Texts of pending comments

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR), received on 30 September 2019.

Articles 1(2) and 2(1) of the Convention. Vulnerable situation of migrant workers to the exaction of forced labour. The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the Confederation of Labour of Russia, migrant workers are at increased risk of falling into forced labour. For example, forced labour practices occurred in grocery stores in a district of Moscow, with victims from Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, mostly women, who were subjected not only to labour exploitation but also to sexual exploitation and abuse. The KTR indicates that no action has been taken by law enforcement agencies to put an end to such practices. As a result, two victims filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. The Committee requests the Government to respond to the observations of the KTR in this regard.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that section 103 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences provides that convicted persons are under an obligation to perform labour, such labour being exacted from them by the administration of penitentiary institutions at enterprises of such institutions, at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership. The Committee also noted that pursuant to section 21 of Act No. 5473 I (21 July 1993) on the institutions and bodies for the execution of penal sentences involving deprivation of freedom, compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the system of the execution of penal sentences and are located outside of penitentiary institutions. In the latter case, compulsory labour will be exacted on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of penitentiary institutions and the enterprises concerned. Regarding the conditions of work of convicted prisoners, the Committee noted that, under sections 103–105 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences, their hours of work and rest periods, occupational safety and health, as well as remuneration are governed by the general labour legislation. In this regard, the Committee observed that while prisoners’ conditions of work may therefore be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship, the legislation does not require the free, informed and formal consent of prisoners to work for private enterprises.

The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the KTR, recent changes in Russian legislation, introduced by Federal Act No. 179-FZ of 18 July 2019 on amendments to the Penal Enforcement Code of the Russian Federation, allow the establishment of branches of correctional centres at enterprises and large construction sites. The Committee notes the absence, in the Government’s report, of new information regarding the consent of prisoners to work for private enterprises. It once again recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention strictly prohibits prisoners from being hired to or placed at the disposal of private enterprises. The work of prisoners for private companies is only compatible with the Convention where it does not involve compulsory labour, which requires the formal, freely given and informed consent of the persons concerned. Noting that the legislation allows work to be carried out by prisoners for private enterprises, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that this work is only permitted with the voluntary consent of the prisoners concerned, such consent being formal, informed and free from the menace of any penalty, including the loss of rights or privileges. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of prisoners working for private enterprises and the nature of those enterprises, as well as on the procedures established to obtain their free and informed consent to undertake such work. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

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

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. 1. Legal framework and law enforcement. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that relevant provisions of the Penal Code criminalize both trafficking in persons (section 127.1) and the use of forced labour (section 127.2). The Government indicated the strengthening of cooperation between the member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) regarding action against human trafficking through the Programme of Cooperation for 2014–2018. However, in 2015, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) expressed its concern regarding the absence of a coordinating body and the lack of coordination among the relevant state structures to combat trafficking in persons.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that, in 2018, 32 offences were registered and resolved under section 127.1 of the Criminal Code, of which 33 perpetrators were identified; while under section 127.2 of the Criminal Code, two offences were registered, of which one was resolved and four perpetrators were identified. The Committee also notes the statistical information provided by the Government on crimes related to sexual exploitation, including under section 240 (recruitment into prostitution), section 241 (organizing prostitution) and section 242 (illegal production and circulation of pornographic materials or items). The Government emphasizes the effectiveness of the investigation measures taken to verify information on organized groups engaged in trafficking over the internet. Moreover, the Government indicates that special attention is paid to expanding international cooperation in this regard, including through the expansion of the CIS Programme of Cooperation for the period 2019–2023 and the conclusion of bilateral agreements with a number of countries in this regard. While noting the measures taken by the Government, the Committee requests it to take the necessary measures to ensure effective coordination among the relevant national structures to combat trafficking in persons, and to provide information on specific measures taken in this regard. It also requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the application of sections 127.1 and 127.2 of the Criminal Code in practice.

2. Protection and reintegration of victims. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the protection of victims included two aspects: general protection of victims and specific protection of victims who cooperate with law enforcement agencies. The Committee also noted the adoption of Federal Act No 119-FZ of 20 August 2004 of the State on Protection of Victims, Witnesses and Other Participants in Criminal Proceedings. However, the Committee also noted that CEDAW expressed concern at the lack of information on support and rehabilitation programmes for victims of trafficking.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that a network is being established of social services institutions. The Committee once again requests the Government to strengthen its efforts to provide victims of trafficking with appropriate protection and assistance, such as shelters, crisis centres and reintegration programmes. It also requests the Government to provide information on the progress made regarding the establishment of the social services institutions network, and the types of services available to victims of trafficking. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide statistical data on the number of victims identified and provided with appropriate protection and assistance.

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR), received on 30 September 2020. The Committee notes that the KTR refers to constraints on the work of the state labour inspectorate in the context of the pandemic, including the state labour inspectorate’s alleged refusal to respond to workers’ complaints submitted during the pandemic, and an increase in labour rights violations. The Committee also notes that the KTR raises concerns related to the functioning of the labour inspection system, including: (i) the insufficient number of state inspectors in relation to their expanding duties and their workload; (ii) labour inspectors’ conditions of service compared with other public servants of federal authorities operating at the regional level; (iii) existing restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors, including on the scope of inspections, and their practical implications; and (iv) insufficient information in the Reports on the Work of the State Labour Inspectorates. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in response to these serious allegations.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes the observations of the KTR indicating that new requirements for conducting inspections will be introduced by Federal Act No. 248-FZ of 31 July 2020 on State Oversight (Supervision) and Municipal Oversight in the Russian Federation, which enters into force on 1 July 2021 (Federal Act No. 248-FZ). The Committee notes that, according to the KTR, this Act also contains potential restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect of the KTR’s observations. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of Federal Act No. 248-FZ.

Not having received other supplementary information, the Committee reiterates its comments adopted in 2019 and reproduced below.

The Committee notes the observations made by the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR), received on 26 September 2019. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 3(1), 6, 10 and 16 of the Convention. Number of labour inspectors and coverage of workplaces by labour inspection visits. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the number of labour inspectors had continuously decreased over a number of years from 2,680 to 2,102 between 2012 and 2016. It also noted from the 2016 report of the Federal Service of Labour and Employment (Rostrud) that the number of labour inspectors was insufficient to achieve sufficient coverage of workplaces by labour inspection visits, which often resulted in the verification and control of documents from the offices of the Rostrud rather than the conduct of actual labour inspection visits in workplaces. The Committee notes with concern from the information provided by the Government in its report that the actual number of labour inspectors continued to decrease to 1,835 inspectors in 2018. The Committee notes from the 2018 report of the Rostrud that the turnover of staff affects the efficiency of labour inspection activities. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the recruitment of an adequate number of labour inspectors to ensure that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to enable the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of labour inspectors. The Committee also requests information on the conditions of service of labour inspectors (including salary, benefits, and career prospects) in comparison to public servants exercising similar functions within other government services (such as tax inspectors and the police) as well as on the reasons for the high attrition rate of labour inspectors.

Articles 7, 17 and 18. Enforcement of labour law provisions. In its previous comment, the Committee noted a disparity between the number of cases reported by the labour inspectorate, the number of investigations initiated and the number of convictions. It noted the Government’s indication that criminal cases were often not pursued as criminal intent could not be established. With respect to administrative cases, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that they were sometimes not pursued due to the lack or incomplete nature of documents in non-compliance reports prepared by the labour inspectorate and that decisions on the closure of administrative cases were often communicated too late for the labour inspectorate to submit appeals within the prescribed time limits.

