Definitive Report - Report No 336, March 2005

Case No 2358 (Romania) - Complaint date: 10-JUN-04 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges that legislation concerning the organization and conduct of public meetings is contrary to Convention No. 87, to the Constitution of Romania and to national legislation, in that it requires previous authorization for public meetings and allows the authorities to refuse such authorization for subjective reasons

1. 706. The complaint is contained in a communication of June 2004 from the National Trade Union Confederation “Cartel Alfa”.
2. 707. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 22 December 2004.
3. 708. Romania has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 709. In its communication of June 2004, the complainant organization states that Act No. 31/2004, which amends Act No. 60/1991, on the organization and conduct of public meetings, entitles local authorities to prohibit public meetings for subjective reasons.
2. 710. Section 1, paragraph 2, of Act No. 31/2004 provides that public meetings may only be arranged following the submission of an application. According to section 8 of this Act, such an application must be examined by an approval committee consisting of the mayor, the town secretary and, where appropriate, representatives of the police and the civil guard. According to section 10 of the Act, the mayor can, at the behest of the committee, prohibit a public meeting from being held if she/he has evidence that leads her/him to believe that the meeting would lead to a violation of section 2 of the Act if it were to go ahead.
3. 711. The complainant organization alleges that these provisions are in violation of: article 36 of the Constitution of Romania, which authorizes the conduct of demonstrations, marches and other peaceful meetings whose participants are unarmed; Act No. 54/2003 on trade unions, which entitles unions to organize their activities and formulate their programmes within the limits set by law; and Article 8 of Convention No. 87. The organization asks that the law be modified to guarantee freedom of public assembly without previous authorization.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 712. In its communication of 22 December 2004, the Government states that the adoption of Act No. 31/2004, which amends and supplements Act No. 60/1991, on the organization and conduct of public meetings, results from commitments made by Romania in its negotiations with the European Union concerning the adoption of the Community acquis in the fields of justice and internal affairs.
2. 713. The provisions of Act No. 31/2004 cannot be in violation of article 36 of the Constitution of Romania, which deals with the right to vote – a matter which is not covered by the Act. Act No. 31/2004 does not regulate the ways in which trade union organizations are created and function; these questions are dealt with in article 40 of the Constitution and section 7, paragraph 1, of Act No. 54/2003, which provides in particular that trade union organizations shall be entitled to organize their activities and formulate their programmes within the limits set by law.
3. 714. Section 1, paragraph 1, of Act No. 31/2004 provides that the right to organize and participate in meetings, strikes, demonstrations or any other form of gathering shall be guaranteed by law for all citizens, on condition that those gatherings which are to take place in public squares and on public roads, or in the open air, be announced in accordance with the law. Such gatherings shall be conducted in an orderly fashion and without the use of weapons, and shall be announced in advance.
4. 715. In order to guarantee that trade union rights are respected, Romanian legislation places obligations both on the organizers of public meetings and on the authorities. These obligations are clearly defined in law and deal with the places, routes and timing of meetings. Authorization is refused only where there is a danger to public safety and order, in accordance with section 2 of Act No. 31/2004, which provides that “public meetings shall be conducted in a civilized and peaceful manner which ensures the protection of participants and the surroundings, without disturbing traffic on public roads ... without disrupting the work of public or private institutions ... or giving rise to unruly actions of a type to endanger public order or security or the safety, health or life of persons or to cause damage to private or public property”.
5. 716. Section 6 of Act No. 31/2004 states that organizers of public meetings shall give written notice to the mayor of the locality concerned. At the behest of the committee, the mayor can decide to stop a meeting from going ahead if she/he has information from specialist bodies showing clearly that the meeting would lead to a violation of section 2 of the Act, or if large-scale public works are being carried out at the same time, in the same place and on the same routes as those planned for the demonstration. Furthermore, section 5 of the Act prohibits public meetings from taking place in the immediate vicinity of railway stations, port facilities, airports, underground railway stations, hospitals, military sites and enterprises whose premises contain plant, equipment or machinery which, by their use, present an elevated level of risk. It is also prohibited for two or more different public meetings, whatever their nature, to take place at the same time and in the same place or along the same routes.
6. 717. The Government concludes that Act No. 31/2004 does not constitute a violation of trade union rights. Its purpose is to protect the freedom of assembly and to ensure that meetings run smoothly with regard to the safety of participants and public security and order.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 718. The Committee notes that the complainant organization alleges that national legislation violates Convention No. 87 because it requires previous authorization for public meetings from the public authorities, which could be refused for subjective reasons. The Government replies that Act No. 31/2004, which applies to trade union organizations as well as to other groups wishing to organize public demonstrations, is intended solely to protect the freedom of assembly and to ensure that meetings run smoothly, with regard to the safety of participants and public security and order.
2. 719. While stressing that restrictions on the right to hold demonstrations must be reasonable and that the authorities must examine requests for authorization for such demonstrations on a case by case basis, the Committee recalls that the requirement of administrative permission to hold public meetings and demonstrations is not objectionable per se from the standpoint of the principles of freedom of association, and that trade unions must conform to the general provisions applicable to all public meetings and must respect the reasonable limits which may be fixed by the authorities to avoid disturbances in public places [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 138 and 141].
3. 720. The Committee notes that, in this case, the local authorities do not have discretionary power as they can refuse to allow a public meeting to be held only on the advice of a competent committee, and on the basis of information which leads them to consider that there is a danger to public security and order. Noting also that the complaint does not raise any specific cases of abusive refusal to allow a public meeting or demonstration to take place, the Committee expects that the local authorities will respect the abovementioned principles in their examination of applications for authorization of trade union demonstrations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 721. In light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.