Definitive Report - Report No 68, 1963

Case No 295 (Greece) - Complaint date: 25-APR-62 - Closed

1. 19. This case had already come before the Committee at its 32nd Session (October 1962). Having examined the allegations and the observations made upon them by the Government, the Committee submitted an interim report to the Governing Body, which will be found in paragraphs 496 to 509 of the Committee's 66th Report. This was adopted by the Governing Body at its 153rd Session (November 1962).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 20. The complainants alleged that three trade unionists, Messrs. S. Papaïoannou, I. Theocharis and D. Malagardis had been arrested and deported as an anti-labour act. Having noted that Mr. Papaïoannou had been released, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to decide that, as far as he was concerned, no useful purpose would be served by further consideration of the case.
2. 21. The Committee further noted that the two other persons mentioned by the complainants, Messrs. Theocharis and Malagardis, were still under arrest and that, with a view to justifying the action taken against them, the Government had merely stated that they were deported because they were " endangering " public order and public safety.
3. 22. Having noted that Greece had ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Committee recalled that in previous cases' in which allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests in question and the exact reasons for them. The Committee recalled also that if in certain cases it has concluded that allegations relating to the arrest or detention of trade union militants did not call for further consideration, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
4. 23. Following these precedents, the Committee considered, at its October 1962 Session, that if it were to be in a position to reach a conclusion based on a full knowledge of the facts and to decide whether the allegations made were well founded or not, it would be necessary to obtain from the Government more precise information as to the reasons for the arrest and deportation of the two persons concerned and particularly as to the specific acts or exact activities of which they were held to have been guilty. Accordingly, it requested the Director-General to obtain the said specific information: he asked for it in a letter dated 13 November 1962, and the Government replied by letter dated 15 December 1962.
5. 24. In its reply the Government says first of all that Messrs. Theocharis and Malagardis were deported after being sentenced in courts of law. The reasons for this sentence, the Government continues, were that they had been guilty of unlawful activities such as contacts with Communists, participation in every Communist demonstration and attempts to re-establish the illicit Communist machine.
6. 25. However, the Government declares, " anxious to offer the persons in question every opportunity to mend their ways ", the authorities decided to let them go free as soon as they broke off their unlawful activities, and they were released on 4 July and 23 July 1962 respectively.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 26. In these circumstances, the two persons concerned having been released, the Committee considers that no useful purpose would be served by further consideration of their aspect of the case and therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case as a whole does not call for further examination.