The Committee notes that, based on the information provided by the Government, there is still a significant discrepancy between the number of files sent to the prosecutor’s office by the federal labour inspectorate (7,580) and the number of criminal cases instituted (518), and that the Government’s report is silent on the number of actual convictions. The Committee also notes that there have been a significant number of cancellations of acts of inspections, orders, decrees, conclusions and other decisions of labour inspectors by the judicial authorities in 2018 (1,206). The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective enforcement of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken to address the deficiencies identified, such as training for labour inspectors on the establishment and completion of non-compliance reports, including the collection of the necessary evidence; the improvement of communication and coordination activities with the judiciary on the required evidence to establish and effectively prosecute labour law violations, as well as the need for timely communication of the outcome of cases to the labour inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to provide concrete statistics on the administrative and criminal cases reported by the labour inspectorate, including the relevant legal provisions, the investigations and prosecutions initiated, and the penalties imposed as a result. The Committee also requests information on the reasons for the significant number of cancellations of the decisions taken by labour inspectors.

Articles 12 and 16. Labour inspection powers and prerogatives. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 357 of the Labour Code only gives labour inspectors the power to interview employers (and not workers) and that Federal Law No. 294-FZ, the Labour Code and Regulation No. 875 provide for numerous restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors, including the free initiative of labour inspectors to undertake inspections without prior notice (sections 9(12) and 10(16) of Law No. 294-FZ), and the free access of labour inspectors to workplaces (without an order from a higher authority) at any hour of the day or night (sections 10(5) and 18(4) of Law No. 294-FZ). It also noted limitations with regard to the grounds on which unscheduled inspection visits may be undertaken (section 360 of the Labour Code, section 10(2) of Law No. 294-FZ and section 10 of Regulation No. 875). The Committee further noted that pursuant to section 19(6)(1) and (2) of the Code of Administrative Offenses, labour inspectors may incur administrative liability where they fail to observe certain of these restrictions, for example where they undertake labour inspections on grounds other than those permitted in law. It urged the Government to take the necessary measures to bring these legislative Acts into compliance with Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the introduction of a risk-based approach in the work of the labour inspection services. In this respect, it notes that resolution No. 197 of February 2017 on the introduction of changes to certain acts of the Russian Federation, provides that depending on the assessment of risks, planned inspections may not be carried out more often than: (i) once every two years for workplaces considered to be high-risk; (ii) once every three years for workplaces considered to have a significant risk; (iii) once every five years for workplaces considered to have medium risk; and (iv) once in six years for workplaces to be of moderate risk. Moreover, for workplaces considered to have a low level of risk, planned inspections are not permitted. In this respect, the Committee notes that pursuant to the amendments introduced by Federal Law No. 480-FZ of 25 December 2018 to the Federal Law No. 294-FZ, inspections cannot be scheduled for low-risk small and medium enterprises. The Committee also notes that in 2018, 37 cases were brought under section 19(6)(1) against officials of the state labour inspectorates for violating the requirements regarding the procedure for state supervision. Recalling and emphasizing the importance of fully empowering labour inspectors to make visits without previous notice in order to guarantee effective supervision, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. Particularly, it urges the Government to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to: (i) make visits without previous notice, in line with Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Convention; (ii) to interrogate both employers and staff, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(i); and (iii) to allow for the undertaking of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in accordance with Article 16. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the risk-based inspection system on the coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. In this regard, it requests that the Government provide statistics on the number of labour inspections undertaken in each year since the implementation of this system, indicating the number of inspections in small, medium-sized and large enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the cases brought under section 19(6)(1) of the Code on Administrative Offenses, indicating the requirements of the legislation on state control that were violated, particularly specifying violations related to undertaking labour inspections on grounds other than those permitted in law, and any penalties assessed against inspectors based on such violations.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government, which reiterates the content of its previous request adopted in 2019.

Article 14 of the Convention. Notification of cases of occupational diseases to the labour inspectorate. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that compiled information on cases of occupational diseases was communicated to the labour inspectorate by the public entities holding such information and that work was ongoing to establish a legal basis for the notification of cases of occupational diseases to the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided a reply to its subsequent request for information on legislative changes in this regard. Emphasizing that the systematic notification of the labour inspectorate of cases of occupational diseases is important to fulfil its functions and obligations, including the planning of labour inspection visits and the inclusion of such information in the annual reports on labour inspection, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any legislative changes establishing this procedure in the national legislation.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Federal Act No. 141 of 28 July 2012 on Amendments to the Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that Federal Act No. 141 of 28 July 2012 on Amendments to the Penal Code of the Russian Federation reintroduced defamation as a felony punishable by fines or by compulsory work for a period of up to 12 weeks. Section 1 of this Act defines defamation as “knowingly disseminating false information hurting one’s dignity and reputation”. It lists four situations in which the crime is considered more serious: defamation contained in public speech, defamation conducted by an official who used his/her position, false information about one’s health and false accusations of a serious crime. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions regarding defamation.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. Referring to its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee once again recalls that offences laid down in the law against defamation, when defined in such wide or general terms, may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for the expression of political and ideological views. The Committee considers that sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social and economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision (paragraphs 153 and 154). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of Federal Act No. 141 of 28 July 2012 and on the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

2. Federal Act No. 136-FZ of June 2013, section 213 of the Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern about Federal Act No. 136-FZ and the legal proceedings against members of the Pussy Riot punk band for hooliganism under section 213 of the Penal Code. The Committee noted that section 213 of the Criminal Code establishes a penalty of imprisonment or compulsory labour for hooliganism attended by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred. It requested the Government to provide a copy of Federal Act No. 136-FZ and to provide information on the application of section 213 of the Criminal Code and Federal Act No. 136-FZ in practice.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee notes that Federal Act No. 136-FZ, available on the website of the Russian Gazette, introduces amendments to section 148 of the Penal Code. In particular, as amended, section 148.1 provides that a public action expressing clear disrespect for society and committed in order to insult the religious feelings of believers is punishable by penalties of up to one year’s imprisonment. The Committee once again recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The imposition of such sanctions shall be restricted to persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 213 of the Penal Code, as well as on section 148.1, including on the penalties imposed and the facts giving rise to these convictions.

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) received on 30 September 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Act of 24 July 2007 on combating extremism. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the Act of 24 July 2007 to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which includes acts based on racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions involving compulsory labour: public appeal to perform extremist activities; establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. The Government stated that, in imposing punishment, the court shall take into consideration the nature or degree or social danger of the crime and the personality of the convict, including any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and also the influence of the imposed penalty on the rehabilitation of the convicted person. Moreover, the list of penalties established under section 280 allows courts to impose alternative penalties to deprivation of liberty, such as fines. The Government further indicated that most penalties imposed were fines and that deprivation of liberty only concerned four persons. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the vague and open-ended definition of “extremist activity” in the Federal Act on combating extremist activity does not require an element of violence or hatred to be present and that no clear and precise criteria on how materials may be classified as extremist are provided in the Act.

The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the KTR, the definition of “extremism” provided for by section 1 of Federal Act No. 114-FZ is so broad that public expression of political views as well as ideological beliefs opposite to the established political, social or economic system may also fall under this definition.

