National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
DISPLAYINEnglish - French - Spanish
The Government has communicated the following information:
Regarding the observations of the Committee of Experts on this Convention, the Government refers to the report it submitted on the application of this Convention for the period 1987-1988.
Previous comment
Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention. Recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that, following the amendment introduced by Act No. 3536/2007 concerning “Special Regulations of Migration Policy Issues and other issues under the competence of the Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization” (section 41(7)), Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 on “civil emergency planning”, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, shall be applicable only in times of war. As regards requisition in times of peace, the Committee noted previously that, under section 41 of the new Act, the requisition of personal services is possible only in case of emergency, i.e. in a “sudden situation requiring the taking of immediate measures to face the country’s defensive needs or a social emergency against any type of imminent natural disaster or emergency that might endanger the public health”.
Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. Recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers. The Committee has noted a communication dated 11 August 2006, received from the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GGCL), which contained observations concerning the application by Greece of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). The Committee has noted that this communication was transmitted to the Government on 4 September 2006, for such comments that might be considered appropriate.
The GGCL alleged that, over the last 32 years, the Government has often resorted to civil conscription that under threat of severe penalties compels workers to terminate their strike action and return to work. The GGCL indicated, in particular, that the Government has issued, on 22 February 2006, a “Civil Mobilization Order” (requisition of workers’ services) of indefinite duration to put an end to a legal strike of seafarers on passenger and cargo vessels, which do not constitute essential services. According to the allegations, the legal ground for the civil conscription of workers on strike is Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 on “civil emergency planning”. The GGCL also indicated that the Panhellenic Seamen’s Federation (PNO), affiliated to the GGCL, together with the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), has submitted a complaint on the above matter to the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association on 12 July 2006 (Case No. 2506).
The Committee recalls in this connection that, in its earlier comments addressed to the Government under the present Convention, it has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 referred to above, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peace time, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of economic and social life (section 2(5)). In such circumstances, all citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services under penalty of imprisonment (section 20(2) and (3), and section 35(1)) and labour legislation is suspended. The Committee referred to the provisions of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, under which recourse to compulsory labour in an emergency situation should be limited to circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, and pointed out that it should be clear from the legislation that the authority to exact labour may be used only within the above limits.
The Committee recalls that, in its earlier comments, it noted the Government’s repeated assurances that Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 would be revised after Parliament had adopted the Bill on civil defence dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes. The Committee also noted the Government’s statement in its 1996 report that, with the adoption in October 1995 of Act No. 2344/95 on the organization of civil defence, which deals with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes and provides for the mobilization of groups of volunteers in emergency situations, there was no more problem of application of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974.
The Committee has noted that the Government’s reports on the application of Conventions Nos 29 and 105 received in October 2006 contain no reference to the observations by the GGCL. However, the Committee notes the report of the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Case No. 2506 referred to above (Report No. 346, Vol. XC, 2007, Series B, No. 2), in which the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the Ministry of National Defence is elaborating a draft law with a view to partly or wholly abrogating Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. The Committee on Freedom of Association has also noted with interest that, according to the Government, pursuant to recent legislative amendments (adoption of the Act concerning “Special Regulations of Migration Policy Issues and other issues under the competence of the Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization” which is awaiting publication in the Official Gazette), Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 will only apply in times of war. As for requisition in times of peace, section 41 of the new Act provides that the requisition of personal services is possible only in case of emergency, i.e. “every sudden situation requiring the taking of immediate measures to face the country’s defensive needs or a social emergency against any type of imminent natural disaster or emergency that might endanger the public health”.
While noting this information, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future in order to formally repeal Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 or amend it by specifying clearly that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers is strictly limited to circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. The Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.
The Committee notes the Government's reports.
Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the adoption in October 1995 of Act No. 2344/95 respecting the organization of civil defence, dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes. The Act provides for the mobilization of groups of volunteers in emergency situations. The Committee notes that the Act replaces Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974, on which it had been commenting for several years. It considers that the Act does not call for comments under the Convention.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the provisions governing resignation of officers set out in Legislative Decree No. 1400-73. It noted that an officer who has received training can be authorized to leave the army only after having completed a compulsory period of service which may be three or four times as long as the period of training received and may reach 25 years in case of successive periods of training (section 64, paragraph 16).
