee invites the Government to provide updated information in its next report on measures taken in this respect, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation No. 152, including with regard to steps taken to build the capacity of the tripartite constituents and strengthen mechanisms and procedures, as well as challenges and good practices identified.

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

Article 17 of the Convention and Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the detailed statistical information provided by the Government according to which: (i) during the 2014–16 period, the National Social Security Institute noted 72 occupational accidents including 16 that were directly related to loading and unloading, two of which were fatal; (ii) during the 2012–16 period, the general labour inspectorate conducted 136 inspections in 35 port operators, identifying 523 violations of labour legislation including 282 violations in the area of occupational safety and health; it issued 499 binding recommendations, and shut down four machines and workplaces for safety reasons. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, particularly labour inspection services’ reports on ports on the number, nature and causes of reported accidents, and on infringements reported and the sanctions imposed, and indicate, where applicable, any measures taken to reduce the number of accidents.

Prospects for ratification of the most up-to-date Convention. The Committee takes this opportunity to encourage the Government to follow up the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group, and to consider the possibility of ratifying the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152), which is the most up-to-date instrument in this field. The Committee requests the Government to report any measures taken in this regard.

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

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on social security, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 44 (unemployment benefit) and 102 (minimum standards) together.

Part II (Medical care), in conjunction with Article 71(3) of Convention No. 102. General responsibility for the due provision of the benefits. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the 2010 conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) on article 11 of the European Social Charter (ESC) indicating that the medical services available in Bulgaria for poor or socially vulnerable persons who lost entitlement to social assistance were not sufficient and requested the Government to provide information on the application of this Part of the Convention by the national social assistance and social insurance schemes. The Committee notes the information submitted by the Government in its report regarding the provision of medical care benefits under the Health Insurance Act of 1998 and the indication that, within the framework of the medical services package guaranteed by the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), all citizens have equal rights of access to medical aid. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its report submitted under article 19 of the ILO Constitution in 2018, indicating that the Ministry of Health grants subsidies to hospitals and medical treatment facilities located in regions difficult to access across the country. On this issue, the Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) communicated with the Government’s report under article 19 of the ILO Constitution in 2018, which point out the insufficient funding of healthcare institutions at the municipal level. In addition, the Committee observes that the 2017 conclusions of the ECSR, state that “it has not been established that sufficient measures have been taken to effectively guarantee the right of access to health care”. In particular, the ESCR refers to the 2015 European Commission Country Report Bulgaria, which indicates that “the healthcare system faces major challenges, including limited accessibility, low funding, and poor health outcomes”. The 2017 conclusions of the ECSR further point out that “limited access to healthcare is illustrated by the high share of reported unmet medical needs, mainly due to costs”. Recalling that, in accordance with Article 71(3) of the Convention, a Member shall accept general responsibility for the due provision of the benefits provided in compliance with the Convention, and shall take all measures required for this purpose, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to improve the access to medical care benefits for all persons protected.

Article 10(1)(b) of Convention No. 44 and Article 20 of Convention No. 102, in conjunction with Article 69. Concept of suitable employment. In its previous comments on Convention No. 44, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether, under the current definition of suitable employment established by the Supplementary provisions to the Employment Promotion Act of 2016, a beneficiary could be deprived of the right to unemployment benefit if he or she does not accept a job where the minimum wage would be less than the amount of the unemployment benefit otherwise due to this beneficiary. The Government indicates in its report that the amount of labour remuneration in relation to the unemployment cash benefit is not taken into account in the determination of what constitutes an “appropriate job”, according to subparagraph 4(1) of the Supplementary provisions to the Employment Promotion Act of 2016. It further indicates that in accordance with article 20(4) of the Employment Promotion Act of 2002, the registration of unemployed persons shall be terminated if they refuse to accept an appropriate job offered to them. The Committee notes that the amount of unemployment benefit, according to section 54(b) of the Social Insurance Code of 1999, is determined as a percentage of the unemployed person’s former wages (60 per cent). It noted subsequently that where the wages for a job offered to an unemployed person are lower than the amount of unemployment benefit this person is entitled to, these wages will necessarily be lower than the unemployed person’s previous wages or remuneration. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, according to Article 10(1)(b) of Convention No. 44, claimants may be disqualified for the receipt of benefit or of an allowance for an appropriate period if they refuse an offer of suitable employment and that employment shall not be deemed to be “suitable”, among other, if the rate of wages offered is lower than those which unemployed persons might reasonably have expected to obtain and where the employment offered is employment in the claimants’ usual occupation and in the district where they were last ordinarily employed, or in all other cases lower than the standard generally observed at the time in the occupation and district in which the employment is offered. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the payment of unemployment benefits will not be suspended in case of refusal by an unemployed person to accept a job where the minimum wage is less than the amount of the unemployment benefit otherwise due. The Committee further requests the Government to provide statistical data on the number of cases where unemployment benefits were suspended as a result of refusal to accept a job where a salary is lower than the amount of received unemployment benefit.

