Texts of pending comments

Article 3 of the Convention. Clause (c). Use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide information in its report on the practical application of its legislation criminalizing the use, procuring or offering of children for illicit activities, in particular the production or trafficking of drugs. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and penal sanctions applied for the offences committed under section 190(3) of the Criminal Act related to the use of children under the age of 18 years for the production and trafficking of drugs.

Article 5. Monitoring mechanisms. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the National Referral System consists of the National Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, of the National Committee for Combatting Trafficking and its operational team and, since 2019, of the Labour Inspectorate. The National Referral System manages all activities from the identification of the victims of trafficking to their full integration into society and is based on cooperation and exchange of information among competent state administration bodies, public institutions, and the NGOs. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the activities carried out by the National Referral System to monitor the trafficking of children for labour and commercial sexual exploitation, and on the results achieved.

Article 6. Programmes of action to eliminate the worst forms of child labour. Trafficking. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s detailed information regarding the measures taken to prevent child trafficking. In particular, the Government indicates that the National Plan for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings 2018–2021 covered all aspects of combating trafficking in human beings and included preventive actions and public awareness-raising of the recruitment of victims of trafficking through the Internet, with a specific focus on women and children. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government regarding various awareness-raising measures, and on the National SOS Line for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings which operates daily.

Furthermore, the Committee notes, from the Report of the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Croatia, 2020 (GRETA Report), that the Government adopted a new Action Plan 2019–2020 for the Implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy 2013–2020, which included the issue of human trafficking (para. 160). One of the aims of the Action Plan is to enable persons from Roma communities to recognize the threats of human trafficking, sexual exploitation and other forms of violence, with a particular focus on women and children, through measures that include training programmes and awareness-raising. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken to combat the trafficking of children for the purpose of labour or sexual exploitation, and the results achieved. In particular, it requests the Government to indicate whether a new National Action Plan to combat trafficking in human beings is being developed and/or implemented. It also requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved through the Action Plan 2019–2020 – as well as through any new plan or programme - on the protection of particularly vulnerable Roma children from sale and trafficking.

Article 7(2)(a). Effective and time-bound measures. Preventing the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labour. Roma children. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that considerable improvement had been achieved in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating both the mainstream and targeted measures to integrate Roma children, particularly in the area of education.

The Committee notes, according to the Fifth Opinion on Croatia by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) of the Council of Europe (1 February 2021, para. 81), that Croatian authorities continue implementing policies aimed at improving the living conditions and social inclusion of the Roma by further developing the National Roma Inclusion Strategy (NRIS) 2013–20. The Government indicates that the monitoring of activities and measures of NRIS is regularly carried out by the Ministry of Education and Science, and reported annually by the National Office for Human Rights and National Minorities. Regular reports show significant positive developments in the field of education of members of the Roma national minority, including as regards the number of students enrolled in the secondary education system. The Government indicates, for example, that the Ministry of Science and Education provides additional classes for Roma national minority students, which is important for the successful completion of primary education. Moreover, the secondary education system includes an increasing number of students, and student scholarships and literacy and training programmes are being provided. Finally, the resources allocated by the Ministry of Science and Education to the achievement of national policy measures for Roma education have increased significantly.

The Committee further notes that the ACFC commended the introduction of free pre-school education in the year preceding enrolment in primary school with an emphasis on language instruction and the fact that the number of Roma children enrolling in compulsory pre-primary school programmes is as high as in the general population (95 per cent). However, it also took note of continued reports of de facto segregation of Roma children in the education sector and about the lack of opportunities to receive instruction in their languages, as well as of the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on equal access to education for Roma children (paras 184–200). While noting the measures taken by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to facilitate access of Roma children to free, quality basic education. It further requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and on the results achieved, particularly with regard to improving the functioning of the education system, increasing the school enrolment rates and reducing the school drop-out rates of Roma children. To the extent possible, this information should be disaggregated by age and gender.

Article 7(2)(b). Direct assistance for the removal of children from the worst forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation and social integration. Child victims of trafficking. The Committee previously noted, among other measures, that four mobile teams operating at the local level in Zagreb, Rijeka, Split and Osijek, cooperate with the local police to identify victims of trafficking and organize their referral to assistance.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to the statistics of the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and of the Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities, 30 child victims of trafficking were identified between 2017 and 2020. The Government indicates that three new protocols were adopted to assist victims of trafficking, namely the Protocol on identification, assistance and protection of victims of human trafficking (Protocol I) and the Protocol on the procedures during the voluntary return of victims of human trafficking in 2017, as well as the Protocol on the integration/reintegration of victims of trafficking in human beings in 2019. The Government indicates, in particular, that Protocol I is implemented by the MoI, who cooperates with civil society organizations and mobile teams to identify victims of trafficking. Where the victim is a child, a mobile team coordinator must act as representative of the social welfare system, and the victim must decide whether they will accept the aid and protection programme offered to them within 90 days of identification. Aid and protection programmes include medical and psycho-social protection, safe accommodation, translation and interpretation services and legal aid. The Committee also takes note of the detailed information communicated by the Government regarding the measures taken to protect migrant and asylum seeker child victims from any type of abuse and violence, including a right to support services.

The Committee notes, however, various concerns mentioned in the GRETA Report, including the lack of training for mobile team members and, the lack of state funding for the so far voluntary work of specialized NGOs participating in the mobile teams (paras 176–187). The Committee encourages the Government to strengthen its efforts to protect children from sale and trafficking. It requests the Government to continue providing statistical information on the number of child victims of trafficking under the age of 18 who have been identified and provided services and assistance by the various agencies, including the operational team and the four mobile teams at the local level.

Clause (d). Identifying and reaching out to children at special risk. 1. Children engaged in begging. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to available data, there were no recorded cases of children under 14 years being used for begging in 2020. According to data from the MoI in 2020, five children over the age of 14 were found begging. The Government indicates that begging with children is a relatively regular occurrence in major cities, especially in Zagreb. While police officers are continuously taking measures to prevent children from being used for begging, responsible State bodies have not been able to completely eradicate this unwanted social phenomenon. The Committee encourages the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to protect children engaged in begging from the worst forms of child labour. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of children engaged in begging who have been identified, rehabilitated and socially integrated through such measures.

2. Absconding and unaccompanied children. The Committee previously noted that there had been an increase in the number of runaway children and unaccompanied minors, who disappeared from the reception centres for asylum seekers within days of being placed. It noted the Government’s indication that there was an ongoing process of de-institutionalization and placing children with foster parents.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Foster Care Act (OG No 115/18) – which enables the accommodation of unaccompanied children with foster families – entered into force in 2019. According to the GRETA Report, pursuant to the Foster Care Act, professional assistance and support in foster care is provided by social welfare centres, social care homes and community service centres. The Ordinance on the manner and duration of foster carers’ training and additional training stipulates that applicants who have expressed an interest in accommodating an unaccompanied foreign child or young adult must undergo additional training, which includes issues such as children in migration, interculturalism and intercultural competences in the care of an unaccompanied child, specificities of victims of trafficking, and preparation of unaccompanied children transitioning to adulthood for leaving foster care (para. 155).

The Committee notes, however, that according to the GRETA report, since 2015, the Ministry of the Interior has identified over 1,000 children as unaccompanied and separated (319 in 2016, 541 in 2017 and 156 in the first 10 months of 2018) (para. 196). The GRETA report highlights the particular vulnerability of children placed in childcare institutions, as well as the links between institutional care and child trafficking. It also raises concerns about alleged failings of the guardianship system for unaccompanied children, including the fact that, due to the heavy workload of social workers and language barriers, the role of the guardian was only formal and without real involvement in the procedure for protecting the best interests of the child. In some cases, an adult from the migrant group with which the child had arrived in Croatia was appointed as guardian, thus risking the appointment of a person who traffics or exploits the child as his/her guardian (para. 197). The Committee requests the Government to strengthen its efforts to protect unaccompanied children from falling victims to the worst forms of child labour. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and on the results achieved.

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). It notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2016 and 2018 entered into force for Croatia on 8 January 2019 and 26 December 2020, respectively. Following a second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 and 26 October 2020 and on 4 October 2021, alleging that ratifying states have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 and its comments in the general report of 2021 on this issue, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any temporary measures adopted in this regard, their duration and their impact on seafarers’ rights.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f), 2 and 3 of the Convention. Scope of application. Seafarers. In its previous comment, noting the definition of crew in section 125(1) of the Maritime Code (Official Gazette, Nos. 181/04, 76/07, 146/08, 61/11, 56/13, 26/15, 17/19) and the “Ordinance on health requirements for crew members on seagoing ships, boats and yachts” (Official Gazette No. 93/07), as amended, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers working on ships flying the Croatian flag. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in general, the provisions of the Maritime Code and other implementing regulations are applicable to all crew members (seafarers) that are employed or engaged or work in any capacity on board a ship. The Government further indicates that: i) section 2 paragraph 1(1) of the Ordinance on the implementation of the MLC, 2006 (Official Gazette No. 122/16, 42/19), which implements the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, and section 2, paragraph 1(7) of the “Ordinance on watchkeeping requirements and methods and attending to other duties on board ships which provide for safe navigation and protection of the sea against pollution” (Official Gazette No. 125/05) (hereinafter, Ordinance on watchkeeping), provide that seafarer is any person employed, recruited or working in any capacity on board a ship covered by the MLC, 2006; and ii) in accordance with section 137 of the Maritime Code, all seafarers employed or engaged or that work in any capacity on board a ship (including hotel personnel) in order to embark must possess a seaman’s book, used for proving the status in which a crew member boarded a ship and the duration of seagoing service. While noting the Government’s explanations, the Committee observes that part of the legislation implementing the MLC, 2006 does not cover all seafarers protected under the Convention. In particular, the majority of the provisions of the Maritime Code only applies to Croatian nationals employed on board Croatian ships (see section 141). Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measure to harmonize its legislation in order to ensure that the provisions implementing the Convention apply to all seafarers as defined in Article II.

