Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2004, Publicación: 93ª reunión CIT (2005)

Convenio sobre la discriminación (empleo y ocupación), 1958 (núm. 111) - Letonia (Ratificación : 1992)

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Prohibition of discrimination. The Committee notes with interest that under section 7 of the new Labour Code of 2002 everyone has an equal right to work; to fair, safe and healthy working conditions; as well as to fair remuneration, irrespective of race, skin colour, gender, age, disability, religious, political or other conviction, national or social origin, property or marital status or other circumstances. Section 27 of the Labour Code sets out a prohibition of discriminatory treatment on the same grounds in employment and occupation, providing definitions for direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment. The Committee also notes with interest the provisions regarding non-discriminatory job advertisements and interviews (sections 32 and 33). In the Committee’s view these new provisions are in accordance with the Convention and should operate to improve its application. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to make these new equality provisions known to the broader public and to provide information on their practical application and enforcement, including through relevant administrative and judicial bodies.

2. Discrimination on the grounds of national extraction. The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided any information in reply to the Committee’s previous observation in which it had expressed concern over certain provisions of the State Language Act, 1999, which might have a discriminatory effect on the employment or work of the large Russian-speaking minority in the country. The Committee particularly recalls that section 2(2) of the Act provides that the use of language in private institutions, organizations and enterprises and the use of language with regard to self-employed persons shall be regulated in cases when their activities concern legitimate public interests. Legitimate public interest is broadly defined by the Act as including public safety, health, morals, health care, protection of consumer rights and labour rights, workplace safety and public administrative supervision. In this context the Committee notes the Regulations Regarding the Extent of Official Language Knowledge Required for the Performance of Professional and Official Duties, and Procedures for Testing Fluency of the Language of 19 June 2001. The Regulations assign levels of Latvian language proficiency to the various occupations and positions in the public sector (Annex I of the Regulations) and to some private sector occupations and positions which involve the exercise of certain public functions (Annex II of the Regulations). The Committee also notes that according to paragraph 5 of the Regulations the level of language proficiency for positions in the private sector other than those listed in Annex II shall be determined by the employers themselves. The Committee considers that these regulations provide guidance for the public sector in accordance with the Convention.

3. The Committee remains concerned, however, that the State Language Act and the implementing regulations may be interpreted and applied, particularly in the private sector, in a manner that would be indirectly discriminatory on the basis of national extraction. It also notes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination raised this issue with the Government in its concluding observations of 21 August 2003 (CERD A/58/18, paragraph 445). The Government is therefore once again requested to provide detailed information on the application of the State Language Act with regard to access to employment and occupation, including administrative and judicial decisions and sanctions imposed for violations of the Act. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to assess the impact of the Act on Latvia’s ethnic and linguistic minority groups in respect of their employment and occupational opportunities; and on efforts made by the Government to provide Latvian language training to these groups.

4. Discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. The Committee also regrets that the Government’s report contains no information in reply to the Committee’s previous comments regarding one of the mandatory requirements established by the State Civil Service Act 2000 in order to qualify as a candidate for a position in the civil service which is that the person concerned "is not or has not been in a permanent staff position in the state security service, intelligence or counter-intelligence service of the USSR, the Latvian SSR or some foreign State" (section 7(8)). A similar provision is found in the Act on Police of 1999, stating that "the police shall not employ a person who is or has been a permanent or temporary staff employee of the security service (intelligence or counter-intelligence service) of the USSR, Latvian SSR or some foreign State; an agent, a resident or keeper of a safe house (under any form of cover organization)" (section 28, fourth sentence) on the basis of employment in security forces of the former political regime. The Committee considered these exclusions as not sufficiently well defined and delimited to ensure that they do not become discriminatory in employment and occupation based on political opinion. The Committee therefore once again hopes the Government will revise the provisions concerned. The Government is further requested to provide detailed information in its next report on the application of the provisions, including the number of persons and their levels who have been dismissed or excluded from being a candidate for a civil service position based on section 7(8) of the State Civil Service Act and from being employed by the police based on section 28 of the Act on Police. Please also provide information on whether persons affected have appealed against their exclusion or dismissal on the basis of these provisions to the National Human Rights Office or the courts, as well as administrative or judicial decisions in respect of such cases.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.