Part V (Old-age benefit). Article 26(2) of Convention No. 102, in conjunction with Article 29(2). Pensionable age for reduced old-age pension. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to section 68 of the Social Security Code of 1999, as of 31 December 2016, the insurance period required for receiving full old-age pension will be increased each year by two months until attainment of 37 years for women and 40 years for men by 2027. It further notes, as indicated by the Government, that the pensionable age will be also increased by two months every year until attainment of 65 years for women and men by 2037. The Government further points out that if a person has an insufficient period of insurance, the right to the old-age pension will be acquired after having completed 15 years upon reaching 66 years and four months for men and women in 2019 and 67 years by 2023. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Articles 26 and 29(2) of the Convention, a reduced old-age pension shall be secured to persons protected who have completed a qualifying period of at least 15 years of contribution or employment upon reaching pensionable age, which shall be not more than 65 years or such higher age as may be fixed by the competent authority with due regard to the working ability of elderly persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether a reduced old-age pension is provided to persons protected who have completed a qualifying period of 15 years of insurance or employment upon reaching the normal statutory pensionable age.

Part VI (Employment injury benefit). Article 34 and Part VIII (Maternity benefit), Article 49. Cost-sharing. The Committee once again requests the Government to confirm that cost-sharing of medical services is not required for the contingencies of employment injury and pregnancy, confinement and their consequences in accordance with Articles 34 and 49 of the Convention, and to supply the corresponding legal provisions.

Part VI (Employment injury benefit). Article 36. Payment for permanent incapacity below 50 per cent. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate what benefit is provided to the victims of employment injuries who have permanently lost less than 50 per cent of their working capacity.

Article 38. Duration of the benefit. The Committee once again requests the Government to explain what coverage exists for persons whose occupational diseases manifest themselves over a month after the termination of their employment contract or insurance coverage.

Part VII (Family benefit). Article 44. Total value of family benefits. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical data on the total value of family benefits in accordance with the report form for the Convention.

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). The Committee reiterates its request to provide statistical information on the level of old-age, employment injury and survivors’ benefits and their substantial changes in the cost of living required by Titles I-VI of the report form under Articles 65 and 66 of the Convention.

Part XII (Equality of treatment of non-national residents). Article 68, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(b). The Committee reiterates its request to explain the qualifying conditions for achieving permanent residence in Bulgaria and supply the relevant legal provisions.

Part XIII (Common provisions). Article 69. Suspension of benefits. The Committee reiterates its request to explain how section 46 of the Social Insurance Code, according to which cash benefits for temporary incapacity for work are suspended where insured persons have lost their capacity for work due to “hooliganism and other anti-social behavior”, is applied in practice and provide examples of the types of activities that would lead to the suspension of benefits.

Article 71(3). General responsibility of the State. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether actuarial studies and calculations concerning financial equilibrium are made periodically and, in any event, prior to any change in benefits, the rate of insurance contributions or the taxes allocated to covering the above contingencies.

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (CITUB) received in 2016.