Article II, paragraph 1(i), 4 and 5. Ships. Noting the definition of ship under section 5 of the Maritime Code, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers working on board ships within the meaning of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 5, paragraph 2 of the Maritime Code has been amended to provide that ship, other than a warship, means a waterborne craft intended for navigation at sea, whose hull exceeds 15 metres in length or is authorised to carry more than 12 passengers. The Committee also notes that section 5, paragraph 13 of the Maritime Code, as amended, defines a yacht as a waterborne craft for sports and recreation, regardless of whether it is used for personal needs or business, exceeding 15 metres in length and intended for a longer stay at sea, which is authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers in addition to the crew. While noting that the above amendments have removed the reference to gross tonnage, the Committee recalls that the MLC, 2006 applies to all ships ordinarily engaged in commercial activities (Article II, paragraph 4), including yachts, regardless of their length and of the number of passengers carried. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers working on board ships within the meaning of the Convention, including yachts ordinarily engaged in commercial activities.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1. Minimum age. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure compliance with Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the “Ordinance on seaman’s books and boarding permits, and procedures and manner of registration and deregistration of seafarers for compulsory pension and compulsory health insurance” (Official Gazette 112/2016) (hereinafter, Ordinance on seaman’s books), according to which “a seaman’s book or embarkation permit shall be issued to a person who has reached the age of sixteen”. The Government further indicates that although there is no specific general prohibition of employment of persons under 16 years of age on board a ship, from the above-mentioned provision it is evident that there is no possibility for the employment of any seafarers without seamen’s book. While noting the Government’s explanation, the Committee recalls that under Regulation 1.1, paragraph 1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the employment, engagement or work on board of any person under the age of 16 shall be prohibited. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 1.3. Training and qualifications. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to the requirement of Regulation 1.3, paragraph 2 (completion of training for personal safety on board) with regard to all seafarers working on all ships covered by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 49 and 50 of the “Ordinance on ranks and certification of seafarers” (Official Gazette No. 130/13), as amended, prescribing mandatory safety familiarization training according to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), for all persons carrying out operations on board ship in any capacity prior to being assigned to shipboard duties. The Committee notes, however, that, the scope of application of the above-mentioned Ordinance is limited to “ship's captain, engine manager, officer and other crew members of seagoing vessels”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that all seafarers working on all ships covered by the Convention, including hotel and catering staff, complete training for personal safety on board ship in order to be permitted to work on board.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that the applicable legislation would be amended to comply with the requirement of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 16, paragraph 5 of the new Ordinance on recruitment and placement of seafarers (Official Gazette No. 55/18) provides that “Prior to the signing of the seafarer’s employment agreement …, the agency for recruitment and placement of seafarers shall be obliged to verify whether the shipowner has liability insurance in the event of death, deterioration of the health or injury of the seafarer, at least at the level determined by the applicable law and the collective agreement and whether there is repatriation system in place, and to inform the seafarer concerned”. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that under Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi), seafarer recruitment and placement services should establish, in addition to any insurances provided by the shipowner, a “system of protection, by way of insurance or an equivalent appropriate measure, to compensate seafarers for monetary loss that they may incur as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give full effect to Standard 1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi) of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a) and (c). Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signature of seafarer and shipowner or a representative. The Committee previously noted that under section 16 of the Ordinance on recruitment and placement of seafarers (Official Journal No. 120/07), the employment contract with a seafarer is signed by the employer or by the intermediary on behalf of the employer. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the legislation implementing the requirement that the seafarer has an original of the seafarer’s employment agreement (SEA) signed by both the shipowner and the seafarer. The Committee notes with interest that under section 16(2) of the new Ordinance on recruitment and placement of seafarers, the SEA shall be signed by the shipowner or the agency for recruitment and placement of seafarers on behalf and for the account of the shipowner. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses it previous request.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs (b) and (d). Seafarers’ employment agreement. Examination and advice before signing. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the legislation implementing Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(b) and (d). The Committee notes that section 16(3) and (7) of the new Ordinance on recruitment and placement of seafarers substantially give effect to Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(b) and (d) in relation to the obligations of the agency for recruitment and placement vis-à-vis seafarers. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure shall adopt the amendments to the Ordinance on implementation of the MLC, 2006 in order to implement Standard A2.1, paragraph 1 of the Convention in a more understandable manner. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legislation implementing Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(b) and (d) (including the requirement for the seafarer to have an opportunity to seek advice on the SEA before signing it and the availability of information of conditions of employment on board for review by the competent authority) when the SEA is concluded directly between the shipowner and the seafarer.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 2. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Documents available in English. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it implements Standard A2.1, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and 3. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Record of employment. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that, without previous request, the seafarers are given a document containing a record of employment as required by Standard A2.1, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the seaman’s book is the relevant document containing a record of employment. The mandatory elements to be included in the seaman’s book are provided by section 7 of the Ordinance on seaman’s books. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 4. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Content. The Committee previously noted that: i) the provisions of the Labour Act regulating the elements to be included in written employment contracts do not include all the matters provided under Standard A2.1, paragraph 4; and ii) the model SEA referred to by the Government contains only some of the matters listed in Standard A2.1, paragraph 4. The Committee requested the Government to adopt laws and regulations to ensure full conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph 4. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure shall adopt the amendments to the Ordinance on implementation of the MLC, 2006, in order to implement this provision of the Convention in a more understandable manner. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to fully comply with Standard A2.1, paragraph 4.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 5 and 6. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Minimum notice period for termination. Shorter notice period for urgent reasons. Noting the Government’s reference to the general provisions of the Labour Act providing for a period of notice for termination of between two weeks and three months depending on the length of service (section 122), the Committee requested the Government to specify whether and how the need of the seafarer to terminate the contract without penalty on shorter notice or without notice for compassionate or other urgent reasons has been taken into account (Standard A2.1, paragraph 6). The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure shall adopt the amendments to the Ordinance on implementation of the MLC, 2006 in order to implement this provision of the Convention in a more understandable manner. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to implement Standard A2.1, paragraph 6.

Regulations 2.1 and 2.2 and Standards A2.1, paragraph 7 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 7. Seafarers’ employment agreements and wages. Captivity as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships. In relation to the 2018 amendments to the Code, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) do laws or regulations provide that a seafarer’s employment agreement shall continue to have effect while the seafarer is held captive on or off the ship as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships?; (b) how are the terms piracy and armed robbery against ships defined under national legislation? (Standard A2.1, paragraph 7); and (c) do laws or regulations provide that wages and other entitlements under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective bargaining agreement or applicable national laws, including the remittance of any allotments, shall continue to be paid during the entire period of captivity and until the seafarer is released and duly repatriated or, where the seafarer dies while in captivity, until the date of death in accordance with national legislation? (Standard A2.2, paragraph 7). The Committee requests the Government to reply to the abovementioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 2.2 and the Code. Wages. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that the monthly account of wages of all seafarers covered by the Convention, including non-Croatian seafarers working on board Croatian flagged ships, contain the elements indicated in Standard A2.2, paragraph 2. It also requested the Government to provide information on measures implementing Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3–5 with regard to all seafarers covered by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure shall adopt the amendments to the Ordinance on implementation of the MLC, 2006 in order to implement this provision of the Convention in a more understandable manner. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to fully implement Standard A2.2, paragraphs 2–5 of the Convention with regard to all seafarers covered by it.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 13. Hours of work and hours of rest. Exceptions. Noting that section 8(5) of the Ordinance on watchkeeping, provides for exceptions to the minimum hours of rest (temporarily shortening of hours of rest to at least six uninterrupted hours in 48 hours), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any exceptions to the provisions set out in Standard A2.3, paragraphs 5 and 6 may only be provided through collective agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that since there is currently no applicable collective agreement in force for seafarers in national navigation as the negotiation process is under way, the exemptions are established by the Ordinance on watchkeeping requirements. The Government further indicates that the Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure adopts all legislation relating to seafarers, including the above-mentioned Ordinance, after consultations with representative social partners. Recalling that exceptions to the minimum hours of rest or maximum hours of work can only be established in a collective agreement authorized or registered by the competent authority, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the collective agreement for seafarers engaged in national navigation upon its adoption.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. The Committee previously noted: (i) the Government’s reference to section 77 of the Labour Act, which provides that the first-time worker or the worker with the interruption period between two employments exceeding eight days shall acquire the entitlement to annual leave after six consecutive months of employment with that employer was not in full conformity with the Convention, and (ii) the fact that the applicable collective agreement does not cover all the seafarers protected by the Convention. It requested the Government to adopt legislation applicable to all seafarers to give full implementation to Standard A2.4, giving due consideration to Guideline B2.4.1, paragraph 3. Noting the absence of information in this respect, the Committee reiterates its request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2 (a). Repatriation. Circumstances. Noting that section 138(1) of the Maritime Code and section 20 of the applicable collective agreement – do not cover all the circumstances in which seafarers shall be entitled to repatriation pursuant to Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that this provision is fully implemented. Noting the absence of information in this respect, the Committee reiterates its request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, according to the Croatian national provisions, the shipowner shall not recover the costs of the repatriation from a crew member except in case of: (i) “major violations of obligations arising from the employment contract” under section 139(2) of the Maritime Code; and (ii) “seafarers’ misconduct”, that is, “serious breach of any of the responsibilities from the employment agreement”, under section 20(3) of the national collective agreement. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before any seafarer covered by the Convention can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarers employment obligations” pursuant to Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Noting the absence of information in this respect, the Committee reiterates its request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Financial security. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Ordinance on implementation of the MLC, 2006, which entered into force on 18 January 2017 and implements the requirements of Standard A2.5.2. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Noting that Part 20 of the Rules for statutory certification of ships on protection at work and crew accommodation (Official Gazette No. 54/15) provides for the possibility for the competent authority to grant exemptions pursuant to Standard A3.1, paragraphs 9(a), (m), 10(a), 15 and 19 of the Convention without providing for the previous consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on how such consultations are ensured for the granting of exemptions. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Rules for statutory certification of ships – Protection at work and crew accommodation (Official Gazette 32/18), which repeals the previous Rules for statutory certification (Official Gazette No. 54/15). It notes that the new Rules substantially contain the same provisions of the previous and allow recognized organizations (ROs) with the permission of the Ministry, to grant the above-mentioned exemptions. Noting that such Rules, as the former, do not require previous consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A3.1, paragraph 3 (inspections on accommodation), and paragraph 11(b), (d) and (f) (sanitary facilities). In relation to inspections, noting that the Government refers to provisions implementing Standard A3.1, paragraph 18, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions ensuring that the inspections required under Regulation 5.1.4 are carried out when a ship is registered or pre-registered or when the seafarer’s accommodation on a ship has been substantially altered, as required by Standard A3.1, paragraph 3. The Committee notes that the provisions of the Rules for statutory certification of ships – Protection at work and crew accommodation (Official Gazette 32/18) mostly implement the requirements of Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(b) and (f). However, it notes that sections 3.5.6 and 3.3.22 are not in full conformity with Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(d) that: i) also applies to ships under 3,000 GT which are not passenger ships; and ii) provides that each sleeping room shall be provided with a washbasin except where such a washbasin is situated in the private bathroom provided. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(d).