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that Federal Act No. 114-FZ, which enshrines the concepts of “extremist activities”, “extremist organizations” and “extremist materials”, determines the targets of action to combat extremist activities and governs procedures for preventing extremism. The Government also refers to Federal Act No. 519-FZ of 27 December 2018 on amendments to section 282 of the Penal Code (incitation of hatred or enmity and abasement of human dignity), according to which, only persons who have already incurred administrative liability for a similar act within one year are criminally punishable. The Government indicates that the Plenum of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 7 of its Decision No. 11 of 28 June 2011 on judicial practice in criminal cases on offences of an extremist nature, states that the phrase “acts intended to incite hatred or enmity” should be understood as, in particular, statements that justify and/or affirm the need for genocide, mass repressions, deportations and the commission of other unlawful acts, including the use of violence against representatives of any nation or race, or followers of any religion. Criticism of political organizations, ideological or religious associations, political, ideological or religious beliefs, national or religious customs in and of itself must not be considered acts intended to incite hatred or enmity. Moreover, according to statistical information from the judicial department of the Supreme Court, since 2017, the deprivation of liberty has been applied twice to persons convicted under section 280.2 of the Penal Code. Under section 280, the punishments imposed were primarily in the form of a fine. The Committee requests the Government to continue to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons, who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the laws on extremism in practice, including on any prosecutions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Act of 2007 on combating extremism.

2. Federal Act No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 amending Federal Act No. 54 FZ of 9 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. The Committee previously noted the restrictions introduced in Federal Act No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 (Assemblies Act) amending Federal Act No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. As amended, section 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences establishes a penalty of community work for a period of up to 50 hours for the organizing or holding of a public event without submitting notice thereof under the established procedures. Section 20.18 establishes administrative arrest for a term up to 15 years for the organization of the blocking, as well as active participation in the blocking, of transport lines. The Committee also noted that the HRC expressed concern about consistent reports of arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly, including arbitrary detentions and prison sentences for the expression of political views. The HRC was further concerned about the strong deterrent effect on the right to peaceful assembly of these new restrictions introduced in the Assemblies Act. In this regard, the Committee also noted the comments made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on this matter in 2013.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information in the Government’s report. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the manner in which the sentenced person consents to community work. It also once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 20.2 and 20.18 of the Code on Administrative Offences, indicating the number of prosecutions, sanctions imposed and grounds for prosecution.

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

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Scope of application and labour inspectorate. Children working in the informal economy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 63(1) of the Labour Code prohibits children under 16 years of age from signing an employment contract. It also noted the Government’s statement that the illegal employment of minors and the violation of their labour rights were frequent occurrences in the informal economy. Following its repeated requests since 2003, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all children under 16 years of age, including those who work on their own account or in the informal economy, benefit from the protection afforded by the Convention.

The Committee notes with concern that, according to the Government’s indication in its report, no information is available on measures taken regarding the protection of children under 16 years old in the informal economy. The Committee also notes that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed its concern at widespread informal employment in the Russian Federation in its concluding observations of 2017 (E/C.12/RUS/CO/6, paragraph 32). The Committee recalls that the Convention applies to all branches of economic activity and covers all types of employment or work, whether or not there is a contractual employment relationship, and whether or not the employment or work is paid. In this regard, the Committee is of the view that the expansion of the relevant monitoring mechanisms to the informal economy can be an important manner in which to ensure that the Convention is applied in practice, particularly in countries where expanding the scope of the implementing legislation to address children working in this sector does not seem a practicable solution (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 345). The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all children under 16 years of age, including those who work on their own account or in the informal economy, benefit from the protection afforded by the Convention. In this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the capacity and expand the reach of the labour inspectorate to better monitor children carrying out economic activities without an employment relationship or in the informal economy. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken in this regard as well as on their implementation.

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

Application of the Convention in practice. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested the Government to pursue its efforts to effectively address and eliminate child labour, and to provide information on the measures taken in this regard. It also requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sufficient updated data on the situation of working children is made available, including the number of children working under the minimum age and the nature, scope and trends of their work. Lastly, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including information from the labour inspectorate on the number and nature of contraventions reported, violations detected and penalties applied.

The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government in this regard. In 2018, in order to monitor compliance with labour legislation in respect of workers under 18 years of age, the state labour inspectorates carried out 323 inspections, during which 232 violations of labour law were identified. Complaints received by the state labour inspectorates include cases related to wage payment (138 cases), execution and termination of employment contracts (106 cases), as well as occupational health and safety (8 cases). In general, workers under 18 years old are recruited for temporary work during the summer holidays, or to perform work within the framework of practical training. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including information from the labour inspectorate on the number and nature of contraventions reported, violations detected and penalties applied.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report.

Article 2 of the Convention. Replacement of carcinogenic substances and agents. The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that, according to paragraph 3.1 of the Sanitary Rules and Regulations 1.2.2353-08 on Carcinogenic Factors and Basic Requirements for the Prevention of Carcinogenic Hazards of 2008 (hereafter Sanitary Rules and Regulations), legal entities and individual entrepreneurs whose organization’s activities may give rise to a carcinogenic hazard are required to take measures to eliminate or reduce that hazard. Paragraph 3.2 further provides that measures shall be taken avoid human contact with carcinogenic substances in industrial and domestic spheres, and that legal entities and individual entrepreneurs should use technological and manufacturing processes that do not give rise to the emergence and release of these substances into the surrounding environment. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the concrete measures taken to ensure the replacement of carcinogenic substances and agents to which workers may be exposed in the course of their work by non-carcinogenic substances or agents or by less harmful substances or agents. It also requests the Government to indicate how the choices of substitute substances or agents are made, taking into consideration of their carcinogenic, toxic and other properties.

Article 5. Medical examinations. The Committee notes that paragraph 3.9 of the Sanitary Rules and Regulations requires preliminary and periodical medical examinations for workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents. Moreover, the Ministry of Health and Social Development Decision No. 302n of 2011 provides for the list of harmful and hazardous occupational factors and jobs which require medical examinations and the detailed procedure for these examinations. According to the relevant Decision, workers exposed to carcinogenic substance or agents shall undergo a preliminary medical examination and annual check-up, with the participation of specialists and targeted medical investigations. The Government also indicates that after workers stop working at a facility where there is exposure to carcinogenic substances and factors, they undergo health screening and are subject to monitoring at the expense of the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund, in accordance with legal requirements. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the legal requirements referred to in its report for post-employment health monitoring for workers who were exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents.

Article 6(a). Consultation with organizations of employers and workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations undertaken with organizations of employers and workers regarding the necessary measures to give effect to the provisions of this Convention, including in the process of the adoption of relevant legislation, regulations, rules and federal and regional programmes.

Article 6(c). Inspections and sanctions. Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that state supervision of the application of the requirements of sanitary rules is performed by the federal executive bodies responsible for state public health inspection, namely the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare and its regional agencies. It also notes that the supervision is carried out in accordance with relevant administrative regulations and that violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules are punishable by disciplinary, administrative and criminal sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the activities of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare and its regional agencies in ensuring the compliance with relevant national legislation and rules giving effect to the Convention, including the number of inspections carried out, the number of violations detected and the nature of sanctions imposed. With reference to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any collaboration between this body and the Federal Service of Labour and Employment in the application of the Convention. Lastly, it requests the Government to provide information on the number, nature and cause of cases of occupational cancer reported.

Articles 1–10 of the Convention. Protection for part-time workers. The Committee notes the Government’s first report and the national measures implementing the Convention, particularly the Labour Code of 30 December 2001 and the Act on the Employment of the population of 19 April 1991. It notes in particular that section 93 of the Labour Code provides that part-time work does not entail any restrictions on the length of annual basic paid leave, the calculation of work experience, or other labour rights.

Article 3 of the Convention. Worst forms of child labour. Clause (a). Sale and trafficking of children. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that while child trafficking is prohibited by law (section 127.1 of the Criminal Code), it remains a source of serious concern in practice. In this regard, the Committee requested the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure the elimination of the sale and trafficking of children and young persons under 18 years of age in practice, and requested the Government to provide information on the number of reported violations, investigations, prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed related to the sale and trafficking of children.