Article 4(2) of the Convention. Partial payment in kind. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that section 13 of the Ordinance on the structure and organization of wages (2007) provides that the internal rules or individual contracts determine the conditions of payments in kind. It recalls that in accordance with Article 4(2), appropriate measures shall be taken in cases in which partial payment of wages in the form of allowances in kind is authorized to ensure that: (a) such allowances are appropriate for the personal use and benefit of the worker and his family; and (b) the value attributed to such allowances is fair and reasonable. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in this regard.

Article 7(2). Works stores. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that section 294(2) of the Labour Code provides that the employer can, independently or jointly with other bodies and organizations, provide commercial and public services to workers and employees by building and maintaining commercial shops and service centres. It recalls that in accordance with Article 7(2), appropriate measures shall be adopted to ensure that, where access to stores or services other than those operated by the employer is not possible, goods are sold and services provided at fair and reasonable prices and that such stores are not operated for the purpose of securing a profit but for the benefit of the workers concerned. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in this regard.

Article 12(1). Regular payment of wages. The Committee notes that CITUB denounces a rampant practice of irregular payment of wages. CITUB considers that the labour inspectorate does not have enough capacity to deal with the issue. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these matters.

The Committee notes the Government’s comments on previous observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had invited the Government to take the necessary steps to strengthen the sanctions and remedy measures available in cases of acts of anti-union discrimination and to provide specific information on the application of the relevant national legislation in practice. The Committee had requested the Government to: (i) provide statistics as to the average length of reinstatement proceedings; (ii) specify the number of reinstatement orders issued in cases of anti-union dismissal; and (iii) clarify whether a worker alleging anti-union dismissal may initiate proceedings both under the Labour Code (LC, sections 344 and 225) and the Protection against Discrimination Act (sections 71 and 78). The Committee notes that the Government states that: (i) no statistical information is maintained on the average length of the recovery procedure and the number of decisions to reinstate a worker fired with anti-union motives (however, pursuant to section 344 of the LC, these disputes are examined by the regional court within three months after receipt of the application, and by the district court within one month of receipt of the appeal); (ii) workers concerned may file both a claim for compensation for staying unemployed under section 225 of the LC, and a claim contesting the dismissal and seeking reinstatement pursuant to section 344 of the LC; (iii) section 225 of the LC aims to compensate the worker for the harm arising from the missed opportunities to receive remuneration due to an unlawful dismissal; (iv) however, it limits the amount of possible compensation to the amount of the employee’s gross remuneration for the time of unemployment due to unlawful dismissal, up to a maximum of six months, in order to motivate the worker to look for a job on the labour market; and (v) if the worker has suffered harm on other grounds, including because of discrimination, he or she has the opportunity to seek compensation for them under the general civil law or through the mechanisms provided for in the Protection against Discrimination Act. Having duly noted the information provided by the Government, the Committee invites it to collect statistical information on the application of the existing mechanisms to protect against anti-union discrimination, including anti-union dismissals, noting in particular the number and type of requests for remedies brought under the LC, the Protection against Discrimination Act, and/or general civil law, as well as their outcome detailing the number of reinstatement orders and the amount of compensation awarded. The Committee further encourages the Government to hold consultations with the most representative organizations to assess, in light of this statistical information, the need for any additional measures to ensure that the remedies to protect against anti-union discrimination provide a sufficiently dissuasive sanction both in law and in practice.

