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.

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)