Regulation 3.2 and the Code. Food and catering. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on how it gives effect to the requirements of Standard A3.2, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the collective agreement 2019-2020, which has a limited scope of application (Croatian seafarers engaged in international navigation). Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with Standard A3.2, paragraphs 1 and 2 on minimum standards for the quantity and quality of food and drinking water and catering standards with respect to all seafarers working on ships covered by the Convention.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 3 and 4. Ships’ cooks. Noting that section 38 of the “Ordinance on ranks and certification of seafarers” (Official Gazette No. 130/13), as amended, provides for an exception to the requirement to obtain a certificate of competence as ship’s cook, which is not in conformity with the Convention, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that seafarers who are engaged as ships’ cooks are trained, qualified and found competent for the position, as required by Standard A3.2, paragraph 3. Noting that the Government has provided no new information in this regard, the Committee requests it to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with Standard A3.2, paragraph 3.

Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements Standard A4.1, paragraphs 1 and 4(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions of the collective agreement 2019-2020. Noting that the collective agreement has a limited scope of application, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all seafarers covered by the Convention have, free of charge, the right to prompt and adequate medical care while working on board as well as to visit a qualified medical doctor or dentist without delay in ports of call, where practicable, as comparable as possible to workers ashore (Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 1). The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the legislation implementing Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(c) (seafarer competent to provide medical first aid).

Regulation 4.2 and the Code. Shipowners’ liability. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements, with respect to all seafarers covered by the Convention, all the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions of the collective agreement 2019-20. In this respect, the Committee recalls again that Standard A4.2.1 should be implemented through laws and regulations. The Committee further reiterates that section 145(5) of the Maritime Code relating to shipowner’s liability for damages caused by physical injury or death of a crew member or due to health impairment: (a) appears not to apply to foreign seafarers on board Croatian-flagged ships; and (b) provides that the shipowner is not liable when he “provides evidence that damages have occurred through no fault of his.” In relation to the latter, the Committee observes that section 145(5) is not in compliance with the Convention as long as the liability of the shipowner may only be excluded in the circumstances listed under Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 5. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the laws and regulations adopted to fully implement Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 1, 3 and 7 in relation to all seafarers, including foreign seafarers, working on board Croatian-flagged ships.

Regulation 4.2 and Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security in the event of death or long-term disability. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Ordinance on implementation of the MLC, 2006 which implements the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 8-14 and Standard A4.2.2. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraphs 1 and 2. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that laws and regulations and other measures on health and safety protection and accident prevention on board ships: (i) cover all seafarers protected by the Convention; and (ii) implement Standard A4.3, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Sea, Transport and Infrastructure shall adopt the amendments to the Ordinance on implementation of the MLC, 2006 in order to implement this provision of the Convention in a more understandable manner. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to fully implement Standard A4.3, paragraphs 1 and 2 (including the requirement of a ship’s safety committee on board) with regard to all seafarers covered by the Convention.

Regulation 4.3, paragraph 2. National guidelines. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Regulation 4.3, paragraph 2. Noting that the Government provides no information in this respect, the Committee once again requests it to indicate the measures adopted to develop the required national guidelines, after consultation with the concerned representative shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. Protection of residents working on ships flying a foreign flag. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on how it is ensured that all seafarers ordinarily resident in Croatia, and, to the extent provided for in the relevant legislation, their dependants are granted social security coverage in the branches specified, which is no less favourable than that enjoyed by shoreworkers resident in Croatia. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that for seafarers engaged in national navigation, the employers are required to pay their contributions as for all other workers ashore. Based on this mechanism, the seafarers are entitled to use all social benefits guaranteed by the Convention and national legislation. With regard to the difference between seafarers engaged in national and international navigation as to the payment of social security contributions, the Committee encouraged the Government to explore mechanisms to ensure that the employer’s social security contributions for seafarers engaged in international navigation are paid by the shipowner. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that seafarers engaged in international navigation are self-contributing payers who shall pay contributions based on special rates for seafarers in amounts that are more favourable than for other workers in Croatia. The Government also reiterates that for seafarers engaged in international navigation working on ships flying a foreign flag and employed by foreign companies, Croatia has no jurisdiction and it is not possible to enjoin any obligation on foreign entities. The Committee observes that under section 129, paragraph 2, of the Maritime Code, the registration of the compulsory pension scheme and the compulsory health insurance of the seafarer engaged in international navigation, whose employer is a domestic corporate entity, and the cancellation thereof shall be made by the employer. Under paragraphs 8 and 10 of section 129 and section 129a, contributions are paid by the seafarer and the employer shall not be liable to pay them. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that all seafarers resident in Croatia engaged in international navigation, whose employer is a domestic entity, as well as their dependants are entitled to social security benefits not less favourable than those enjoyed by shoreworkers.

Regarding seafarers resident in Croatia working on ships flying a foreign flag, the Committee recalls the Governments’ obligation to provide social protection to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. Under Standard A4.5, paragraph 3, this responsibility could be satisfied, for example, through appropriate bilateral or multilateral agreements or contribution-based systems. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of those seafarers, as well as information on any bilateral or multilateral agreements covering social security of seafarers.

Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code. Invalidity and withdrawal of the maritime labour certificate. Noting that Item 4.4.7.2 of the statutory certification in accordance with the MLC, 2006 – Procedure QP7.5.1-17 on the invalidation and withdrawal of the MLC, 2006, does not differentiate between the cases of invalidity and withdrawal of the certificate, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that a maritime labour certificate shall be withdrawn by the Flag State Administration or by the RO when duly authorized for this purpose by the Flag state, if there is evidence that the ship concerned does not comply with the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the applicable legislation. The Committee observes that Item 4.4.7.2 of the statutory certification in accordance with the MLC, 2006 (Procedure QP7.5.1-17) does not include all the cases listed in Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 14 for the invalidity of a certificate and in turn lists elements which bring to the withdrawal of the certificate under the Convention (e.g. absence of corrective action). Recalling that the invalidity and withdrawal of a maritime labour certificate occur under different circumstances, respectively provided under Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 14 and Standard A5.1.3, paragraphs 16 and 17, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full conformity with these requirements of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7(c). Grounds for detention of a ship. The Committee notes that, in response to a request for information on how Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7(c), of the Convention is implemented, the Government refers to Annex X – Criteria for detention of a ship - Areas covered by the MLC, 2006 Convention of the Ordinance on ship inspection (Official Gazette No. 39/11, 112/14, 33/15, 86/15, 32/20). The Committee notes, however, that Annex X appears to only apply to inspections on foreign ships. It further notes that, according to paragraph 2(11) of Annex XXV of the same Ordinance (criteria for prohibition of ship departure), where deciding whether the deficiencies found are serious enough to justify detention, the inspector must determine whether the vessel ensures healthy and safe living and working conditions on board for the next voyage. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether pursuant to paragraph 2(11) of Annex XXV of the Ordinance on ship inspection, a serious breach of the requirements of the Convention is considered a ground for detention of the ship. It also requests the Government to indicate whether the provisions of Standard A5.1.4 have been included in any guidelines for Flag State inspectors.

Regulation 5.1.5 and the Code. On-board complaints. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Regulation 5.1.5, paragraph 2 of the Convention. Noting that the Government provides no information in this respect, the Committee requests it to take the necessary measures to ensure that victimization of seafarers for filing a complaint is prohibited and penalized as required by Regulation 5.1.5, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.6. Marine casualties. The Committee previously noted that under the “Regulation on the manner and conditions for performing safety investigation of maritime accidents and incidents” (Official Gazette No. 122/15), an investigation shall be carried out in cases of very serious marine accidents (i.e. those which may imply the death, total loss of the ship or serious pollution), while investigation is optional in other cases of accidents. Recalling that under Regulation 5.1.6, paragraph 1 each Member shall hold an official inquiry into any serious marine casualty, leading to injury or loss of life that involves a ship that flies its flag, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives full effect to this provision of the Convention. Noting that the Government provides no information in this respect, the Committee again requests it to indicate how it gives full effect to Regulation 5.1.6, paragraph 1 in case of any serious marine casualty leading to injury.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

Articles 4 and 8 of the Convention. Transport of workers to a ship by water; safety of workers engaged in removing or replacing hatch coverings and beams used for hatch coverings. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the indication that the Rules for the statutory certification of ships, occupational safety and crew accommodation (Official Gazette No. 32/18) give effect to Articles 4 and 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, while the above Rules stipulate the protection measures for workers to ensure access to and from the ship, they refer rather to the means of embarkation and disembarkation, such as embarkation gangways and ladders, and do not regulate the matter of the safe transport of workers who must proceed to a ship by water for the handling processes, provided for under Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legislative texts which give effect to Article 4 of the Convention concerning the obligation to ensure the safe transport of workers who must proceed to a ship by water.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government showing 49 inspections relating to the application of the occupational safety regulations by 35 port operators between 2014 and 2016, with 30 of such inspections conducted following an occupational accident. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed information on labour inspection in ports, including on the number, nature and causes of the accidents reported, as well as on the violations registered and penalties imposed.

Prospects for ratification of the most up-to-date Convention. The Committee takes this opportunity to encourage the Government to give effect to 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 envisage ratifying the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152), which is the most up-to-date instrument in this area. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this regard.

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), on measures undertaken to assist the economy and mitigate the social and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that these measures were adopted in intense dialogue with trade unions and employers’ associations and that no changes were introduced to the labour legislation. According to the Government, protection of workers and trade unions has thus remained unchanged and measures taken did not diminish the rights deriving from the Convention.

As to other pending matters, the Committee reiterates the content of its direct request adopted in 2019 and reproduced below.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2018 referring to the application of the Convention in practice and denouncing the increase since 2017 in the number of injunctions against legal strikes. It further notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Act offers protection against the withholding of union dues and for taking part in a lawful strike (sections 183(1) and 189 and 215(2) of the Labour Act). Observing that the Government does not provide its observations regarding the allegations raised by the ITUC, the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (UATUC) and the Independent Trade Unions of Croatia (NHS) in 2016, the Committee reiterates its previous request. It also requests the Government to provide its observations with respect to the alleged increasing number of injunctions against legal strikes.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, under section 171(1) of the Labour Act, only adult persons with legal capacity can establish workers’ or employers’ associations and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that minors could also form and join workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no restriction impedes minors from participating in the process of forming a trade union or of joining a union. However, pursuant to section 171(1) of the Labour Act, a trade union must be established by at least ten adult persons with legal capacity and, under Croatian legislation, minors under the age of 18 have not fully acquired their legal capacity to conclude contracts, undertake legal actions or perform some other activities necessary for the normal functions of trade unions. Recalling that minors who have reached the minimum age for admission to work should be able to exercise their trade union rights, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether, in a sector with a high prevalence of minors who are allowed to conclude labour contracts, minors could avail themselves of legal procedures to help form a union that includes fewer than the ten adults required under section 171(1) of the Labour Act.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the definition of workers provided by section 4(1) of the Labour Act does not cover self-employed workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, despite the lack of a universal definition of self-employed workers, the national legislation allows the right to join and form unions to the different categories of self-employed workers such as craft workers, workers who practice liberal professions and freelancers (such as journalists, artists, and athletes). The Committee notes however that the Government does not provide information on the applicable legal provisions. The Committee requests the Government to specify the legislative provisions granting the rights enshrined in the Convention to self-employed workers, such as craft workers, workers who practice liberal professions and freelancers. Furthermore, it requests the Government to specify which provisions recognize these rights to workers in the informal economy.

Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing. In reply to the previous requests of the Committee to clarify the relationship between works councils and trade unions, the Government points out that: (i) works councils are an institutionalized form of workers’ participation in decision-making at the enterprise level on issues related to their economic and social rights and interests, while trade unions represent workers at an industry or enterprise level with an aim of improving working conditions, wages and other material rights (section 140 of the Labour Act); (ii) collective bargaining and the exercise of any form of industrial action is a prerogative of trade union organizations, notwithstanding an agreement between works council and the employer can be concluded, but it must not regulate wages, working hours and other matters regulated by collective agreement, except when parties to a collective agreement have given authorization (sections 148(4) and 160(3) of the Labour Act); (iii) the procedure for the establishment of works councils can be initiated upon the proposal of a trade union or at least 20 per cent of the workers employed, therefore only workers can decide whether they want to be represented solely by a trade union or if it is necessary to establish work councils; if no work council has been established, all the rights and obligations pertaining to works councils are exercised by one or more trade union representatives, elected by trade unions (section 153(3) and (4) of the Labour Act); and (iv) under the Act, employers have the obligation to inform, consult and ask for the consent of works councils, while works councils have the obligation to regularly inform the workers and trade unions about the work of the councils, and to receive their initiatives and proposals (sections 149, 150 and 151 of the Labour Act). Trusting that the Government will ensure that works councils will not be used to undermine trade unions and their activities, the Committee takes due note of this information.

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employer’s organizations to organize their administration. The Committee recalls that, since 1996, it has been commenting on the issue of the distribution of trade union assets and has been requesting the Government to determine the criteria for their division. It also recalls that in its previous comments, it had noted that an Agreement on the Division of Trade Union Property was concluded in 2010 and that a working group consisting of union and Government representatives was set up to create a legal framework to address the issue of trade union property. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no further progress has been made since its last report. Recalling that the distribution of assets is a long-standing issue, the Committee firmly expects that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that an agreement on the distribution of trade union assets will be reached in the near future and requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard.

The Committee had previously invited the Government to consider simplifying the procedure of notifying changes in workers’ and employers’ organizations, as laid down in section 180 of the Labour Act. The Committee recalls that the UATUC and the NHS have pointed out that Ordinance on the Content and the Manner of Keeping the Register of Associations No. 32/15 prescribes even broader obligations in this regard. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that: (i) section 180 of the Labour Act plays an important role in gathering the most relevant information regarding workers organizations and determining their representativeness, as well as keeping a record of employers and workers organizations; and that (ii) the procedure is simple and the administrative fees of 35 Croatian Kuna (4.7 euros) cannot be regarded as an excessive burden. While taking note of these indications concerning the procedure under the Labour Act, the Committee observes that no information was provided on the obligations arising from the Ordinance on the Content and the Manner of Keeping the Register of Associations No. 32/15. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon and to review the application of the different procedures used to notify organizational changes with the social partners.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide clarifications on whether workers in the State administration and public services can effectively exercise in practice their right to strike under the Labour Act. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that: (i) the collective agreement for civil servants expressly provides for the right to strike in the event of a dispute concerning the conclusion, modification or renewal of a collective agreement; (ii) all public servants, with exception of those employed in the health sector, can exercise their trade union rights without any special restrictions; and (iii) as regards the health sector, section 198 of the 2018 Health Care Act prohibits strikes in emergency services and its section 199(1) provides that in healthcare activities of healthcare institutions strikes must not begin before a mediation procedure.

With regard to the application in practice of section 205(2) of the Labour Act, which provides for the right to call and undertake a strike of higher-level trade union organizations, the Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that from 2016 to 2018, no industrial action has been carried out by a higher-level trade union organization and no industrial action has been questioned or challenged by the Government.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to clarify whether the agreement on the maintenance of certain minimum activities during a strike or lockout under section 214(1) of the Labour Act must be established in all public and private enterprises. The Committee notes that there is no obligation to conclude an agreement on the maintenance of production activities and essential services, but that most public services, such as elementary school, have concluded that type of agreement.

As to the application of section 107 of the Labour Act, which provides for a worker’s liability to indemnify an employer for any damage at the workplace intentionally caused or due to gross negligence, the Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to ensure that this provision is not used in a manner to penalize the lawful exercise of the right to strike. The Committee notes that according to the Government, section 107 of the Labour Act should not be interpreted extensively, and the worker should not be held liable for participating in a lawfully organized strike. The Government adds that only courts can decide on the worker’s liability, the burden of proof falls on the employer and to be applicable, three conditions must be met, namely, the existence of damage, the work-related origin and the existence of either an intentional action (dolus) or gross negligence. The Committee takes note of the information provided and trusts that domestic courts will ensure that this provision will not be interpreted in a manner that restricts the lawful exercise of the right to strike.

Article 4. Administrative dissolution. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide clarification on whether a decision to delete an association from the register made by the body authorized for registration under section 190(3) of the Labour Act can be appealed to the relevant courts. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that since the dissolution is a sole instance procedure, there is no possibility of appeal, but the decision may be challenged before an administrative court within 30 days of its adoption; and that a stay of execution prevails during such appeal.

The Committee also recalls that in its previous observations it had requested the Government to repeal section 182(3) of the Labour Act, which provides that in the event of dissolution of an association its assets could not be allocated to its members. While taking note of the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour and Pensions System is evaluating the amendment of the above-mentioned provision to ensure its conformity with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its previous request.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government on measures undertaken to assist the economy and mitigate the social and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. It further notes that the Government indicates that these measures were adopted in intense dialogue with trade unions and employers’ associations and that no changes were introduced to the labour legislation. According to the Government, protection of workers and trade unions has thus remained unchanged and measures taken did not diminish the rights deriving from the Convention. The Committee also notes the information concerning the use of collective bargaining in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, elements of which are being examined in the present comments.

The Committee had previously noted the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2018, according to which private and public sector employers would undermine the collective bargaining process by delaying negotiations, promoting negotiations with yellow unions and concluding agreements directly with works councils, as well as the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee requested the Government to provide details on the relationship between the companies’ working regulations and the collective agreements negotiated with trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s assertion that: (i) according to the legislation, the employer has an obligation to consult the works council in the process of adopting the company’s working regulations; (ii) working regulations are an added value for the protection of workers, especially in sectors with low trade union density (small and medium-sized companies) where they constitute the only possibility for workers to regulate their working conditions; (iii) the existence of working regulations does not have any negative impact on the collective bargaining process and trade unions can negotiate with the employer conditions more favourable than those established in the working regulations; and (iv) according to section 160 of the Labour Act, written agreements concluded between the employer and the works council on legal rules governing employment matters do not regulate remuneration, working hours and other matters which are as a rule regulated by a collective agreement. The Committee takes note of this information. It also observes that under section 26 of the Labour Act all employers with at least 20 employees must adopt company working regulations which govern, among other things, questions of remuneration and organization of work, as well as any other issues of importance for the workers of the company, if these issues are not regulated by a collective agreement. The Committee understands from the foregoing elements that while the legislation recognizes, where these exist, the primacy of collective agreements concluded with trade unions, both agreements concluded with works councils and working regulations, subject to consultation with works councils, have a material scope which may coincide with that of collective agreements. Recalling that direct negotiation between the company and its employees aimed at bypassing sufficiently representative organizations, where they exist, may undermine the principle of promoting collective bargaining, as enshrined in the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the respective number of company collective agreements concluded with trade unions and agreements concluded with works councils, specifying in each case the number of workers covered.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Rapid appeal procedures. In its previous comments, the Committee observed with concern that the judicial resolution of anti-union discrimination cases was characterized by excessive delays and urged the Government to take, jointly with the competent authorities, effective measures to significantly accelerate the judicial proceedings in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, at the beginning of 2019, there were 20 pending and seven new civil cases related to anti-union discrimination, out of which eight were resolved during the year (one proceeding lasted up to 12 months while seven lasted more than a year). As a result, there were 19 unresolved cases related to anti-union discrimination at the end of 2019. The Government also states that the amendments to the Civil Procedure Act adopted in 2019 aim at harmonizing case law and will contribute to dispute resolution. The Committee trusts that the 2019 amendments to the Civil Procedure Act will contribute to significantly accelerating judicial proceedings in cases of anti-union discrimination and requests the Government to continue providing information on the average duration of the resolution of anti-union discrimination cases.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide updated information on the collective agreements negotiated and signed in the public sector, and to indicate whether the 2 per cent increase in wages of civil and public servants since 2017 was the result of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that all civil servants (workers employed in the State administration at the central, local and county levels or in other State bodies established to render a civil service) and public servants (workers in State-financed public services both at the central or local levels) are covered by collective agreements. The Government further mentions that, in addition to a basic collective agreement applicable to public servants, specific agreements were concluded in the following sectors: social care; health and health insurance; elementary schools and high schools; science and higher education; cultural institutions financed from the State budget; the Croatian Employment Service and the Croatian Pension Insurance Institute. The Committee welcomes this information and further notes that 83 collective agreements were concluded with the municipality, the town or the county as one of the parties and that most of the state-owned companies are also covered by collective agreements.

As for the 2017 increase in wages, the Committee notes that the Government clarifies that while the increase for civil servants was agreed to in a collective agreement, the raise for public servants was determined by a special Decision based on the Act on Salary Base in Public Services, since there was no agreement between the Government and the unions in the public sector. The Government further indicates that: i) at the end of 2018, an additional increase in salary was agreed to in collective bargaining agreements for both categories of workers; (ii) in 2019, trade unions representing civil and public servants agreed to a further increase in salaries for 2020; (iii) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, trade unions in public services agreed to conclude an Annex to the Basic Collective Agreement which states that the increase of the basic salary will be postponed to 2021; and (iv) trade unions in the civil service also agreed to the same postponement in their collective agreement.