The Committee notes the repeated indication in the Government’s report on the criminalization of trafficking in persons by the Criminal Code and the administrative responsibility of legal entities provided by the Code of Administrative offences, as introduced by Federal Act No. 58-FZ of 2013. It also notes the statistical information provided by the Government regarding the cases of trafficking in persons, slave labour and prostitution, which, however, does not reflect the situation of cases involving child victims. The Committee also notes that, according to the information provided in the Government’s report under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), in March 2018, two members of an organized group were detained at Domodedovo International Airport while transferring money in the amount of 1.5 million Russian rubles (approximately US$19,650) for the sale of a minor for the purpose of further prostitution in the Republic of Turkey. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the participants on the grounds of an offence under article 127.1, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code. Moreover, in 2018, measures were also taken to combat illegal migration and crimes related to the exploitation of women and children, among others. As a result, 76 cases of exploitation of women and children were detected. The Committee thus requests the Government to provide concrete information on specific measures taken in practice by the law enforcement authorities, to ensure that thorough investigations and prosecutions of persons who engage in the sale and trafficking of children are carried out and that sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are imposed. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the number of reported violations, investigations, prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed related to the sale and trafficking of children.

Article 7(2). Effective and time-bound measures. Clause (b). Direct assistance for the removal of children from the worst forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation and social integration. The Committee previously noted that the Programme of Cooperation for 2014–18 among the member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) contains a set of measures to combat human trafficking and assist victims. The Committee requested the Government to strengthen its efforts to provide for the removal, rehabilitation and social reintegration of child victims of trafficking. It also requested the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken to provide assistance to child victims of trafficking and the results achieved in terms of the number of children who have been provided with assistance, particularly within the framework of the Programme of Cooperation of the CIS.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that Government Decision No. 1272 of 25 October 2018 approved the State Programme to Ensure the Safety of Victims, Witnesses and Other Participants in Criminal Proceedings 2019–23, aimed at ensuring the safety of persons participating in criminal proceedings. The Government also indicates that Act No. 119-FZ of 20 August 2004 on the State Protection of Victims, Witnesses and Other Participants in Criminal Proceedings provides the legislative basis in this regard. However, there is no information on concrete measures to provide direct assistance to victims of worst forms of child labour. The Committee once again requests the Government to strengthen its efforts to provide for the removal, rehabilitation and social reintegration of child victims of trafficking. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the concrete measures taken to provide assistance to child victims of trafficking and the results achieved in terms of the number of children who have been provided with such assistance

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

Article 7(1) of the Convention. Penalties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 240, 241 and 242.1 of the Penal Code cover offences related to using or engaging a minor in prostitution and in the production of pornographic material. It also noted the statistics on the application in practice of these provisions in 2014, available in the additional relevant information submitted by the Government in 2015 to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) that, in 2018, under article 242 of the Criminal Code (illegal production and circulation of pornographic materials or items), 751 offences were registered, 480 cases were solved, and 359 perpetrators were identified; under article 242.1 of the Criminal Code (production and circulation of materials or items with pornographic images of minors), 563 offences were committed, 447 cases were solved and 224 perpetrators were identified; and under article 242.2 of the Criminal Code (use of a minor for the purposes of producing pornographic materials or items) 278 offences were identified, 214 cases were solved, and 13 perpetrators were identified. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of sections 240, 241 and 242.1 of the Penal Code, including the number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and the penalties applied for the use, procuring or offering of persons under 18 years of age for prostitution or pornography.

Article 7(2). Effective and time-bound measures. Clauses (a) and (c). Preventing the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labour. Access to free basic education. The Committee previously noted that a study on child labour conducted in St Petersburg within the context of an ILO–IPEC project on street children in the St Petersburg region revealed that many of the children interviewed dropped out of school because they were working for eight to 12 hours a day. The Committee also noted that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expressed concern about the sizeable numbers of children who do not attend school in the Russian Federation.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information in the Government’s report on this point. According to the information of the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the number of out-of-school children dropped from 21,682 in 2011 to 8,523 in 2017, while the number of out-of-school adolescents dropped from 184,026 in 2013 to 11,460 in 2017. However, the Committee also notes that, in its concluding observations in 2018 regarding the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children (OPSC), child prostitution and child pornography, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requests that the Government take measures to ensure that all children have access to education, irrespective of their parents’ legal status in the country, in order to prevent them from becoming victims of sale or labour exploitation (CRC/C/OPSC/RUS/CO/1, paragraph 20). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that children in vulnerable and marginalized situations also have access to education, and provide information on the measures taken and results achieved in this regard, including the number of out-of-school children identified in such situation and those who have access to free basic education.

Clauses (d) and (e). Identifying and reaching out to children at special risk and taking account of the special situation of girls. The Committee previously noted that the ILO–IPEC study on child labour indicated that the numbers of children involved in prostitution in the region was between 3,000 and 6,000 (95 per cent of them girls). It also noted that the CESCR expressed its concern about the large number of children who live and work on the streets, in particular in the informal economy where they are vulnerable to abuse, including sexual abuse, and to other forms of exploitation.

The Committee notes with concern an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee also notes that, in its concluding observations regarding the OPSC in 2018, the CRC expressed its serious concern about the insufficient efforts to identify children in need of protection among children in vulnerable and marginalized situations, such as migrant, asylum-seeking and refugee children. The CRC is also concerned that some child victims and children at risk of becoming victims of offences under the Optional Protocol are regarded as potential offenders (CRC/C/OPSC/RUS/CO/1, paragraphs 18-19). The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to identify and protect children at special risk, particularly girls, from the worst forms of child labour. It requests the Government to provide information on specific measures taken in this regard, and on the results achieved in terms of the number of children at special risk identified, removed from worst forms of child labour and provided with appropriate assistance.

Article 8. International cooperation and assistance. The Committee previously noted the Government’s information on various measures taken to strengthen the international cooperation in relation to trafficking of persons, including within the framework of the Programme of Cooperation for 2014–18 among member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS). Combating trafficking in persons was also a priority of standing working groups in bilateral police cooperation. The Committee strongly encouraged the Government to continue its international cooperation efforts to combat and eliminate the trafficking of children, and requested the Government to provide information on specific measures taken and the results achieved in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, on 12 August 2019, the Protocol to the Agreement on Security Cooperation in the Caspian Sea of 18 November 2010 on Cooperation in Combating Organized Crime in the Caspian Sea was signed, which sets out the obligation for relevant agencies in the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to cooperate, including in combating offences relating to trafficking in persons, particularly women and children. A number of bilateral agreements have also been concluded to combat trafficking in persons, particular women and children, including with Argentina, Burundi, Cambodia, Greece, India, Mongolia and Namibia. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing concrete information on activities taken and results achieved regarding the elimination of child trafficking, within the abovementioned arrangements of international cooperation, including joint actions taken and cases detected.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Formulation and application of a policy designed to promote the granting of paid educational leave. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to submit information on the measures taken or planned to promote the granting of paid educational leave, as required under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as well as on the manner in which the granting of paid educational leave contributes to the objectives set out in Article 3. The Government once again refers to Chapter 26 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, which ensures to workers who combine work and study the right to additional leave as granted by the employer. In particular, the Government reiterates its previous reference to sections 173–6 of the Labour Code, as well as additional leave provided to workers successfully applying for a Candidate of Sciences degree or a Doctor of Sciences degree. Finally, the Government reports that, when education programmes do not have state accreditation, it is up to collective agreements or employment contracts to establish guarantees and compensation. Noting that the Government does not provide up-to-date information, particularly with respect to the manner in which Article 3 of the Convention is given effect, the Committee reiterates its request that the Government indicate the measures taken or envisaged as part of the national policy to promote the granting of paid educational leave for the specific purposes laid out in Article 2. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the granting of paid educational leave contributes to the objectives set out in Article 3.