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. In its preceding comments the Committee had: (i) observed that national legislation does not provide adequate protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or employers’ organizations; (ii) taken note of the ITUC allegations of acts of harassment and interference on the employer’s side, and of the insistence by the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) on the need to adopt penal sanctions against acts of interference; and (iii) requested the Government to indicate the legislative measures taken or envisaged to this end. Regretting the lack of information provided by the Government in this respect, and recalling that national legislation should explicitly prohibit all acts of interference mentioned in the Convention and make express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with dissuasive sanctions, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to amend the national legislation accordingly. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been requesting the Government to amend the Civil Servants Act so that the right to collective bargaining of public service workers not engaged in the administration of the State is duly recognized. The Committee notes that the Government provides no information in this regard, and observes that the 2016 amendments to the Civil Servants Act did not address the need to bring this aspect of national legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee must recall that, although Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope, other categories of public servants should enjoy the guarantees of the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages. The Committee urges the Government to take, as soon as possible, the steps necessary to amend the Civil Servants Act so as to ensure the right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the percentage of the workforce covered by these agreements, as well as on any measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and in 2016 entered into force for Bulgaria, respectively, on 18 January 2017 and on 8 January 2019. It further notes that the Government’s report was received before the entry into force for Bulgaria of these amendments. The Committee notes the efforts undertaken by the Government to implement the Convention. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether any person employed, engaged or working in any capacity on board a ship to which the Convention applies is considered a seafarer for the purposes of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Merchant Shipping Code (MSC), the crew of the ship are deemed persons possessing specific qualifications or seafarers, according to the definition of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW), as amended. Paragraph 1а, item 9 of the Supplemental Provision of the MSC defines seafarers as natural persons assuming the position on board a ship or on shore, possessing a certificate of qualification for additional and/or special training. The Government further states that this definition conforms to the definition provided under the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes however that the different pieces of legislation referred to by the Government seem to narrow the definition of “seafarer” to persons possessing a certificate of competence or qualification under the STCW. The Committee recalls that the definition of seafarers in Article II, paragraph 1(f) of the Convention, encompasses not only personnel with navigational and vessel operation tasks, but also other persons working in any capacity on board ships, such as personnel of cruise ships (for example, catering and hotel staff). The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its national legislation to ensure full conformity with the Convention.

Cadets. The Committee also requested the Government to clarify whether persons between 16 and 18 years of age on board ship for training in navigation are considered as seafarers under Bulgarian legislation. The Committee notes that the Government did not reply to this request. The Committee recalls that obtaining on-board training for the purpose of becoming a seafarer by definition implies working on board and, as a result, no question of doubt can arise concerning the fact that cadets are to be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide clarification on this point and to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that cadets are regarded as seafarers for the purposes of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the types of work that have been determined to be likely to jeopardize the health or safety of these seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Ordinance No. 6 dated 24 July 2006, issued by the Minister of Labour and Social Policy and the Minister of Health, on the conditions and order for work permits of persons under the age of 18 which explicitly envisions the types of work and working environment under which persons under the age of 18 are forbidden to work. A detailed (non-exhaustive) list is provided in the appendix to article 8, paragraph 2 of the same Ordinance. The Government considers that the types of work envisaged in Guideline В4.3.10, paragraph 2 banned for seafarers under the age of 18 coincide with the ones outlined in the Appendix specified above. The Committee takes notes of this information, which responds to its previous request.

Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraph 4. Medical Certificate. Qualified medical practitioner. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A1.2, paragraph 4 to ensure independence of medical practitioners. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that professional independence of the medical specialists for seafarers is guaranteed via an explicit set of requirements. The Government refers to article 12, paragraphs 4–8 of Ordinance No. Н-11 of 30 April 2014 requiring objective criteria, as well as individual professional assessment upon provision of conclusions regarding the health fitness of seafarers by the respective medical specialists. Conclusions provided by the medical specialists are certified by the personal signature and in their capacity of officials, medical specialists bear criminal liability in the event of providing or certifying false data. In addition, they are not directly employed by shipowners but are employees of the healthcare institutions pursuant to article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Ordinance No. Н-11 of 30 April 2014. The Committee takes note of this information which responds to its previous request.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, Paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement. System of protection. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how effect is given to this requirement of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s answer that national legislation does not contain an explicit text regulating this issue. The Government further refers to the Ordinance on the conditions and order for performance of mediation activities for employment, section IV “Mediation activities on employment of sailors”, article 34, (as amended – SG, Issue 52 dated 2006), according to which mediation activities for employment of seafarers are implemented in line with the requirements of the Conventions of the ILO and the IMO, ratified and enforced for the Republic of Bulgaria. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that paragraph 5(c)(vi) of Standard A1.4 provides that a Member adopting private seafarer recruitment and placement services shall, in its laws and regulations or other measures, at a minimum establish a system of protection such as an insurance arrangement, to ensure that seafarers can be duly compensated for any monetary loss caused by the recruitment and placement services or the relevant shipowner. The Committee consequently requests the Government to adopt concrete measures in order to give full effect to this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(b). Seafarers’ employment agreement. Examination and advice before signing. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the implementation of this provision for seafarers directly recruited by the shipowner (and not through a recruitment agency). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to article 62, paragraph 6 of the Labour Code, the employer (which in this specific case also includes shipowner) undertakes to familiarize the sailor with the nature of the work and the labour-related obligations upon performance of the employment contract/agreement. These clarifications should also include data regarding the specific risks, connected to the work on board the specific ship. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that it is possible to propose an amendment of the Ordinance for Labour and Associated Relations between the Crew and the Shipowner (hereafter Ordinance for Labour), to include a specific text regarding the possibility for seafarers to examine and seek advice regarding the agreement, before signing. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development on this possible amendment to the existing legislation to ensure full compliance with the Convention (paragraph 1(b) of Standard A2.1).

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Wages. Allotments. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures requiring shipowners to take measures with respect to transmitting wages as required under these provisions of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to article 270, paragraph 3 of the Labour Code, providing for the possibility for workers (seafarers), upon request, for remittance of their labour remuneration to their relatives/next of kin or to a specified bank account. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2. Entitlement to leave. Shore leave. Noting that the Labour Code does not contain provisions implementing this requirement, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2. Noting that the Government does not provide an answer on this point, it reiterates its previous request.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, Paragraph 3. Entitlement to leave. Prohibition of agreements to forgo annual leave. The Committee requested the Government to clarify whether agreements to forgo annual leave are permitted under its legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, although article 34 of the Ordinance for Labour allows the theoretical possibility for replacement of the due annual leave with pecuniary compensation, an agreement to forgo annual leave is prohibited by article 178 of the Labour Code. The Government further indicates that a procedure on amendments of national legislation shall be engaged and correct this non-conformity. Noting the inconsistency in the existing legislation, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that any agreement to forgo the minimum annual leave with pay is prohibited, except in specific cases provided for by the competent authority.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Financial security in the event of abandonment. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) does national legislation require the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment? (if yes, specify if the financial security system was determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned); (b) has your country received requests to facilitate repatriation of a seafarer and, if yes, how did your country respond?; (c) what are the circumstances under which a seafarer is considered abandoned according to national legislation?; (d) does national legislation provide that ships that need to be certified according to Regulation 5.1.3 must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence must contain the information required by Appendix A2-I and has to be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (e) does national legislation require that the financial security system is sufficient to cover outstanding wages and other entitlements, all expenses incurred by the seafarer (including the cost of repatriation), and the essential needs of the seafarers, as defined in Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9?; and (f) does national legislation provide for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of a model certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A2-I of the Convention (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7).

Regulation 2.6 and Standard A2.6, paragraph 1. Compensation for the ship’s loss or foundering. Unemployment Indemnity. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures implementation of this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that by virtue of combined application of article 328, paragraph 1, item 12 of the Labour Code and article 886 of the Commercial Shipping Code, in case of impossibility for performance of the employment contract (such as sinking of the ship) the shipowner will have to give prior notice of at least 30 days to the seafarer and during this period of notice the seafarer will receive labour remuneration, calculated in a commensurate manner. The Government further indicates that for greater clarity, proposals for amendments to the Ordinance for Labour have been prepared in order to regulate the compensation of seafarers in these cases. Noting that the existing legislation does not give effect to Regulation 2.6 and the Code, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provisions of the Convention.

