Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 343, November 2006

Case No 2381 (Lithuania) - Complaint date: 12-AUG-04 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 125. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2005 meeting [see 336th Report, paras. 555-575]. On that occasion, it urged the Government to engage in consultations with the trade union organizations concerned in order to settle the question of the assignment of property and to provide information on the development of the situation.
2. 126. By its communication of 5 April 2006, the complainant organization, the Lithuanian Trade Union (LTU) “Solidarumas”, submits further allegations of interference into its internal affairs and refers, in particular, to the illegal search of its premises, the seizure of its documents and computer, the suspension of its vice-president from his trade union duties and the freezing of the union bank accounts.
3. 127. The LTU “Solidarumas” explains that, following the ruling of the Constitutional Court, it took possession of the premises in the Trade Union Palace. In order to improve its financial situation, it sought to sell its part of the building. To that effect, it placed an invitation to tender, as required by the national legislation. After the confirmation of the transaction between the company offering the best conditions and the union by the Trade Union Coordinating Council (the highest authority of the LTU “Solidarumas” between the congresses), the union’s acting president signed an agreement on the interchange of properties. The following day, a member of the Coordinating Council filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office. An investigation into the legality of the sale of the Trade Union Palace to another legal entity was opened. The complainant submits that the legality of this transaction is unquestionable as it was authorized by the Trade Union Coordinating Council and was in the best interest of trade union members, as was previously proven by the state audit.
4. 128. The complainant further submits that on 31 January 2006, its office was illegally searched and its documents and computer illegally seized. The complainant explains that: (1) the search was carried out on the basis of a decision of investigators and not of the pre-trial investigation judge, as required by article 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) the seized documents were related to the transaction of purchase confirmed by the notary; (3) contrary to article 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the office was searched without any announcement or explanation; and (4) the union’s computer, an item not listed in the decision of the investigators, was also seized.
5. 129. Furthermore, on 1 February 2006, Mr. Petras Grebliauskas, acting president of the LTU “Solidarumas”, was accused of squandering public property. On 2 February 2006, the first Vilnius Circuit Court suspended Mr. Grebliauskas from his post of union vice-president as well as from his activities at all levels and structures of the union for six months. The Coordinating Council of the LTU “Solidarumas” evaluates this decision as illegal and groundless on 4 February 2006. According to the complainant, such interference by the authorities in the internal activities of the union is undemocratic and is contrary to freedom of association principles. The union acted within its sphere of competence and there was no threat to public interest. Moreover, the complainant considers that it is not sufficient for the law to provide for the right to appeal against the administrative decision – such decision should not take effect until the expiry of the statutory period for lodging an appeal or until the confirmation of such a decision by the judicial authority.
6. 130. Finally, the complainant alleges that on 10 February 2006, the accounts of the union were frozen, completely paralysing its activities. The LTU “Solidarumas” considers that the above actions on behalf of the authorities are clear violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
7. 131. By its communication dated 17 July 2006, the Government forwards the observations of the Vilnius County Prosecutor’s Office on the matters raised in the complainant’s latest communication. According to the information provided by the Prosecutor’s Office, a pre-trial investigation No. 10-1-70058-06, launched on 30 January 2006, when transferring the part of the building belonging to the union, concerns the legitimacy of the actions of the vice-president of the LTU “Solidarumas” and not the activities of the union itself. A natural person and not a legal entity is accused of squandering high-value property belonging to another person.
8. 132. The Prosecutor’s Office further submits that it is not aware of any infringement of the rights of a natural person or a legal entity, which took place during the course of the investigation, as claimed by the complainant. The investigation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, it indicates that if the person thinks that his or her rights were infringed in any manner whatsoever, he or she has a right to appeal against the actions and the ruling that allegedly infringed his or her rights, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. 133. The Committee notes from the complainant’s communication that the question of the assignment of property has now been settled by the Constitutional Court. The Committee further notes the latest allegations of the complainant and the Government’s reply thereon. It notes, in particular, the Government’s statement to the effect that it is Mr. Petras Grebliauskas, the union vice-president who was under investigation and not the union. The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided further details as to the reasons for the investigation, nor has it replied to the allegations of the freezing of the union bank account.
10. 134. The Committee recalls that freedom of association implies the right of workers and employers to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without any interference by the public authorities parties [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 416]. As for the suspension of Mr. Grebliauskas, noting that this measure was taken before the conclusion of the investigation opened against him, the Committee recalls that individuals have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty and considers that in these circumstances, the question as to whether Mr. Grebliauskas should continue in his post as union vice-president should have been left to the union members themselves in application of their relevant by-laws. The Committee therefore considers that the suspension of Mr. Grebliauskas from his post as well as from his activities at all levels and structures of the union is incompatible with the principle that trade union organizations have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities. Noting that more than six months have elapsed since this measure was taken against him, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether his suspension has now been lifted. It further requests the Government to communicate the results of the investigation.
11. 135. As for the alleged illegal search of the union office, the Committee notes the contradictory information provided by the complainant and the Government and is therefore unable to reach a definitive conclusion in this respect. It nevertheless wishes to draw attention to the importance of the principle that the property of trade unions should enjoy adequate protection [see Digest, op. cit., para. 184]. The Committee further requests the Government and the complainant to indicate whether all seized items, including the union computer, have since been returned.
12. 136. With regard to the allegation of the freezing of the trade union accounts, recalling that the freezing of union bank accounts may constitute a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 439], the Committee requests the Government and the complainant to indicate whether this measure has now been lifted.