Articles 4 and 10. Granting of paid educational leave. Coordination with general policies. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the coordination of the national policy on paid educational leave with general policies on employment, education and training, and hours of work. The Committee also requests the Government to explain the manner in which the requirement established in several provisions of the Labour Code calling for the worker to be “successfully studying” is applied in practice. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government indicate the terms on which paid educational leave is granted for vocational training, general, social and civic education, and trade union education, with an indication in each case of the conditions to be fulfilled by workers in order to be granted such leave.

Article 6. Association of governmental institutions, other bodies and the social partners. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on the manner in which effect is given to Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to associate public authorities, employers’ and workers’ organizations, and institutions or bodies providing education or training with the formulation and application of the policy for the promotion of paid educational leave.

Article 9. Particular categories of workers. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information requested in its previous direct request concerning the application of Article 9 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate whether any special provisions have been established for particular categories of workers (such as workers in small undertakings, rural or other workers residing in isolated areas, shift workers or workers with family responsibilities), or for workers in particular categories of undertakings (such as small or seasonal undertakings) who find it difficult to fit into general arrangements.

Article 11. Assimilation to a period of effective service. Noting that the Government has not provided information in respect of its previous direct request, the Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to assimilate the period of paid educational leave to a period of effective service for the purpose of establishing claims to social benefits and other rights deriving from the employment relationship.

Application in practice. Noting that the Government has not provided information in respect of its previous direct request, the Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including any extracts of reports, studies or inquiries relating to the practical application of the Convention.

Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the Convention. Formulation and implementation of policies and programmes of vocational guidance and vocational training. Cooperation of the social partners. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information about the policies and programmes of lifelong vocational guidance and training for young persons and adults, and to indicate the manner in which it ensures effective coordination between these policies and programmes, as well as between employment and the public employment services. The Committee further requested the Government to provide information on cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, as well as other interested bodies, in the formulation and implementation of vocational guidance and training policies and programmes, such as the Multisector Centres of Continuing Professional Development. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information such as extracts of reports, studies, inquiries and statistical data regarding training policies and programmes. The Government reports that the State provides vocational guidance services to citizens, including unemployed persons, who: do not have a profession; have lost the ability to work in their former profession; are experiencing difficulties in choosing a profession; or cannot find an appropriate job because they lack the necessary qualifications or experience. The Government adds that it considers vocational guidance services for young persons to be one of the most important elements of human resources development. It provides specialist vocational guidance services aimed at helping young persons, including orphans and children without parental care, to choose an occupation, employment, or vocational training in accordance with their needs and those of the labour market. The Government adds that, in providing vocational guidance services, the public employment services work closely with various bodies, including juvenile affairs commissions, departments for youth affairs, social protection institutions and vocational education organizations. The Government reports that the public employment services provide vocational guidance services each year to about 2,500,000 people, more than half of whom are between the ages of 14 and 29. It indicates that special attention is paid to providing vocational guidance services to persons with disabilities. Noting that the Government has not provided a full reply to its 2016 direct request, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide additional information on the policies and programmes adopted to provide vocational guidance and vocational training throughout the life of both young persons and adults. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information, including statistical information disaggregated by age and sex, on the nature and content of vocational guidance services provided to persons with disabilities and the number of beneficiaries of such services. It also reiterates its request that the Government indicate the manner in which it ensures effective coordination between these policies and programmes, on the one hand, and employment and the public employment services, on the other. It requests the Government to provide information on cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations and other interested bodies in the formulation and implementation of vocational guidance and vocational training policies and programmes, such as in the activities of the Multisector Centres of Continuing Professional Development. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in the form of extracts of reports, studies and inquiries, and statistical data regarding vocational training policies and programmes.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Unions Federation of Workers of Maritime Transport (FPRMT), received by the Office on 6 November 2014. The Committee recalls that in its general observation adopted in 2015, it noted with satisfaction that, at its 324th Session in June 2015, the Governing Body approved the inclusion of the Russian Federation as the first ratifying Member to be listed as fully meeting the minimum requirements referred to in Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Committee notes that, since then, the Convention was amended. The 2016 amendments to the Annexes of the Convention entered into force for the Russian Federation on 8 June 2017. It recalls that these amendments aim at aligning the technical requirements of the Convention with the latest standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (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 seafarers’ identity documents from a fingerprint template in a two-dimensional barcode to a facial image stored in a contactless chip as required by ICAO Document 9303. While commending the Government for its efforts to give effect to the previous version of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to address the issues raised below and to provide information on the measures taken to ensure conformity with the amended version of the Convention.

Article 1. Scope of application. Concerning the definition of seafarers, the Committee refers to its comments made in the framework of the examination of the application by the Russian Federation of Article II(1)(f) of the Maritime Labour Convention, as amended, 2006 (MLC, 2006).

Article 2, paragraph 4. Issuance of SIDs without delay. The Committee notes that the FPRMT expresses concern over the steps taken by the Government, in particular the adoption of Order No. 134 of 27 May 2014 of the Ministry of Transport, which amends Ministerial Order No. 213 of 19 December 2008 on the instructions on the procedure for the identification of seafarers. The FPRMT indicates that under Order No. 134, seafarers applying for an SID shall have any documents issued abroad legalized and present a notarized translation of documents drawn up in a foreign language. According to the FPRMT, these amendments, by complicating the procedures to obtain SIDs and entailing additional expenses for the applicants, do not ensure full compliance with the Convention. Recalling that the Convention requires that SIDs are issued without undue delay (Article 2, paragraph 4), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with this requirement of the Convention.

Articles 3–5. Seafarers’ identity documents. The Committee notes the Government’s information that it has started preparing for the introduction of new standards for SIDs taking into account the 2016 amendments. Currently, a new form of SID has been developed, which includes a contactless electronic microchip. The new SID is a plastic card of TD1 size. The main software changes envisaged include: new procedures for personalizing the SID; the withdrawal of procedures for registering fingerprints; the use of cryptographic functions; new procedures for monitoring SIDs; and cooperation with the ICAO Public Key Directory (PKD). In this regard, the Government stresses that it is already a member of the ICAO PKD, which facilitates the sharing of electronic certificates with ICAO to verify new SIDs. The Government also indicates that initially, after modernization of the system for issuance of SIDSs, both new and old documents will be issued during a defined period of transition. While the previous documents will still be used, all port administrations will transfer to the issuance of new SID. The Federal Maritime and River Transport Agency is currently preparing a request for the funding required for additional equipment and the introduction of necessary changes to the system for the SIDs issuance. The Government stresses that comprehensive effort and significant time is required for the implementation of the amendments. The Committee welcomes the Government’s efforts to implement the 2016 amendments. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard, in particular on the adoption of laws and regulations or other means through which the requirements of Articles 3–5 of the Convention and Annexes I–III, as amended in 2016, are implemented.

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee also notes the observations made by the Russian Confederation of Labour (KTR), received on 31 October 2017. The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016, entered into force for the Russian Federation on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019, respectively.