Regulation 2.7 and Standard A2.7, paragraph 3. Manning Levels. Food and catering. The Committee requested the Government to clarify whether determinations of manning levels of ships take into account Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that items 6.12 and 7.5 of Appendix 8 to article 13, paragraph 2 of the Ordinance No. 6 of 5 April 2012 on Seafarers’ Competence in the Republic of Bulgaria explicitly provides, upon determination of the minimum safe crew, the application of all rules of the MLC, 2006, including provision of food and potable water for the entire crew of the ship. The maritime administration possesses the exclusive right to require correction of the number and composition of the minimum safe crew from the shipowner when it finds that some of the applicable norms of the MLC, 2006 are not taken into consideration. The Committee hopes, when determining manning levels, the maritime administration will in particular take into account the requirements of Standard A3.2 related to the need to have a fully qualified cook or a person trained in the area of food as well as adequately trained catering staff.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Noting that the existing provisions are of a general nature and do not address all the requirements under this Regulation, the Committee requested the Government to provide further information in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, according to article 43 of the Ordinance for Labour, the shipowner is obligated to ensure, free of charge and in a non-discriminatory manner, a number of recreational facilities including access to internet communications, where possible. The Government further refers to the direct application of Regulation 3.1 in its national legislation, in accordance with the constitutional principle guaranteeing precedence of ratified international conventions over the provisions of national legislation, which are contradictory to them. While the Committee takes note of this information, it observes that a number of provisions of Regulation 3.1 are not self-executory and require the Government to adopt laws and regulations or other measures in order to implement them. This is notably the case of Standard A3.1, paragraph 18 under which the competent authority shall require frequent inspections to be carried out on board ships, by or under the authority of the master, to ensure that seafarer accommodation is clean, decently habitable and maintained in a good state of repair. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that for greater clarity and completeness, a proposed amendment to the Ordinance for Labour is under preparation. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give full effect to Regulation 3.1 and the Code.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraph 2(a). Food and catering. Religious and cultural practices. Noting that the Ordinance for Labour does not mention the obligation to take into account the differing cultural and religious background of seafarers, as required by paragraph 1 of Regulation 3.2 of the Convention, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that the Ordinance for Labour was amended in 2018 to comply with this requirement.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(d). Medical care on board and ashore. Minimum requirements. Medical advice by radio or satellite. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the implementation of Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(d). The Committee notes the Government’s reference to article 9 of Ordinance No. Н-11 of 30 April 2014 on the determination of requirements for health fitness of seafarers in the Republic of Bulgaria which requires medical centres to provide round-the-clock on-duty service for the provision of medical consultations via telephone in Bulgarian and English to the seafarers on board a ship. Noting however that mentioned Ordinance does not specify if this service is provided free of charge to all ships irrespective of the flag they fly, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarifications on this point.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 3. Shipowners’ liability. Incapacity. Noting the absence of a specific provision giving effect to Standard A4.2, paragraph 3, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how effect is given to this provision of Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to article 162 of the Labour Code, according to which in the events of accident or illness demanding hospitalization of a seafarer, he/she shall be deemed on leave due to temporary disability. For the duration of the leave, the employee shall be paid a cash compensation within periods specified by a separate law. The Government, however, does not specify whether wages are to be paid to the seafarer during this period in accordance with Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 3. The Committee further notes that, according to article 49, paragraph 1, of the Ordinance for Labour, in case of temporary incapacity for work due to a general illness, an accident at work or an occupational disease, the crew members and the servicing personnel shall receive financial compensation. The Committee, however, observes that, although this article foresees a financial compensation to the sick or injured seafarer, it does not clarify whether wages are to be paid and during which period. The Committee recalls that in accordance with Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 3, where the sickness or injury results in incapacity for work the shipowner shall be liable: (a) to pay full wages as long as the sick or injured seafarers remain on board or until the seafarers have been repatriated in accordance with this Convention; and (b) to pay wages in whole or in part as prescribed by national laws or regulations or as provided in collective agreements from the time when the seafarers are repatriated or landed until their recovery or, if earlier, until they are entitled to cash benefits under the legislation of the Member concerned. The Committee accordingly requests the Government once again to clarify how effect is given to this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1 and A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security in the event of death or long-term disability. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that pursuant to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, national laws and regulations shall provide that the financial security system to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard meet certain minimum requirements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has planned amendments to the Ordinance for Labour in order to give effect to the 2014 amendments. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) what is the form taken by the system of financial security and was it determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned?; (b) how national laws and regulations ensure that the system of financial security meets the following minimum requirements: (i) payment of compensation in full and without delay; (ii) no pressure to accept payment less than the contractual amount; (iii) interim payments (while situation is being assessed) to avoid undue hardship; (iv) offsetting payment against any damages resulting from any other claim made by the seafarer against the shipowner and arising from the same incident; and (v) persons who can bring the claim for contractual compensation (seafarer, her/his next of kin, representative or designated beneficiary)?; (c) does national legislation provide that ships must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence has to contain the information required in Appendix A4-I, be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (d) does national legislation provide: (i) for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease; (ii) that the competent authority is notified by the financial security provider if a shipowner’s financial security is cancelled or terminated; and (iii) that seafarers receive prior notification if a shipowner’s financial security is to be cancelled or terminated?; and (e) how does national legislation ensure that effective arrangements are in place to receive, deal with and impartially settle contractual claims relating to compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard, through expeditious and fair procedures? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of a model certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A4-I of the Convention (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14).