The Committee takes due note of this information and invites the Government to continue to encourage collective bargaining in the public sector, especially for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including with respect to remuneration.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee previously noted with interest the entire sanctions mechanism set up by the legislation for acts of anti-union discrimination and requested the Government to specify the legal consequences attached by the Labour Act or the Prevention of Discrimination Act to anti-union transfers, demotions and other prejudicial acts. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provisions of the Labour Act protect all workers regardless of their trade union membership against transfers, demotions or other prejudicial acts, in particular through the employer’s obligation to indicate the title of the job, the category of work, the duties and the place of work in the employment contract, requirements which guarantee that a worker will not be unilaterally moved to another location. The Government also reiterates the information provided in its previous report on the protection foreseen by the Labour Act and the Anti-Discrimination Act against acts of anti-union discrimination, as well as the procedures and penalties in case of violations. While noting the existing legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as well as the sanctions mechanism set up by the legislation, the Committee requests the Government once again to clarify the specific sanctions imposed for anti-union transfers, demotions and other prejudicial acts pursuant to the Labour Act, 2014 or the Anti-Discrimination Act, 2008.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Determination of collective bargaining agents. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the average length of the procedure for the recognition of representativeness of trade unions. The Committee notes that the Government informs that the duration of the procedure depends solely on its complexity, in particular the level at which representativeness is established, whether the application needs to be modified with respect to the delivered data and whether there are any objections to the procedure from trade unions. Thus, the shortest duration of the procedure from the application to the bringing of decision was 47 days, whereas the longest was 111 days, with the average duration of the procedure of 75 days, taking into account that the public call, during which trade unions can apply for representative status, lasts for 30 days. The Government further reiterates that this procedure is only used when there are several trade unions at the bargaining level, which do not reach an agreement on union representativeness. In 2017, 38 unions obtained representativeness in this way, whereas 20 unions obtained representativeness through agreement between several unions while 65 unions were the only unions at their bargaining level. The Committee notes the additional figures provided by the Government according to which, between 2018 and 2020, there were 132 representative unions which were the only active unions at their bargaining level, while 57 written agreements on representativeness were concluded between several trade unions operating at the same bargaining level. The Committee takes note of this information.

Articles 4 and 6. Promotion of collective bargaining in the local and regional self-government units of the public service. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the collective bargaining practice in the local and regional administration, as well as on any dialogue with the most representative workers’ organizations in the concerned units with a view to exploring possible improvements to the collective bargaining system on the wage formation basis. The Government informs, with regard to collective bargaining at the local and regional levels, that the practice differs according to the regions: in some cases, collective agreements are only concluded for local or regional administration, whereas in other cases, there is a certain number of collective agreements covering other employees, such as employees working in kindergartens or other legal entities founded by the local government. The Committee takes due note of this information.

Concerning collective bargaining on the wage formation basis, the Government reiterates that under the Local and Regional Self-Government Wage Act, 2010 trade unions representing employees in local and regional self-government units are free to initiate the process for collective bargaining and to negotiate the basis for determining the salaries as there are no restrictions or prohibitions on freedom of collective bargaining. While taking due note of the above, the Committee recalls that the Trade Union of State and Local Government Employees of Croatia (SDLSN) had previously criticized the bargaining system in that it allegedly restricted the right of employees of financially weaker local and regional self-government units to bargain collectively over the wage formation basis. In light of the above, the Committee encourages the Government to engage in social dialogue with the most representative workers’ organizations in the concerned units with a view to exploring possible ways of improving the collective bargaining system on the wage formation basis.

Promotion of collective bargaining in practice. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) all civil and public servants (231,988) are covered by collective agreements; (ii) collective agreements in the public sector were concluded in the following areas: civil servants; public servants (basic collective agreement); social care; health and health insurance; elementary schools and high schools; science and higher education; cultural institutions financed from the State budget; the Croatian Employment Service and the Croatian Pension Insurance Institute; (iii) 83 collective agreements were concluded with the municipality, the town or the county as one of the parties of the contract but the overall coverage by collective agreements in the local and regional government, out of 14,058 workers, is unknown; (iv) most of the state-owned companies are covered by collective agreements; (v) there were two sectoral collective agreements concluded in the private sector (hospitality and construction sectors) applicable to all employers of the sectors concerned and covering 150,543 workers and many companies also conclude enterprise-level collective agreements; and (vi) around 50–55 per cent of all workers in the public and private sectors are covered by collective agreements, while most of the employees not covered by collective agreements work in small or medium-sized companies, crafts or newly established enterprises. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, many private companies made annexes to collective agreements with trade unions agreeing on reduction or postponement of some material rights. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the percentage of the workforce covered by these agreements.

Croatia

The Committee notes the Government’s first and second reports on the application of the Convention. It also notes that the 2016 amendments to the Annexes of the Convention entered into force for Croatia on 8 June 2017. The Committee recalls that these amendments aim at aligning the technical requirements of the Convention with the latest standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) with respect to the technology for seafarers’ identity documents (SIDs) provided for in the Convention. In particular, they intend to change the biometric template in SIDs from a fingerprint template in a two-dimensional barcode to a facial image stored in a contactless chip as required by ICAO Document 9303.

The Committee notes that, according to the information submitted by the Government in its reports, no steps have been taken so far to issue new SIDs in accordance with the technical requirements of the Convention, as amended in 2016. The Committee recalls in this regard the Resolution adopted by the third meeting of the Special Tripartite Committee of the Maritime Labour Convention, as amended (MLC, 2006), whereby it expressed concern about the difficulties seafarers continue to have in accessing shore leave and transiting in certain ports and terminals around the world and recognized that although an increased number of member States have ratified Convention No. 185, there still appear to be problems in ensuring that the Convention works in the way that it was originally intended. The Committee notes that these problems have been dramatically increased by the restrictions imposed by governments around the world to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. While noting the efforts undertaken by the Government to give effect to the previous version of the Convention, the Committee requests it to address the issues raised below and to indicate any measures taken to issue new SIDs in accordance with the amended version of the Convention.

Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Convention. Issuance of SIDs. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the “Ordinance on seamen’s book and embarkation permits, procedures and methods of registration and deregistration of seafarers in the compulsory pension insurance scheme and the compulsory health insurance scheme” (Official Gazette No. 112/16), hereinafter Ordinance on Seamen’s Book, regulates seamen’s books, embarkation permits and SIDs. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 4 of the Ordinance on Seamen’s Book, which regulates the conditions to apply for a seaman’s book, an embarkation permit or a SID. It notes that section 4(4) of the Ordinance provides that “at the request of a seafarer, an identification seafarer document may be issued, if it meets the requirements of this Ordinance”. The Committee further notes that under section 4(3) of the Ordinance, persons referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 of the same section, i.e. holders of a seamen’s book or an embarkation permit, may be issued with a SID. Noting that the embarkation permit may be issued to foreign citizens or stateless persons, the Committee recalls that under Article 2(1) of the Convention, each Member shall issue a SID to each of its nationals who is a seafarer and makes an application to that effect. Article 2(3) allows Members to issue SIDs also to seafarers who have been granted the status of permanent resident in its territory. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Article 2 of the Convention by limiting the issuance of SIDs to nationals and permanent residents in the country.

Article 2, paragraph 5. Administrative appeal. The Committee notes that, with regard to the seafarers’ right to an administrative appeal in the case of a rejection of their application for a SID, the Government refers to section 137a of the Maritime Code on the withdrawal of a SID (for which no administrative appeal is allowed). The Committee recalls that Article 2, paragraph 5 does not deal with the subsequent withdrawal of the SID (regulated under Article 7, paragraph 2), but with the seafarers’ right to an administrative appeal in the case of a rejection of their application for a SID. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure conformity with Article 2, paragraph 5 of the Convention.

Article 3. Content and form. The Committee notes the measures taken by the Government to issue SIDs in accordance with the technical requirements contained in the previous version of the Convention. In particular, it notes the specimen of SID supplied by the Government, which conforms to the previous version of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Government is now required to issue a new SID in conformity with the amended version of the Convention, taking into account the new requirements of Annex I. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to issue a new SID fully compliant with the amended version of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide a specimen of the new SID when it becomes available.

Article 3, paragraph 6. Maximum validity. The Committee notes that according to section 11 of the Ordinance on Seamen’s Book, SIDs shall be issued for a duration of 10 years. The Committee recalls that under Article 3, paragraph 6, the maximum validity of a seafarers' identity document shall in no case exceed 10 years, subject to renewal after the first five years. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Article 3, paragraph 6 of the Convention.

Article 4. National electronic database. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 22 and 23 of the Ordinance on Seamen’s Book regulating the register of SIDs to be kept by the Harbour Masters’ Office and the Ministry in a centralized database. It also notes the Government’s information on the online electronic database for verification of the authenticity and validity of the Croatian SIDs. The Committee notes that the details to be provided for each record in the electronic database according to section 23(2) of the Ordinance on Seamen’s Book are not in full conformity with the elements listed in Annex II to the Convention, as amended in 2016, which restricts such details to those listed under its sections 1 and 2. The Committee also recalls that, according to Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 3, the national electronic database should store records of each SIDs issued, suspended or withdrawn, and that procedures should be in place to enable holders of SIDs to check the validity of all the data stored in the database related to them and to provide for correction if necessary, at no cost for them. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Article 4 and Annex II, as amended in 2016.

Article 5. Minimum requirements for procedures of issuance of SIDs. Independent evaluation. The Committee notes that section 52 of the Ordinance on Seamen’s Book provides that an independent assessment of the management of the system for issuing SIDs, including quality control procedures, shall be carried out at least every five years in accordance with the provisions of Convention. The Committee also notes the document on the quality-control procedures for the issuance of SIDs supplied by the Government and its intention to be included in the list of Members which fully meet the requirements of the Convention, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 6 (stated in a letter submitted to the Office on 25 April 2016). The Committee recalls that the Government is now required to comply with the minimum requirements concerning processes and procedures for the issue of SIDs set out in Annex III to the Convention, as amended in 2016. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure conformity with the requirements of Annex III to the Convention, as amended, in order to subsequently carry out the independent evaluation of the management of its system for issuing SIDs pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Convention.

Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2. Verification of the identity of the holder of the SID. The Committee notes that the Government provides no information on the application of these provisions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Convention.