The Committee notes the Government's detailed explanations provided in its latest report. The Government states in particular that persons who join the army do so by own free will and are aware of the terms and conditions involved; officers who receive further training agree to such training in writing and are aware of the compulsory period of service to be completed; compulsory retention in the army up to 25 years applies only to a small number of officers and corresponds to a minimum training period of ten years (medical officers who receive six years' university education and a minimum of four years' training). This period must be viewed in the light of the cost incurred as the period of training and further training is included in the period of service.
The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information on the application in practice of section 64, paragraphs 1 to 17, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73 including on the number of requests for resignation handed in, accepted or refused and the reasons invoked for any such refusals.
For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2(5) of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peace time, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of economic and social life. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services under penalty of imprisonment (section 20(2) and (3), and section 35(1)); in such cases labour legislation is suspended.
The Committee drew the Government's attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2 (d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, in which it indicates that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances endangering or likely to endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, and that it should be clear from the legislation that the authority to exact labour may be used only within the above limits.
The Government indicated previously that Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 would be revised after Parliament had adopted the Bill on civil defence dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes.
The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report to the effect that the Bill has not yet been adopted by Parliament and that to amend the Legislative Decree before adoption of the Bill would create a legal void.
The Committee hopes that the necessary provisions to ensure observance of the Convention will be adopted shortly and asks the Government to report on any progress in this respect.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the provisions on the resignation of officers set out in Legislative Decree No. 1400-73. It noted that an officer's application to resign in peacetime must be accepted. The officer's departure may be delayed by three months on account of the exigencies of the service (section 34(9)).
The Committee also noted that an officer who has received training can only be authorized to leave the army after he has completed a compulsory period of service which may be three to four times as long as the period of training received and may be of up to 25 years where there have been successive periods of training (section 64(17)).
The Committee noted the Government's indications that the compulsory retention in the army of officers who have received training during a certain period is due to reasons connected with the requirements of the armed forces in skilled personnel and the obligation of those concerned to work off the participation of the State in the cost of their training.
The Committee referred to paragraphs 67 to 73 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, and pointed out that persons in the service of the State should be entitled to leave the service on their own initiative within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals, or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the provisions under which an officer's departure may be delayed by three months following the submission of his application to resign, are intended to ensure the proper functioning of the service. The Government adds that these provisions are applied only to cases which, by their nature or specificity, require service obligations to be regulated.
With regard to persons who have received training financed by the State, the Committee points out that these persons should also be entitled to leave the service on their own initiative within a reasonable period, which should be proportional to the length of the studies financed by the State, or by reimbursing a proportion of the costs incurred by the State. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the army chief of general staff has indicated that the final opinion of the competent department on the question of the freedom to resign of career officers who have received several periods of training will be submitted as soon as possible, and hopes that the Government will indicate the measures taken or contemplated to maintain the freedom of such officers to leave the service within a reasonable period or by reimbursing the costs incurred by the State.
For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5 of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilization of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peace time, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services under penalty of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases the application of labour legislation is suspended.
The Committee drew the Government's attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it indicates that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which endanger or are liable to endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, and that in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the compatibility of national provisions with the applicable international standards, it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour can only be invoked within the above limits.
The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 will be revised once Parliament has adopted a Bill on civil defence dealing with questions of emergency arising from physical or technological causes.
The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the Bill as soon as it has been enacted together with information on the measures adopted to ensure observance of the Convention.
The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report contains no reply to its previous direct request. It hopes that the Government will provide information on the following points which the Committee raised previously.
In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of the provisions of section 34, subsection 9, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73, the Minister of National Defence must, in peacetime, accept applications to resign submitted by officers, though he may delay their departure by three months on account of the exigences of the service. It also noted that, under section 64, subsection 17, an officer who has not completed the period of service made compulsory because of the training he has received cannot be authorised to leave the army. The period during which the officer cannot submit his resignation is three or four times as long as the training he has received. When there have been several successive periods of training, the total duration of the obligation to serve cannot exceed 25 years. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period.
The Committee noted that, in its report for the period ending 30 June 1988, the Government once again referred to its previous statement that the compulsory retention in the army of officers who have received training during a certain period is due to reasons connected with the requirements of the armed forces in skilled personnel and the obligation of those concerned to work off the participation of the State in the cost of their training.
Referring again to the explanations given in paragraphs 67-73 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, which relate to restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period, for example by providing for the possibility of a reimbursement in proportion to the length of the studies in cases of resignation.