The Committee welcomes the fact that, since the last report was submitted in 2014, the Russian Ministry of Transport has issued a number of regulations giving effect to some of the provisions the Convention. The Committee notes however that the Government has not provided answers to the majority of the questions raised in its previous comment. Noting the Government’s indication that the work on establishing the legal and regulatory framework required to implement the MLC, 2006 is being continued by the Interdepartmental Commission (which includes representatives of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations) in accordance with the approved plan, the Committee hopes that all the necessary measures will be adopted in the near future. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues:

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the measures implementing the Convention cover, as seafarer, any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which the Convention applies. However, the Government has not indicated the relevant legal provision which contains this definition. While noting the provisions of section 52 of the Merchant Shipping Code of the Russian Federation (edition of Federal Law of 1 July 2017 N 148-FZ), defining the crew of a vessel, the Committee notes that it is not clear whether this definition covers not only personnel with navigation and vessel operation tasks, but also other persons working in any capacity on board ships, such as personnel of cruise ships (for example, catering and hotel staff). The Committee requests the Government to clarify this point and indicate the relevant provisions defining the term seafarers in conformity with the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. Noting the Government’s indication that, in accordance with article 96 of the Labour Code, night “is the period from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.” and that, accordingly, this definition covers a period of eight hours, the Committee requested the Government to explain the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure, for the purposes of Standard A1.1, that “night” is defined to cover a period of at least nine hours. Noting that the Government did not provide an answer to its request, the Committee reiterates its previous request.

Regulation 1.2 and the Code. Medical Certificate. Recalling that the need to adopt measures to implement the provisions related to medical certificates had been pending for many years (including in relation to the implementation of previous maritime Conventions) and noting that the existing draft legislation had yet to be adopted, the Committee requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to the requirements of the Convention without delay. It also requested the Government to transmit its comments on the observations of the Maritime Transport Trade Unions (FPRMT) which stated that the draft legislation failed to establish the criteria for the selection of medical experts or establishments authorized to conduct physical examinations of seafarers and issue the medical certificate, or define the procedure for the creation or use of a list of medical experts or establishments (Standard A1.2, paragraph 4), and did not establish a procedure for filing an appeal where a seafarer has been refused a medical certificate (Standard A1.2, paragraph 5). The Committee notes that the Government did not provide an answer to its request. The Committee once again requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures without delay to give effect to Regulation 1.2 and the Code.

Regulation 1.3, paragraph 2. Training and qualifications. Personal safety on board ship. With regard to the training and qualifications of seafarers, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions of the Ministry of Transport Order No. 62 of 15 March 2012, as amended by Order No. 167 of 13 May 2015. The Committee notes that paragraph 76 of the said Order prescribes training in accordance with AV / 2 of the STCW Code for senior personnel of the passenger service. However, the Committee has not identified provisions in the said Order which prescribe mandatory personal safety training for all persons working on board. The Committee recalls that under Regulation 1.3, paragraph 2, seafarers shall not be permitted to work on a ship unless they have successfully completed training for personal safety on board ship. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to this requirement with regard to all seafarers working on all ships covered by the Convention.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. The Committee requested the Government to identify the national laws and regulations which implement the requirements of Regulation 1.4 and the Code, including the prohibition of blacklists (Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a)) and the requirement of a compulsory insurance scheme (Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi)). While the Government did not reply to its request, the Committee notes the amendments of Regulation No. 1022 of 8 October 2012 introduced by Regulation of 30 December 2017 No. 1714 which give effect to Standard A.1.4, paragraph 5, of the Convention. The Committee notes however that the Government has not indicated how it implements Standard A1.4, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the provisions that give effect to these requirements of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(c) and (d)). Seafarers’ employment agreement. Recalling that under Standard A2.1, paragraph 1, the agreement must be signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner, the Committee requested the Government to clarify how the legislation ensures the implementation of this provision of the Convention, the Government has not provided information in this regard. The Committee notes however the Order of 20 January 2015 N 23n “On approval of the approximate form of an employment contract entered into by an employer and an employee to work in crews of ships and mixed (river-sea) vessels flying the national flag of the Russian Federation” which refers to the signature of the seafarers’ employment agreement by the “employer”. Recalling the importance of the basic legal relationship that the Convention establishes between the seafarer and the person defined as “shipowner” under Article II, the Committee requests the Government to amend the standard form agreement and any other relevant law to ensure that seafarers have an agreement signed by both the seafarer and shipowner or a shipowner’s representative, as required under Standard A2.1, paragraph 1. The Committee further notes that the existing legislation contains no provisions requiring that a copy of the seafarers’ employment agreement be accessible for review by officers of a competent authority, including those in ports to be visited (Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(d)). The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to the provisions of Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(d).

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and 3. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Record of employment. Referring to section 66 of the Labour Code which provides that the record book will specify, among other things, the grounds for termination of the employment agreement, the Committee requested the Government to clarify how it ensures that in case of the termination or rescission of the agreement, the employer only states the fact that the seafarer had been discharged and not the grounds for such discharge. Noting that the Government has provided no information in this regard, the Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A2.1, paragraph 3.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 2. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Documents available in English. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that the employment agreement include certain provisions in English, as per Standard A2.1, paragraph 2. Noting that the Government has not provided information in this regard, the Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Standard A2.1, paragraph. 2.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 5 and 6. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Minimum notice period for termination. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the applicable national provisions specifying the minimum period of notice to be given by the shipowner as required by Standard A2.1, paragraph 5.

Regulation 2.2 and the Code. Wages. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments concerning the observations of the Seafarers’ Union of Russia (SUR), stating that the Russian Federation lacks a regulatory basis for ensuring the implementation of Regulation 2.2 as regards the full payment of wages and that, consequently, shipowners are declaring that they pay crew members in roubles while actually paying through foreign currency. Noting that the Government did not provide an answer on this point, the Committee reiterates its request.

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Wages. Allotments. The Committee notes that paragraph 13 of the Order of 20 January 2015 N 23, provides that the salary or part of it can be transferred to the members of the family or authorized persons by means of bank transfers or in a similar way. Recalling that any charge for such service shall be reasonable in amount (Standard A2.2, paragraph 5), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure the implementation this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3. Hours of work and hours of rest. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensured compliance with Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7, 12 and 14. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Order No. 268 of 20 September 2016 on Approving the Regulations on Working Hours and Rest Hours for Crew Members of Maritime Vessels and River-Sea Vessels which complies with the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether it has established a standardized format for the record of working time, as per requirement of the Standard A2.3, paragraph 12.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 2. Entitlement to leave. Minimum paid annual leave. Method of calculation. Noting that the existing legislation did not provide for annual paid leave for seafarers, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the laws and regulations that implement Regulation 2.4. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to paragraph 26 of Order No. 268 of 20 September 2016 on Approving the Regulations on Working Hours and Rest Hours for Crew Members of Maritime Vessels and River-Sea Vessels. According to this Order, the basic annual leave of seafarers is calculated as 2.5 days of leave per month of work. The Committee also notes the observations provided by the KTR, stating that the procedure for calculating seafarers’ minimum annual paid leave entitlement established by the Order No. 268 is insufficient, since the legal mechanism needed to implement this regulation is still missing. It adds that, to date, no policy decision has been taken on the need to amend the Labour Code, despite its repeated proposals. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the issue of amending the Labour Code in order to establish basic paid annual leave for seafarers of 30 calendar days is currently under examination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the amendment of the Labour Code to establish basic paid annual leave for seafarers in accordance with the Convention.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. Entitlement to leave. Possible exceptions to the prohibition to forgo paid annual leave. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that seafarers, who are employed on vessels for less than two consecutive years, are protected against forgoing annual leave with pay, as required under Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the requirements of this Regulation have been taken into account in Order No. 268 of 20 September 2016. The Committee however did not identify the provisions prohibiting to forgo the minimum annual leave in the Order referred to above. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government once again to indicate the measures taken to fully implement Standard A2.4, paragraph 3.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2(a). Repatriation. Circumstances. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements the requirements of Standard A2.5, paragraph 1(b)(ii), regarding the entitlement to repatriation when the seafarers’ employment agreement is terminated by the seafarer for justified reasons. Noting that the Government has not provided information on this point, the Committee reiterates its request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. In this regard, the Committee takes note of paragraph 8(10) of the Order of 20 January 2015 N 23n, which establishes an obligation for the employer to insure wages and other amounts due to the employee, including repatriation costs as well as the life and health of the worker in the performance of his work. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) does national legislation require the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment? (If yes, specify if the financial security system was determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned); (b) has your country received requests to facilitate repatriation of a seafarer? (If yes, how did your country respond?); (c) what are the circumstances under which a seafarer is considered abandoned according to national legislation?; (d) does national legislation provide that ships that need to be certified according to Regulation 5.1.3, must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (If yes, please specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence must contain the information required by Appendix A2-I and has to be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (e) does national legislation require that the financial security system is sufficient to cover outstanding wages and other entitlements, all expenses incurred by the seafarer (including the cost of repatriation), and the essential needs of the seafarers, as defined in Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9?; and (f) does national legislation provide for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions and to indicate in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 2.6 and Standard A2.6, paragraph 1. Compensation for the ship’s loss or foundering. Unemployment Indemnity. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to implement Regulation 2.6. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the article 59 of Federal Act No. 81-FZ of 30 April 1999, Merchant Shipping Code (hereinafter – the Merchant Shipping Code). The Committee also notes the observations of the KTR, drawing attention to the fact that article 59 of the Merchant Shipping Code “regulates only the procedure by which a shipowner must compensate seafarers for loss or damage to his/her property caused by an accident to the vessel”. The Committee recalls that according to Standard A2.6, paragraph 1, each Member shall make rules ensuring that, in every case of loss or foundering of any ship, the shipowner shall pay to each seafarer on board an indemnity against unemployment resulting from that loss or foundering, taking due account of Guideline B2.6.1 regarding the calculation of this indemnity. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to implement the requirements of Regulation 2.6 and paragraph 1 of Standard A2.6.