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Ship’s safety committee. Noting that article 67(2) of the Ordinance for Labour requires a safety committee to be established on board ships of ten seafarers or more, the Committee requested the Government to adopt measures to ensure that such committees are established on board a ship on which there are five or more seafarers in accordance with Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). The Committee notes with interest that article 67 of the Ordinance for Labour has been amended accordingly.

Regulation 4.4 and Standard 4.4., paragraph 2. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. Development of facilities in appropriate ports. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are no operating seafarer welfare facilities in its country. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on any measures taken to promote the development of shore-based welfare facilities in appropriate ports in its country (Standard A4.4, paragraph 2).

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory and employed on board foreign ships (other than EU). The Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications on the measures taken to provide seafarers who are ordinarily resident in Bulgaria and employed on board ships flying the flag of a country not member of the EU with social security coverage no less favourable than that enjoyed by shoreworkers, in accordance with Standard A4.5, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under article 4(а) of the Social Security Code, seafarers must be subject to mandatory social security for general illness and maternity, disabilities due to general illness, old age, death, labour/work accident and occupational illness over a selected monthly social security income determined for self-employed persons by the State Social Security Budget Act. The Code also establishes the possibility for seafarers upon their own choice to make social security contributions for unemployment. The Committee observes that, contrary to shoreworkers, seafarers residing in Bulgaria and employed on board foreign ships (other than EU) would be assimilated to self-employed workers and would need to bear alone the financial burden of both employer’s and employee’s contributions. This situation is not in conformity with the principle established by Regulation 4.5, paragraph 3, according to which seafarers who are subject to the national social security legislation are entitled to benefit from social security protection no less favourable than that enjoyed by shoreworkers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to comply with the principle of equality of treatment between seafarers and shoreworkers as regards social security protection in the case of seafarers serving on board foreign ships (other than EU), in particular by way of actively seeking to conclude bilateral or multilateral social security agreements, for example, with the most important flag States with a view to giving effect to the above principle.

