CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request. It has noted, in particular, the Radio and Television Act and the Code of Ethics of the Bulgarian Media, annexed to the Government’s reports received in December 2006 and September 2008. The Committee has also noted the Government’s indication that the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers concerning employment relationship in merchant shipping, issued under section 88b of the Merchant Shipping Code, contains no provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping, and that, consequently, the general provisions of the Labour Code are applicable to cases of breaches of labour discipline by seafarers.

Compulsory prison labour

The Committee previously noted that section 38(a) of the Execution of Punishment Act, as well as section 66(1) of the Execution of Punishment Rules, provide for an obligation of prisoners to perform work assigned to them by the prison administration, and section 76 of the Execution of Punishment Act imposes disciplinary sanctions for the non-performance of the obligation to work or other obligations by the prisoners. It has noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report that section 38(a) referred to above is going to be amended and that the principle of voluntary nature of prison labour will be introduced in the forthcoming amendments of the Execution of Punishment Act. The Government also indicates that, in practice, disciplinary sanctions for refusal to work in prisons are not applied. According to the Government’s latest report, a new draft Execution of Punishment Act was prepared in 2008. The Committee notes this information and is looking forward to receiving a copy of amendments to the Execution of Punishment Act, as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for holding or expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour under the abovementioned provisions) may be imposed, inter alia, for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology” (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174a (2)). The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It observes that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views, and in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention. Having noted the Government’s statement in its latest report that no court decisions have been passed under the abovementioned provisions, the Committee nevertheless reiterates its hope that the Government will provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, as soon as such information becomes available, in order to define or illustrate their scope, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. 1. The Committee has noted the information on the application in practice of section 219(1) of the Penal Code concerning negligent performance by an official of his duties causing substantial harm or damages to the enterprise. In its earlier comments, the Committee also referred to section 228(1) of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for issuing poor quality, non-standard or incomplete products. Recalling that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 228(1) in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, and to indicate measures taken or envisaged to ensure the compliance with the Convention on this point. It refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraphs 171–178 of its General Survey of 2007on the eradication of forced labour.

2. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, and in the most serious cases – up to 15 years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee has duly noted the Government’s detailed explanations concerning the interpretation of this section, which, according to the Government, is only applicable in the case of sabotage, but not in the cases of violation of labour discipline or participation in a strike. It has also noted the information on the application in practice of sections 106 and 109 of the Penal Code concerning subversive activities and organization of criminal groups respectively, annexed to the Government’s report. While having noted this information, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 107 of the Penal Code referred to above, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.