Regulation 2.7 and the Code. Manning levels. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the FPRMT and the SUR, according to which: (i) the general minimum crew regulations, that is, Order No. 199 of 9 December 1969, are outdated; and (ii) section 53 of the Merchant Shipping Code does not sufficiently regulate the minimum crew. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Russian Ministry of Transport Draft Order on Approving the Regulations on Minimum Manning Levels which has been prepared, taking into account International Maritime Organization Resolution A. 890(21) of 25 November 1999, Principles of Safe Manning. The Committee also notes that Order No. 199 of 9 December 1969 is no longer applicable on the territory of the Russian Federation, as it has been repealed. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the status of the adoption procedure of the Order on Approving the Regulations on Minimum Manning Levels.

Regulation 2.8 and the Code. Career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Order No. 167 of 13 May 2015 amending Order No. 62 of 15 March 2012 on Approving the regulations on the Certification of Crew Members of Maritime Vessels. The Committee notes in this regard the observations from the Russian Confederation of Labour stating that the Order No. 62, as amended “only indirectly address the issue of seafarers’ career development, completely failing to engage with it even in reference to seafarers’ self-improvement, and ignore the issue of expanding employment opportunities for seafarers through skill development”. Recalling that “Each Member shall have national policies that encourage career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers, in order to provide the maritime sector with a stable and competent workforce” (Standard A2.8, paragraph 1), the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the Russian Confederation of Labour.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee recalled its previous comments under the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92), and the Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133), in which it noted the Government’s indication that it was in the process of adopting new legislation to implement the requirements of those Conventions. Noting that no progress had been made, the Committee requested the Government to take concrete steps to adopt new laws or regulations to implement the requirements of Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1. The Committee notes that the Government did not provide an answer to its request. The Committee notes however the existence of non-mandatory guidelines which relate to the implementation of Regulation 3.1: Guidelines on Certifying Seafarers’ Working and Rest Conditions for Compliance with the MLC, 2006 (2-080101-014), edition of 2017 and Guidelines on the Implementation and Application of the Maritime Labour Convention (2-080101-015). Recalling that the Convention requires Members to adopt laws or regulations to implement Regulation 3.1, the Committee requests the Government once again to adopt without delay the necessary measures to give full effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the plans for the relevant federal executive bodies to jointly examine and adopt a decision on the specifics of complying with the provisions of the Convention for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage, taking into account Standard A3.1, paragraph 20. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on any decisions adopted in this regard.

Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care on board ship and ashore. Noting the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Health had drafted implementing legislation, the Committee requested the Government to submit its implementing legislation once it had been approved. The Committee notes that the Government did not provide an answer to its request. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to adopt without delay the necessary measures to implement Regulation 4.1, which is of critical importance to ensure decent working conditions for seafarers and to submit any applicable legislation which has been adopted.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7. Shipowners’ liability. Safeguarding of property left on board. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensured that shipowners of ships that fly its flag take measures for safeguarding property left on board by sick, injured or deceased seafarers (Standard A4.2, paragraph 7). The Committee notes the Government’s reference to articles 25 and 58–70 of the Merchant Shipping Code. While noting that article 70 of the Code contains provisions related to the measures to be taken for safeguarding property left on board by a deceased seafarer and for transferring it to the captain of the first port of the Russian Federation in which the vessel enters, the Committee fails to identify provisions with regard to the property left on board by sick or injured seafarers. Recalling that Standard A4.2, paragraph 7, also encompasses the situation of sick or injured seafarers, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention, including how it ensures that the property of deceased seafarer is returned to their next of kin.

Regulation 4.2, Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 8–14, and Standard A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that pursuant to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, national laws and regulations shall provide that the financial security system to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard meet certain minimum requirements. In this regard, the Committee takes note of paragraph 8(10) of the Order of 20 January 2015 N 23n, which establishes an obligation for the employer to insure wages and other amounts due to the employee, including repatriation costs as well as the life and health of the worker in the performance of his work. The Committee notes the observations of the Russian Confederation of Labour which state that while the Federal Law on Compulsory employee insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases provides for an entire range of insurance protection, it does not contain the kind of compulsory social insurance required under the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions which are included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) what is the form taken by the system of financial security and was it determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned?; (b) how national laws and regulations ensure that the system of financial security meets the following minimum requirements: (i) payment of compensation in full and without delay; (ii) no pressure to accept payment less than the contractual amount; (iii) interim payments (while the situation is being assessed) to avoid undue hardship; (iv) offsetting payment against any damages resulting from any other claim made by the seafarer against the shipowner and arising from the same incident; and (v) persons who can bring the claim for contractual compensation (seafarer, her/his next of kin, representative or designated beneficiary); (c) does national legislation provide that ships must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider? (If yes, please specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence has to contain the information required in Appendix A4-I, be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (d) does national legislation provide: (i) for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease; (ii) that the competent authority is notified by the financial security provider if a shipowner’s financial security is cancelled or terminated; and (iii) that seafarers receive prior notification if a shipowner’s financial security is to be cancelled or terminated?; and (e) how does national legislation ensure that effective arrangements are in place to receive, deal with and impartially settle contractual claims relating to compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard, through expeditious and fair procedures? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the Order on the Approval of the Regulations on Occupational Safety in Vessels of the Maritime and River Fleet (Order No. 367n of 5 June 2014) was in the process of been adopted. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that the above-mentioned Regulations entered into force on 2 June 2015. As the text is only available in Russian, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions which are relevant for the implementation of Regulation 4.3.