Article 6, paragraphs 3-6. Facilitation of shore leave. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions of the Aliens Act (Official Gazette No. 130/11, 74/13, 69/17, 46/18) regulating the short-term visa to be issued to the seafarer holding a “seafarer's travel document or other documents recognized as seafarer's identity document under international treaties” who meets certain conditions “and crosses the state border in order to embark on, reembark on or disembark from a ship on which he works, will work or on which he worked as a seafarer”. The Committee notes, however, that the Government provides no information on the situation of a seafarer holding a valid SID requesting the entry into the Croatian territory for temporary shore leave while the ship is in port. The Committee recalls that Article 6 provides that each Member for which the Convention is in force shall permit the entry into its territory, without requiring a visa, of a seafarer holding a valid SID for temporary shore leave. It requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Article 6, paragraphs 4-6 of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 2. Withdrawal of the SID. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 137a of the Maritime Code regulates the withdrawal of the seaman’s book and, consequently, of the SID. Under section 137a(6), “an appeal may not be lodged against the decision … but an administrative dispute may be initiated”. The Committee recalls that under Article 7, paragraph 2, procedures for suspending or withdrawing SIDs shall include administrative appeal. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in law and in practice. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comment, it had asked the Government to provide information on the practical application of sections 10(2) and 11 of the Civil Service Act of 2011, while awaiting the translation of the Civil Service Act of 2011 into one of the official languages of the Office. In its report the Government makes reference to articles 10 and 11 of the Civil Service Act, but does not provide any information on their application in practice and indicates that it does not have any information regarding complaints filed with the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality nor judicial decisions applying the principle of the Convention. The Committee notes that article 10(2) of the Civil Service Act of 2011, entitled “Salaries and other benefits” provides that “the right to equal pay for equal work or work of equal value” shall be accorded to all civil servants regardless of their type of contract, while section 11 entitled “Equal treatment and Equal opportunity” states that: “The chief executives of State bodies and superior civil servants shall be obliged to treat civil servants justly and equally, regardless of their race, political beliefs, sex, marital or familial status, sexual orientation, personal conditions, age, or ethnic origin, and provide them with equal opportunities for advancement, rewards and legal protection.” The Committee notes that, both of these provisions are too general and do not address specifically the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value embodied in the Convention. The Committee notes, however, that the Gender Equality Act of 2008 prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender and refers to the principle of “equal pay for equal work and work of equal value” (article 13(1)(4)) in conformity with the Convention. The Committee also notes that the Labour Act No. 093/2014 of 18 July 2014 provides, in its article 91, that an “employer shall be obliged to pay equal remuneration to female and male workers for the same work or for work to which equal value is attributed” while giving a definition of “same work or work to which equal value is attributed” that is in line with the Convention. The Committee is of the view that the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value should also be clearly stated in the Civil Service Act of 2011 – since the Convention clearly applies to the public sector. Regarding the annual report for 2017 of the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality, the Committee notes that it reveals that the majority of complainants were women (66.7 per cent) and that 86.2 per cent of cases were based on discrimination based on sex. However, the annual report does not identify if any of these cases were related to the issue of equal remuneration between men and women. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to take steps to collect statistical information on any complaints lodged before the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality regarding discrimination in remuneration, and any judicial decisions applying the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and to provide information in this regard. It also requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of sections 10(2) and 11 of the Civil Service Act of 2011 and to ensure that the principle of the Convention is formally stated in the above-mentioned text and to keep it informed of any further developments on this matter.

National policy and gender pay gap. The Committee notes that the National Gender Equality Policy 2011–15 has expired and that, to date, the new National Gender Equality Policy has not yet been adopted. In this regard, it notes the Government indication that the Office for Gender Equality is in the process of preparing the new policy for the period 2017–20 which will include measures to enhance implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and to reduce the gender pay gap. It also notes the Government’s indication that the gender pay gap stands at 10.4 per cent. The Committee notes that the report does not provide information on any concrete steps taken to address effectively the gender pay gap nor on the results achieved through the implementation of the National Gender Equality Policy (2011–15). It also notes the concerns expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) that the effectiveness of the Office for Gender Equality and the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality is hampered by the inadequacy of the human, technical and financial resources allocated to them (CEDAW/C/HRV/CO/4-5, 28 July 2015, paragraph 12). The Committee also notes that, in the study entitled “Gender Equality Policies in Croatia – Update”, carried out and published in 2017 at the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, by the Policy Department on Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, it is indicated that, although the gender pay gap in Croatia is lower than the average for the European Union Member States, it is a persistent problem, aggravated by the fact that there is no obligation of pay transparency in the private sector, thus making it very hard for an individual to assert an equal pay claim. Likewise, the CEDAW noted the persistent horizontal and vertical occupational segregation, the lack of implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and the persistent gender wage gap (CEDAW/C/HRV/CO/4-5, 28 July 2015, paragraph 28(a) and (b)). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the adoption of the new National Gender Equality Policy and the period it covers as well as on concrete steps taken to address effectively the gender pay gap and to report any results achieved. Please also provide information on the current gender pay gap, identifying differences between the private and public sectors.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, according to the Civil Service Act, the wage rate is obtained by multiplying the basic salary by the job complexity coefficients which are equally applied to all civil servants without gender differences through the Civil Service Job Position Titles and Complexity Coefficients Regulations (as updated). The Committee recalls that Article 3 of the Convention presupposes the use of appropriate techniques for objective job evaluation to determine value, comparing factors such as skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 675). The Committee notes that the Government did not provide any information concerning civil servants’ salaries and the drawing up of job descriptions free from gender bias. The Committee asks the Government, once again, to provide more detailed information on how it is ensured, through the Civil Service Job Position Titles and Complexity Coefficients Regulations or otherwise, that the criteria used to design the pay system in the civil service is free of gender bias and promotes the principle of the Convention and, in particular, to provide details on the job complexity coefficients used under the Regulations. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on active measures taken in law and in practice to promote the design and use of objective job evaluation methods that are free from gender bias in the private sector.

Awareness-raising and enforcement. The Committee notes that the National Gender Equality Policy 2011–15 envisaged two sets of measures to address the gender pay gap: improving the statistical monitoring and raising awareness of all stakeholders involved in collective bargaining of the importance of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It notes the Government’s statement that two implementation reports were prepared (2011–13 and 2014–15) and that “based on reports provided by the competent authorities, all stakeholders involved in collective bargaining are informed of the importance of equal pay for equal work and work of equal value for women and men”. The Committee notes however that, in the above-mentioned study “Gender Equality Policies in Croatia”, it is indicated that the measures envisaged in the national policy and directed at awareness-raising of social partners were not implemented at all. The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that awareness-raising measures, can take multiple forms in addition to training activities, such as dissemination of information on national policies and legislation, publication of guidelines, handbooks, organization of workshops or campaigns, launching of specific programmes to mobilize various sectors, etc. Regarding enforcement, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the work of the Labour Inspectorate in reply to its previous comment. It notes that any worker who considers they have been subjected to gender-based discrimination can submit a complaint to the Labour Inspectorate. The Government, however, does not provide the requested information regarding the specific training or awareness-raising activities, the use of the complaint mechanisms and the specific functions of the labour inspectors. The Committee is therefore bound to ask the Government, once again, whether any awareness-raising activities, including specific training has been conducted or envisaged to raise awareness of the workers and employers concerning the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and the use of the complaint mechanisms. Please provide examples. It also asks the Government to provide information on any training undertaken to increase the capacity of labour inspectors and other officials to detect violations of the principle under the Convention. Please provide information on the number of violations detected, complaints filed, and legal proceedings initiated before the courts and their outcome with respect to the principle under the Convention.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain any information in reply to its previous comments. However, the Committee is aware of new information and developments that are relevant to the implementation of the Convention, including the amendments of the new Labour Act of 18 July 2014 and the Act on Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 2013.

Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Convention. Application in practice. The Committee recalls that the Ombudsperson is the central anti-discrimination authority. As the National Equality Body, the Ombudsperson is responsible for promoting equality and reporting to the Parliament on the basis of the following grounds stated in the Anti-discrimination Act: race or ethnic affiliation or colour, gender, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social origin, property, trade union membership, education, social status, marital or family status, age, health condition, disability, genetic heritage, native identity, expression or sexual orientation. The Ombudsperson has the authority to receive discrimination complaints based on these discrimination grounds, except where they are covered by a specific Ombudsperson, such as gender, marital or family status, gender identity and expression and sexual orientation (this is the responsibility of the Ombudsperson for gender equality), disability (this is the responsibility of the Ombudsperson for persons with disabilities) or handling complaints that concern discrimination against children (this is the responsibility of the Ombudsperson for children). The Committee notes that according to the Annual Report of the Ombudsperson for 2017, for cases opened each year from 2015 to 2017, discrimination cases have been among the top three subjects, with 277 discrimination cases opened in 2017 (10.9 per cent of all cases). In 2017, the Ombudsperson acted upon 527 complaints related to discrimination (the 277 new ones in addition to 250 cases opened in previous years). According to the report, over the last few years, approximately a third of all discrimination complaints were linked to labour and employment. In 2017 that figure rose to 40.8 per cent. Seventeen per cent of the complainants indicated that race, ethnicity or colour, as well as national descent, remained the leading reasons for discrimination. The Office of the Ombudsperson also received complaints about discriminatory acts based on religion (6.1 per cent), social status (5.4 per cent) and education (5.4 per cent). A considerable number of complaints of gender-based discrimination were forwarded to the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality. In 2017, 70 complaints related to labour and 43 to employment were filed with the Office of the Ombudsperson; 69 and 26 with the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality; and ten and two with the Ombudsperson for persons with disabilities. According to the Annual report of the Ombudsperson, figures by trade unions and a non-governmental organization indicate that the main grounds of discrimination by employers were age, health, trade union membership and political opinion.

The Committee welcomes the “Diversity Charter Croatia” with 34 Croatian companies or organizations signing the Charter and pledging to implement policies of diversity and non-discrimination. The Committee notes the Ombudsperson’s recommendations, including that the Croatian Employment Service continue training stakeholders, particularly employers, on discrimination in the workplace and employment procedures; that trade unions train union commissioners on the application of Croatian and European anti-discrimination law in the field of labour and employment; and that the Croatian Employers’ Association conduct regular workshops, as part of training provided to its members, on the application of Croatian and European anti-discrimination law. Once again, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged to implement the relevant anti-discrimination provisions of the Labour Act, the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Act with regard to equal opportunities and treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate the manner in which the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act concerning the most serious forms of discrimination, including multiple discrimination, are being applied in practice. The Government is asked to provide information on any cases of discrimination with respect to all the grounds prohibited by the anti-discrimination legislation dealt with by the Ombudsperson, the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality, the Ombudsperson for persons with disabilities or the courts, including the number, nature and outcome of those cases.

Discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment. The Committee recalls that both the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Act contain provisions prohibiting sexual harassment. In the absence of any information in the Government’s report on this issue, the Committee asks the Government once again to identify any steps taken to address sexual harassment at work in practice, including the possible issuance of a code of conduct, and any awareness-raising activities, and to provide information regarding any cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations in this regard. It also asks the Government to provide information on the number of sexual harassment cases that have been received by the Ombudsperson, the Office for Gender Equality or the courts, as well as the sanctions imposed and remedies provided.

Discrimination based on race, colour and national extraction. General observation of 2018. The Committee notes that in the Annual Report of the Ombudsperson for 2017, race, ethnicity or colour remained the leading reasons for discrimination. Regarding these issues and more generally, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation on discrimination based on race, colour and national extraction which was adopted in 2018. In the general observation, the Committee notes with concern that discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes based on the race, colour or national extraction of men and women workers continue to hinder their participation in education, vocational training programmes and access to a wider range of employment opportunities, resulting in persisting occupational segregation and lower remuneration received for work of equal value. Furthermore, the Committee considers that it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to tackling the obstacles and barriers faced by persons in employment and occupation because of their race, colour or national extraction, and to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all. Such an approach should include the adoption of interlocking measures aimed at addressing gaps in education, training and skills, providing unbiased vocational guidance, recognizing and validating the qualifications obtained abroad, and valuing and recognizing traditional knowledge and skills that may be relevant both to accessing and advancing in employment and to engaging in an occupation. The Committee also recalls that, in order to be effective, these measures must include concrete steps, such as laws, policies, programmes, mechanisms and participatory processes, remedies designed to address prejudices and stereotypes and to promote mutual understanding and tolerance among all sections of the population.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2018 and requests the Government to provide information in response to the questions raised in that observation.