The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no new information in reply to its previous comments. The Committee is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation concerning the following points:
For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5, of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilisation of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peacetime, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services, on pain of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases, the application of labour legislation is suspended. The application of this Decree in 1986 during a strike by air pilots and mechanics was found to be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and to those of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105). The Government indicated previously that the competent ministry had initiated the procedure to revise Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government in its report for the period ending 30 June 1989 that the matter had been submitted to the new Government so that it could examine it and take the necessary legislative or other measures that were appropriate. The Committee once again drew attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63-66 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour in which it indicated that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population, and that in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the compatibility of national provisions with the applicable international standards, it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour can only be invoked within the above limits.
The Committee trusts that the Government will supply information on the measures that have been adopted to ensure the observance of the Convention.
The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain a reply to its previous direct request. It hopes that the Government will supply information on the following points which were raised previously.
In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of the provisions of section 34, subsection 9, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73, the Minister of National Defence must, in peacetime, accept applications to resign submitted by officers, though he may delay their departure by three months on account of the exigences of the service. It also noted that, under section 64, subsection 17, an officer who has not completed the period of service made compulsory because of the training he has received cannot be authorised to leave the army. The period during which the officer cannot submit his resignation is three or four times as long as the training he has received. When there have been several successive periods of training, the total duration of the obligation to serve cannot exceed 25 years. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period.
For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5, of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency, under which the full or partial mobilisation of civilians may be proclaimed, even in peacetime, in any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or to perform services, on pain of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases, the application of labour legislation is suspended. The application of this Decree in 1986 during a strike by air pilots and mechanics was found to be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and to those of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105).
The Government indicated previously that the competent ministry had initiated the procedure to revise Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report that the matter has been submitted to the new Government so that it can examine it and take the necessary legislative or other measures that are appropriate. The Committee once again draws attention to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention and the explanations set out in paragraphs 63-66 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour in which it indicated that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population, and that in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the compatibility of national provisions with the applicable international standards, it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour can only be invoked within the above limits.
In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of the provisions of section 34, subsection 9, of Legislative Decree No. 1400-73, the Minister of National Defence must, in peacetime, accept applications to resign submitted by officers, though he may delay their departure by three months on account of the exigencies of the service. It also noted that, under section 64, subsection 17, an officer who has not completed the period of service made compulsory because of the training he has received cannot be authorised to leave the army. The period during which the officer cannot submit his resignation is three or four times as long the training he has received. When there have been several successive periods of training, the total duration of the obligation to serve cannot exceed 25 years. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that the obligation to serve can be terminated within a reasonable period.
The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government again refers to its previous statement that the compulsory retention in the army of officers who have received training during a certain period is due to reasons connected with the requirements of the armed forces in skilled personnel and the obligation of those concerned to work off the participation of the State in the cost of their training.
Referring again to the explanations given in paragraphs 67 to 73 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, which relate to restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that an end can be put to the obligation to serve within a reasonable period, for example by providing for the possibility of exacting a reimbursement in proportion to length of the studies in cases of resignation.
For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of section 2, subsection 5, of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 respecting civilian planning for a state of emergency. By virtue of this section, a state of emergency includes any situation arising suddenly and resulting in a disturbance of the economic and social life of the country, in which circumstances the Prime Minister may proclaim full or partial mobilisation of civilians even in peacetime. All citizens may then be called upon to take part in work or the performance of any kind of services, on pain of imprisonment (section 20, subsections 2 and 3, and section 35, subsection 1). In such cases, the application of labour legislation is suspended.
The Committee had taken note of the conclusions of the Committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the application of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, following a representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution.
The Committee set up by the Governing Body observed that the service required of the pilots and engineers who had been mobilised and some of whom had been penalised for not having responded to the individual call-up, was not covered by the exception provided for cases of emergency as defined by Article 2, paragraph 2(d) of Convention No. 29. The Committee had also observed that the call-up of pilots and flight engineers appeared to be a means of labour discipline and a punishment for having participated in a strike that was punishable with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour, contrary to Article 1(c) and (d) of Convention No. 105. It recommended that the Government be invited to ensure that the legislation, and particularly Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974, be brought into conformity with the forced labour Conventions and that any judicial or administrative action that may lead to the imposition of the sanctions laid down in the above Legislative Decree on those concerned should be abandoned.
The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government reiterates its former statements that the responsible Ministry has initiated revision of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure observance of the forced labour Conventions. [The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]