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Ship’s safety committee. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to article 218 of the Labour Code, which provides that at the initiative of the employer and/or at the initiative of employees or their representative body, labour protection committees (commissions) are created. The Committee notes that this article leaves room for the establishment of a safety committee at the initiative of the employer and/or the employees while Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d), establishes an obligation in this respect for ships on which there are five or more seafarers. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 8. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Risk evaluation. The Committee notes the observations of the Russian Confederation of Labour stating that the Ministry of Labour Order No. 458 of 11 September 2013 on “Implementation of the provisions of the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention relating to the gathering and assessment of data on occupational accidents and diseases involving seafarers” does not implement Standard A4.3, paragraphs 5, 7 and 8. This Standard requires that the competent authority must not only ensure full reporting and recording of occupational accidents and diseases involving seafarers, but also analyse them and conduct research to identify general trends and examine hazards that come to light in order to develop preventive measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee recalls that pursuant to Standard A4.3, paragraph 8, the competent authority shall require that shipowners conducting risk evaluation in relation to management of occupational safety and health refer to appropriate statistical information from their ships and from general statistics provided by the competent authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to implement this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which the national legislation ensures that all seafarers ordinarily resident in the Russian Federation (and not only Russian nationals) who work on board ships flying the flag of another country are provided with social security protection for the branches of social security specified by the Russian Federation upon ratification of the Convention. Noting that the Government provides no information on this point, the Committee reiterates its previous request. The Committee further notes that the Russian Confederation of Labour states that social security guarantees in the Convention concerning seafarers resident in the Russian Federation must also be applied to Russian citizens working on foreign vessels and to foreign seafarers resident in Russia who are recruited to work on Russian-flagged vessels. Russian Federation legislation makes no provision for seafarers who are Russian citizens and work on board ships flying a foreign flag to receive benefits in the event of sickness or industrial injury. Foreign seafarers recruited for work on a Russian-flagged vessel and who are resident in Russia are assured almost all the benefits provided for in the MLC, 2006, the exception being unemployment benefit, since social protection for unemployment is granted only to Russian citizens. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5. Social security. Non-resident seafarers. The Committee requested the Government to confirm that seafarers working on board Russian-flagged ships but not resident in the Russian Federation would, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of section 5 of Federal Act No. 125-FZ, be covered against employment injuries occurring in the course of their employment. The Committee notes the Government’s answer indicating that, under the above-mentioned provisions, all foreign nationals and stateless persons working under employment contracts, irrespective of status, are entitled to compulsory social insurance for occupational accidents and diseases, unless otherwise specified by federal laws or international agreements of the Russian Federation. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2 and Standard A4.5, paragraphs 3, 4 and 8. Social security. Bilateral or multilateral agreements. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any bilateral or multilateral agreements in which the Russian Federation participates regarding the provision of social security protection, including the maintenance of rights acquired or in the course of acquisition (Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2; Standard A4.5, paragraphs 3, 4 and 8).

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 9. Social security. Fair and effective procedures for the settlement of disputes. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to establish fair and effective procedures for the settlement of disputes relating to social security for seafarers (Standard A4.5, paragraph 9).

Regulation 5.1.4 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. The Committee notes the observations made by the Russian Confederation of Labour stating that the Government, in the past, failed to decide on the matter of establishing the legal liability of Russian shipowners that evade Russian Federation legal jurisdiction, a factor which undermines implementation of the Convention requirement to effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control over Russian maritime vessels (Article V, paragraph 2). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 3 and 17. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Independence of inspectors. The Committee requested the Government to summarize the measures adopted to guarantee that inspectors have a status and conditions of service ensuring that they are independent of changes of government and of improper external influences as well as to indicate the manner in which those measures are enforced (Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 3, 6, 11(a) and 17). The Committee notes the Government’s statement in this regard that the inspector is subordinate to the port captain, who is responsible for the safety of port navigation. While noting this, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to implement these requirements of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Powers of inspectors. Noting that it was not clear whether Russian inspectors are empowered to detain ships for deficiencies related the MLC, 2006, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to implement the requirements of Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7. The Committee notes that the Government did not provide an answer to its request. The Committee recalls that Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7(c), provides that inspectors, issued with clear guidelines as to the tasks to be performed and provided with proper credentials, shall be empowered to require that any deficiency is remedied and, where they have grounds to believe that deficiencies constitute a serious breach of the requirements of this Convention (including seafarers’ rights), or represent a significant danger to seafarers’ safety, health or security, to prohibit a ship from leaving port until necessary actions are taken. The Committee requests the Government once again to indicate the measures taken to give effect to this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 11. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Authority and impartiality. The Committee requested the Government to summarize the procedures for receiving and investigating complaints, and ensuring that their source is kept confidential (Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 5, 10 and 11(b); see guidance in Guideline B5.1.4, paragraph 3). The Committee notes the Government’s answer indicating that complaints may be received by the port captain’s offices by email, fax and telephone. When inspecting a vessel, the inspector does not inform the master of the ship who was the author of the complaint. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Reporting on inspections. The Committee requested the Government to describe the arrangements made to ensure that inspectors submit a report of each inspection to the competent authority, that a copy is furnished to the master and another posted on the ship’s notice board (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12). The Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that inspections of compliance with MLC, 2006 requirements are conducted at the same time as the standard port State control inspections; one copy of the report is given to the master of the ship, the other is kept at the port captain’s offices. The report is also entered into an electronic system on ship inspections that can be consulted by the Federal Maritime and River Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to describe the arrangements made to ensure that a copy of the report is posted on the ship’s notice board for the information of the seafarers and, upon request, sent to their representatives (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12).

Regulation 5.1.5 and Standard A5.1.5, paragraph 2. Flag State responsibilities. On-board complaint procedures. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Order No. 19 of 18 January 2017 on Approving the On-Board Procedures for Examining Seafarers’ Complaints. The Committee further notes paragraph 4 of Order No. 19, stating that “in addition to the copy of the seafarers’ employment contract, all seafarers receive a copy of the complaint procedures on board the ship”. The Committee requests the Government to provide a sample copy of the on-board complaint procedures.

Regulation 5.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Russian Ministry of Transport Order No. 39 of 17 February 2014 on Approving the Regulations on the Sea Port Captain. It also notes the Government’s indication that the draft Order of the Russian Ministry of Transport on Approving the Procedures for Port State Control and the Centralized Recording of its Results is under preparation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the adoption of the draft Order and to submit its text once adopted.

Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures. The Committee notes with interest the Russian Ministry of Transport Order No. 18 of 18 January 2017 on Approving the Onshore Procedures for Examining Seafarers’ Complaints. The Committee notes that paragraph 20(1), provides that the competent authority refuses consideration of the complaint if the complaint lacks the information required by paragraph 6 of the same Order. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that seafarers have easy access to the requirements related to the content of a complaint.

Additional documentation requested. The Committee requests the Government to provide the following documents and information: (a) an example of the DMLC, Part II, filled in by a shipowner; (b) an example of the approved document for seafarers’ record of employment in English (Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1 and 3); (c) the relevant portion of any applicable collective bargaining agreement in English (Standard A2.1, paragraph 2(b)); (d) an example of a document (e.g. Part II of the DMLC) outlining a shipowner’s practices or on-board programmes (including risk evaluation) for preventing occupational accidents, injuries and diseases (Standard A4.3, paragraphs 1(c), 2(b) and 8); (e) a copy of the document(s) used for reporting unsafe conditions or occupational accidents on board ship (Standard A4.3, paragraph 1(d)); (f) a copy of the annual reports on inspection activities, in English, French or Spanish, that have been issued in accordance with Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 13; and (g) a copy of the form used for an inspector’s report (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12).

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Russian Federation

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C029 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C138 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C138 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C139 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C175 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C140 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C142 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Russian Federation

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C029 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C138 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C138 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C139 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C175 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C140 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C142 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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