Persons with disabilities. The Committee notes that according to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the majority of persons with disabilities are either unemployed or have low-income employment. It also notes its recommendations to strengthen the development and empowerment of women with disabilities in employment with sufficient budget resources and clear timelines; to develop awareness-raising campaigns; to develop and implement a plan of action to increase the employment of persons with disabilities in the open labour market; to complement the quota system with other incentives for employers and to analyse and remedy disincentives to employment of persons with disabilities; to regulate and monitor reasonable accommodation, including supported employment with personal assistance, and the accessibility of the workplace, and to review systematically and reform the data collection system as it pertains to persons with disabilities, including by collecting data and statistics on the situation of women and girls with disabilities (CRPD/C/HRV/CO/1, 15 May 2015, paragraphs 10, 14, 41, 42 and 50). The Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Act on Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 2013 (as amended) as well as the National Strategy of Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities 2017–20. According to the Government, the Act provides a unified framework that ensures equal standards, measures and methodology of carrying out vocational rehabilitation – and its implementing measures such as the Ordinance on establishing an employment quota of persons with disabilities and the Ordinance on incentives for employment of persons with disabilities. If candidates have the same results in pre-employment screening and testing, public sector employers must give priority to persons with disabilities. A quota of 3 per cent of employees with disabilities is set for workplaces with at least 20 employees in both the public and private sectors. Employers who do not fulfil the quota have to pay, monthly, a fine equivalent to 30 per cent of the minimum wage that would have been paid to disabled workers had they met their quota (with the fines used exclusively to provide incentives and rewards for employment of persons with disabilities). However, the Committee notes that employers can fulfil their quota obligations using “alternative measures” such as accepting persons with disabilities for practical, rehabilitation or occupational training; providing scholarships for their regular education; or concluding business agreements with integrative and protective workshops. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that new vocational rehabilitation centres were established in 2015 to assess the working capabilities of persons with disabilities and to offer them vocational training and provide employers with professional assistance in the employment of persons with disabilities. In 2017, the organizational and technical capacities of four of these centres were further improved. According to the Government, the employment of persons with disabilities in the last ten years has constantly improved, increasing by 28.8 per cent in the years 2015 to 2017. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that employers who recruit persons with disabilities – and persons with disabilities who are self-employed – can benefit from several incentives provided by the Institute for Disability Certification, Professional Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities such as: (a) wage subsidies; (b) co financing of expenses for workplace (architectural) or working conditions (technical) adaptation, education and expert support; (c) co-financing of interest on loans to buy specific equipment needed for the employment of disabled persons; and (d) special funds for innovative programmes for employment or job creation and maintaining employment in integrative and sheltered workshops. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures adopted to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities and the impact of such measures over time, such as, for example, statistics showing the composition of workforce or quantitative workplace monitoring, complaints data, research, etc. The Government is also asked to provide statistics on the number of employers who fulfil their quota obligations by employing persons with disabilities, those who use alternative measures to fulfil their obligations and the fines applied to defaulting employers as well as information on the results achieved under the National Strategy of Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities 2017–20.

Article 2. National equality policy. The Committee reiterates its request for information on the status and the content of the draft National Strategy for the Suppression of all Forms of Discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, which was previously mentioned by the Government.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that the Anti-Discrimination Act provides for consultation by the Ombudsperson with the social partners when preparing regular reports and issuing opinions and recommendations (section 15(1)). It notes that the Annual Report of the Ombudsperson for 2017 does not make reference to such consultations. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on any consultation exercises held pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act and information on the issues addressed. The Government is asked to identify any additional cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations as regards discrimination in employment and occupation, including any training undertaken or envisaged among workers and employers, and their organizations on the anti-discrimination provisions.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Gender equality and promotion of women’s access to employment and occupation. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote women’s access to a wider range of jobs and to give them a wider choice of educational and vocational opportunities. The Committee also asked the Government for details of the number and proportion of female civil servants and civil service employees in posts of responsibility. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the National Employment Promotion Plan (NEEP) 2011–12, which was extended to 2013, and the fact that one of its priorities was the improvement of the employability of women. Measures in this plan included the revision of existing labour market policies in order to foster the labour market participation of women with few qualifications and to provide educational and training programmes adapted to the needs and circumstances of women (especially those with few skills) who are returning to the labour market. The Government indicates that in 2012, 36 per cent of new entrants to educational programmes (for unemployed persons) were women. That year, vocational training was introduced in the form of work-based training (occupational training without commencing employment) which, according to the Government, allows unemployed persons to gain professional experience in the occupational sector for which they were trained. In 2012, 5,456 persons benefited from this (72 per cent were women) and 14,445 new participants joined the programme (71 per cent women). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Croatian Employment Service (HZZ) implemented a project entitled “Women in the Labour Market” in order to reduce unemployment and contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in the labour market, but that it does not specify the timeframe for the project. The Government also indicates that, in February 2012, a “Palette of new active employment policy measures for women who are unfavourably positioned on the labour market” was completed. As a result, 50 employees of the HZZ and social welfare centres were trained; a trainer manual was developed; a “Guide for gender-aware policy” and a “Handbook with examples of good practices in implementing active labour market policies for women unfavourably positioned in the labour market” were published; and a short documentary film was produced.

The Committee notes the concerns expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) that the effectiveness of the Office for Gender Equality and the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality is hampered by the inadequacy of the human, technical and financial resources allocated to them (CEDAW/C/HRV/CO/4-5, 28 July 2015, paragraph 12). Noting that the National Gender Equality Policy 2011–15 has expired, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Office for Gender Equality is in the process of preparing a new policy for the period 2017–20 but that, to date, it has not been adopted. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the adoption of a new National Gender Equality Policy, its content and the period it covers. It also requests information on the results achieved under the National Gender Equality Policy 2011–15. The Government is also asked to indicate during which period the project “Women on the Labour Market” was implemented; to provide information on results achieved and to indicate whether this project, or any similar project, has been renewed. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the number and proportion of women in the labour force, in both the private and public sectors, if possible by sectors of activity.

Equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation of the Roma. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure access to education for Roma children without discrimination; to strengthen its efforts to promote employment opportunities and to ensure equal treatment of Roma people, particularly women, in employment and occupation; and to provide specific information on the impact of the job search assistance provided for the Roma people by the employment service. The Government indicates that the HZZ does not monitor unemployed persons according to their national extraction, but that it is estimated that, out of the 16,975 persons of Roma national minority living in Croatia (according to the census conducted in 2011), 4,499 were registered as unemployed with the HZZ in 2011 and 4,206 in 2017. In the period 2015–17, on average, 48 per cent of Roma people registered with the HZZ were women. The Committee notes the Government’s description of the regular activities of the HZZ to which all registered unemployed persons, including Roma, are invited as well as the activities directed exclusively at these persons, such as group counselling, targeted visits to employers to promote the employment of members of the Roma community, promotion of existing employment and self-employment measures and advice on starting a business. It also notes that the HZZ carries out a number of active labour market policy measures targeting disadvantaged unemployed persons, applying the “Guidelines for the development and implementation of active employment policy in the Republic of Croatia for the period 2015–2017”, in order to increase the employment rate of disadvantaged groups, including the Roma. The Committee notes that the Annual Report of the Ombudsperson for 2017 points to discrimination in employment on the grounds of ethnicity, with the Roma national minority being particularly affected. According to the Ombudsperson, employers are still reluctant to employ persons belonging to the Roma community, mainly due to widespread stereotypes about their way of life and work habits. The Committee also notes the adoption of a National Roma Inclusion Strategy (NRIS) 2013–20 identifying employment as one of the four “crucial areas” of a comprehensive strategy. Regarding education, the Committee notes that, according to a report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) dated 21 March 2018, despite the introduction of free pre-school education in the year preceding enrolment in primary school which has contributed to an increase in the enrolment rate of Roma children, only 32 per cent of these children aged from 4 to 6 years attended pre-school in 2016 (compared to 72 per cent of the general population). Although the rate of enrolment of Roma children in compulsory primary school is as high as in the general population (95 per cent), this rate drops significantly at secondary school (35 per cent compared to 86 per cent of the general population). According to the ECRI, 77 per cent of young Roma people aged 16–24 years are neither in work nor in education or training. The Committee reiterates its requests to the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure access to education, including pre-school education for Roma children without discrimination. It also asks the Government to continue providing information on the measures specifically designed to promote employment opportunities and to ensure equal treatment of Roma people, and particularly women, in employment and occupation. The Government is also asked to provide more details on the impact of the job search assistance provided for Roma people by the employment service and to indicate the results achieved through the implementation of the National Roma Inclusion Strategy (NRIS) 2013–20.

Article 3(d). Access of national minorities to employment under the control of a national authority. In the absence of information regarding the implementation of the Civil Service Employment Plan for persons belonging to national minorities for the period 2011–14, the Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the following:

- the action taken by the Government to promote and ensure access by members of national minorities to public employment in the framework of the Civil Service Employment Plan and the results achieved;
- the progress made in achieving recruitment targets for minorities;
- the current ethnic and gender composition of the civil service; and
- any obstacles encountered in the implementation of the above-mentioned plan.

Enforcement. The Committee notes that the Annual Report of the Ombud for 2017 underlines the issue of under-reporting of cases of discrimination, and the lack of awareness of the issue and of the available avenues for redress. It also pointed out that the currently available data on the number of court proceedings and their completion, the rate of success of documents and sanctions against the perpetrators of discrimination may be discouraging for victims, with protracted procedures, few claims upheld, low levels of compensation and sentences often below the legally required minimum. The Ombud recommended further improvements in the position of victims and the development of preventive action and better training on discrimination, as well as more dissuasive sentencing. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the relevant provisions of the Labour Act, 2014, and the Anti-Discrimination Act, 2008, including the number and nature of cases of discrimination in employment and occupation reported to the Ombud or filed with the courts by the labour inspectorate. The Committee also once again asks the Government to clarify whether labour inspectors conduct any awareness-raising activities aimed at eliminating discrimination in employment and occupation on any of the grounds prohibited by the national legislation. The Committee reiterates its request for the Government to: (i) take the necessary measures to promote public awareness of the anti-discrimination legislation and the available remedies; (ii) indicate the measures taken to assist victims in bringing discrimination cases; and (iii) ensure that victims’ rights are protected once they have filed a complaint.