Regulation 5.1.1 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. General principles. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the specific measures taken to ensure the effectiveness of the system in place for the inspection and certification of maritime labour conditions on ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that inspections and certification are executed by the Executive Agency Maritime Administration (EAMA). Regarding the efficiency of the system, the Government states that the Bulgarian system has been certified under the “ISO 9001” Standard Quality Management System. The Committee welcomes the adoption, referred to by the Government, of the special procedure No. 05-15 on the review and issue of documents for conventional ships according to the MLC, 2006, most recently updated in 2017, which contain detailed provision on the inspection and certification of ships. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.1.2 and Standard A5.1.2, paragraph 4. Flag State responsibilities. Authorization of recognized organizations. List provided to the ILO. The Committee requested the Government to provide the list of recognized organizations authorized to carry out inspections or certifications on behalf of Bulgaria. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, currently, no recognized organization has been authorized to carry out these functions, which are solely performed by the competent authority (EAMA). The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.3 and Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC). Content. Noting that two of the examples of the DMLC Part II provided by the Government mainly contained a list of references to other documents, the Committee requested the Government to instruct its inspectors to review the DMLC Part II to ensure that they are more informative concerning the ways in which the national requirements are to be implemented between inspections. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that inspectors of the EAMA were familiarized with this recommendation of the Committee and shall undertake due actions to require Bulgarian shipowners a revision of the DMLC Part II. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to submit new examples with its next report.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 5 and 7. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Powers of inspectors. Investigation and remedy. The Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of any national guidelines issued to inspectors under Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7 and a copy of any documentation that is available informing seafarers and interested others about the procedures for making a complaint regarding a breach of the requirements of the Convention (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 5, and Guideline B5.1.4, paragraph 3). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these requirements are included in Ordinance No. 11 on the inspections of ships and shipowners. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 10 and 11. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Confidentiality. Noting the absence of information on specific provisions requiring that inspectors keep the source of the complaint confidential (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 10) nor on the confidentiality regarding commercial processes which may come to the knowledge of inspectors in the course of their duties (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 11(b)), the Committee requested the Government to indicate how effect is given to these requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that under article 31(е), paragraph 3 of Ordinance No. 11 on the inspection of ships and shipowners, inspectors preserve the confidentiality of the sources of complaints containing allegations on nonconformity of living and working of seafarers or violations of the legislation. In no way shall they inform the shipowner, the shipowner’s representative or the ship operator, that a particular inspection was performed as a result of such complaint. The Government further states that, concerning the confidentiality of commercial processes which may come to the knowledge of inspectors in the course of their duties, there is a legal obligation for all employees of the EAMA to preserve the secrecy of data (article 360, paragraph 4 of the Commercial Shipping Code). The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous requests.

Regulation 5.1.5 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. On-board complaints procedures. The Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of Bulgaria’s model for on-board complaint procedures, if developed, or of typical procedures that are followed on ships that fly its flag (Regulation 5.1.5). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this matter is regulated by article 54(6) of the Ordinance for Labour under which the shipowner has an obligation to adopt and implement written procedures for review of individual complaints on board the ship. The Committee recalls that according to the Convention, each Member shall ensure that, in its laws and regulations, appropriate on-board complaint procedures are in place to meet the requirements of Regulation 5.1.5 (Standard A5.1.5, paragraph 2). The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that the procedures developed by the shipowners meet the requirements of the Convention.

Additional documents requested. The Committee notes that the Government has omitted to provide some of the documents previously requested. The Committee reiterates its request as follows: a copy of the standard Maritime Labour Certificate, including Part I of the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance; an example in English of the approved document for seafarers’ record of employment (Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1 and 3); report or other document containing information on the objectives and standards established for Bulgaria’s inspection and certification system, including the procedures for its assessment (Standard A5.1.1); an example in English of authorizations given to recognized organizations (Regulation 5.1.1, paragraph 5; Regulation 5.1.2, paragraph 2); a copy of the annual reports on inspection activities that have been issued in accordance with Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 13, during the period covered by this report or, if not yet available, during the previous period; a copy of the form used for an inspector’s report (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12); a copy of the report in connection with the regime of the port State control pursuant to the provisions of Rule 5.2.1; a copy of the report in connection with the port State control arrangements (Regulation 5.2.1) and a copy in English of a document that describes the onshore-handling procedures (Regulation 5.2.2).

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Bulgaria

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C006 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C078 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C079 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C131 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C087 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C026 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C042 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C044 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C095 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C173 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Bulgaria

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C006 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C078 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C079 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C131 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C087 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C026 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C042 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C044 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C095 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C173 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)