Noting the concerns expressed by CEDAW that the effectiveness of the Office for Gender Equality and the Ombud for Gender Equality are hampered by the inadequacy of the human, technical and financial resources allocated to them, the Committee wishes to recall that a lack of human and material resources has an impact on the capacity of these bodies to perform their tasks and exercise their powers effectively. The Committee asks the Government to identify the steps taken or envisaged to ensure that these equality bodies have sufficient resources to achieve their full mission.

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 3 of the Convention. National policy. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of the Maternity and Parental Benefits Act, 2008 and the results achieved under the National Policy for the Promotion of Gender Equality in order to promote equality of treatment and opportunity of workers with family responsibilities. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that amendments to the Maternity and Parental Benefits Act adopted in 2013, 2014 and 2017, provide, in particular, for a prohibition on transferring two months of parental leave to another parent in order to encourage fathers to use their rights to parental leave; reinforcement of the protection of employment of pregnant women or women who have given birth, up to 12 months after the birth of the child; and an increase in the financial benefits. Since 2017, the maximum amount of benefit paid during the period of parental leave has increased from 80 to 120 per cent of the monthly minimum wage for employed parents and from 50 to 70 per cent for unemployed parents or employed parents not meeting the statutory period of insurance. Similarly, benefits for parents of children in need of special care were also improved. In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to Eurostat’s data cited in “Gender Equality Policies in Croatia – Update”, 2017 by the Policy Department on Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament, “the share of family/children benefits in Croatia” stands at €155 per inhabitant, i.e. at the lower end of the European Union (EU) scale, well below the EU average of €651, and represents only 7.2 per cent of the total social benefits costs. The Committee also notes that the National Gender Equality Policy 2011–15 has expired and that, according to the information provided by the Government, a new Policy is being developed but, to date, has not yet been adopted. The Government indicates, however, that the relevant authorities, in cooperation with key stakeholders and the social partners, are developing new measures to harmonize professional and private life as part of the initiative of the European Pillar on Social Rights (Croatia became a member of the EU on 1 July 2013). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in line with developments at the European level, it has set a long-term goal of adopting appropriate measures in the field of family policy. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information, including statistics disaggregated by sex, on the practical application of the Maternity and Parental Benefits Act, 2008, as well as the measures taken under the new National Policy for the Promotion of Gender Equality in order to actively promote equality of treatment and opportunity of workers with family responsibilities, and the results achieved. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the family policy measures adopted, in consultation with the social partners, in order to harmonize professional and private life. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on any cases of discrimination related to family responsibilities dealt with by the Office of the Ombudperson or the courts.

Article 4. Leave entitlements for men and women workers with family responsibilities. The Committee recalls that, according to section 12(1), (2) and (5) of the Maternity and Parental Benefits Act of 2008, an employed or a self-employed mother has the right to maternity leave from 28 days before birth until the child turns 6 months, of which 28 days before birth and 42 days after birth are mandatory; and the days of maternity leave beyond this mandatory period to be taken by the mother, can be taken by the father as paternity leave if the parents reach an agreement to do so. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide statistical information on the extent to which men and women workers made use of the maternity and parental leave entitlements under the Act, both in the public and private sectors. It also asked the Government to provide information on any measures taken with regard to other immediate family members. The Committee notes, from the statistics provided by the Government in its report, that in the period 2015 to 2017 the ratio of men accessing maternity/paternity leave (beyond the mandatory period in the first 6 months of the child) and parental leave (after the child turns 6 months) remained very low and stable, at approximately 0.3 per cent for maternity leave and under 4.5 per cent for parental leave. The Committee also notes that, in her 2017 report, the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality underlined that Croatia is the European Union Member where fathers use maternity and parental support the least, emphasized that the measures for harmonization of professional and family life are still insufficiently implemented and recommended the introduction of compulsory father’s leave. Noting that, even where policies allow sharing of parental leave, in practice mothers still take the majority of this period, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on positive measures envisaged or taken, such as the ones suggested by the Ombudsperson, to increase effectively the percentage of men’s take-up of paternity leave. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the extent to which men and women workers make use of the leave entitlements under the relevant provisions of the Maternity and Parental Benefits Act of 2008, both in the public and private sectors. Noting that the Government’s report is silent on this point, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on any measures taken with regard to other immediate family members and their implementation.

Working-time arrangements. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 16 (on part-time work) of the Maternity and Parental Benefits Act of 2008 and on the number of beneficiaries of the right to part-time work in circumstances where children require extra care and attention for growth; as well as information on any other flexible working-time arrangements. It notes the Government’s statement that Croatia has not yet developed a suitable legislative framework for balancing private and professional life and that, consequently, there are no flexible working-time arrangements, job-sharing or teleworking possibilities specifically designed for working parents. The statistics provided by the Government show that the number of parents using this right is low: 112 parents in 2015 (7.1 per cent of men); 80 in 2016 (2.5 per cent of men) and 71 in 2017 (1.4 per cent of men). In this regard, the Committee notes that, if only women make use of such flexible working arrangement to continue to shoulder the majority of unpaid care work, there is a risk of reinforcing stereotypes about gender roles. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information, including statistical information disaggregated by sex, on the beneficiaries of the right to part-time work as well as on any measures adopted or envisaged relating to flexible working time arrangements taking into account that certain working time arrangements often penalize women in terms of earnings and career development.

Article 5. Childcare and family services and facilities. Previously, the Committee asked the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which family centres assist parents to reconcile work and family responsibilities and to indicate the impact of the intergenerational solidarity programme on reconciling work and family responsibilities in relation to dependent members of their family other than children. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are family centres established in 19 counties, providing services for children and young people, parents, partners and future parents, children with developmental problems, persons with disabilities and their families, and other socially vulnerable groups (such as unemployed persons, the elderly, drug addicts, victims of violence, etc.) and that all services are provided free of charge. It notes the Government’s statement that the implementation of the intergenerational solidarity programme was discontinued as from 1 May 2014. Home-care services are now provided by licensed social services providers. Living-room services, which had been implemented under the discontinued programme, were replaced by day-care activities for older people financed on a project basis. In 2017, a call for projects of organized day-care activities in local communities was made and 92 projects were funded for a total of 5,075,448 Croatian kuna (HRK) (approximately US$770.000). The Committee also notes that the report indicates that, based on the results of an analysis of the accessibility, quality, capacity and funding of early childhood and preschool education services, the Ministry of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy issued a call for projects to expand and improve the network of kindergartens and to harmonize the opening hours of preschool institutions with the working hours of parents. In this regard, it notes that, according to a study entitled “Gender Equality Policies in Croatia – Update”, 2017, by the Policy Department on Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament, only 9.5 per cent of children under 3 years of age have access to formal childcare due to the lack of available childcare facilities. Due to gender stereotypes, it is most often employed mothers who have to take leave without pay after the expiration of paid parental leave – which has a detrimental impact on their careers – or else have recourse to the informal economy or to the family in order to care for the child. According to Eurostat data, women are up to five times more inclined to take a part-time job because of the obligation to look after children or incapacitated adult family members, and the wage gap between men and women is gradually deepening over time due to maternity leaves or care of family members. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in 2013, the Act on Nannies was adopted to create a transparent and legally secure system of non-institutional childcare with registered childcare givers (“nannies”), supervised by the Ministry of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on childcare and family services and facilities, in particular on the response to the Ministry of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy call for projects to expand and improve the network of kindergartens and to harmonize the opening hours of preschool institutions with the working hours of parents. It also requests information on the number of nannies registered following the adoption of the Act on Nannies 2013.

Article 6. Information and education. Considering the low number of fathers exercising their right to parental benefits, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to promote a broader public understanding of various aspects of employment of workers with family responsibilities, and the need for a more equitable sharing of family responsibilities between men and women, as well as the results achieved by such measures. It notes the Government’s statement that a public call for projects targeting family support and the promotion of children’s rights was made in 2017, focusing, inter alia, on support for single-parent families and for employed parents and fostering father’s active parental role and involvement in family life. It further notes the information provided on the various projects that were funded with a view to changing the deeply rooted stereotypes about gender division of roles, fostering reconciliation between business and family responsibilities, and encouraging a more equal distribution of household and parental responsibilities. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the level of awareness of the population on the opportunities and rights to maternity/paternity and parental leave has been raised but does not provide evidence in support of this statement. In this regard, the Committee wishes to emphasize the importance of collecting good gender-disaggregated data taking into account variables such as marital or parenthood status, number of children, of older persons, presence of persons with disabilities or living with HIV, as it allows the Government to periodically assess progress and also to design policies and monitor outcomes to establish what works for workers with family responsibilities. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the proactive measures taken to promote a broader public understanding of the need for a more equitable sharing of family responsibilities between men and women, with a particular focus on fathers, as well as the results achieved by such measures, including statistical data.

Article 7. Integration in the labour force. Recalling that it had asked the Government to provide information on the implementation of the right to return to work after maternity, parental or adoption leave or leave for caring for a child with severe development issues (section 36 of the new Labour Act of 2014, previously section 73), the Committee notes that the statistical information provided by the Government does not identify the number of employees who returned to work after such leave, nor does it provide the requested information on the practical application of the right to vocational training in situations where there is any change in technology or working methods during the leave. Noting the Government’s indication that labour inspectors have identified several cases of offences against the above-mentioned provision as well as section 34 of the new Labour Code (prohibition of dismissal), the Committee asks, once again, the Government to provide statistical information on the number of employees who returned to work after taking maternity, parental or adoption leave or leave for caring for a child with severe developmental difficulties; and to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to enable both male and female workers with family responsibilities to become or remain integrated in the labour force, as well as to re-enter the labour force after an absence due to family responsibilities.

Article 9. Application of the Convention by collective agreements. The Committee notes the information provided, in reply to its previous comment, according to which certain collective agreements contain provisions regarding the right to nursing breaks and rests considered as working time; the possibility for the employer to assign work to be carried out at home for mothers with a child up to 6 years of age, or a single parent with a child up to 10 years of age; additional leave days to be granted to parents, foster parents or guardians (based on different parameters); and the prohibition to terminate or modify the employment contract of specific categories of workers such as a woman nursing a baby, parent, foster parent or guardian until the child’s seventh year, a single parent of a minor, a parent with three or more children up to 15 years or children in regular education, or the parent of a child with developmental difficulties. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures provided under collective agreements with a view to reconciling work and family responsibilities and their effective application.

Article 11. Workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to promote social dialogue and tripartite cooperation in order to strengthen the laws, measures and policies giving effect to the Convention, and on the manner in which workers’ and employers’ organizations have exercised their right to participate in the design and implementation of such measures, including through the adoption and implementation of workplace policies on work and family reconciliation.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Croatia

Adopted by the CEACR in 2022

C182 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C098 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C132 - 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)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)